User talk:Citation bot/Archive 21

Setting pages parameter for first page
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
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

 * This is a legitimate stylistic variation, and shouldn't be done by bots. &#32; 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?
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)

✅, 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=
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 2cid-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)
 * waiting for GitHub to raise from the dead. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:48, 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
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 - 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)

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
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

 * 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. &#32; 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. &#32; 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. &#32; 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)

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
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
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
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. &#32; 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. &#32; 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)

EuropePMC url cleanup
Note that one is redundant with a PMID, and the other with a PMC. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2894 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

More doi url cleanup
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2896 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Caps: AAOHN
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. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * notabug

Incorrect bibcode addition
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)

More betterly conversions of author to last
Could also convert to last1/first1 instead of last/first. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2897 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Convert more template-free citations
In general, this is a bad idea, unless very restricted to very specific structures. Which are probably too tricky to handle. &#32; 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
My previous normalization suggestion was when it was last1/first or last/first1, not last1/first1 or last/first. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2902 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Caps: PLOS ONE/PLOS One/PLoS One/PLoS One
If it's not one of the four above, it should be normalized to one of the four above. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2903 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

if journal = Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, TNT journal to fetch section name
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2903 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: TAPPI Journal
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)


 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2906 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

More EuropePMC
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
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 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
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2905 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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. and  would be the ones that would know, however. &#32; 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)

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 title
In this edit in the third paragraph of changes, the bot changed this:

to this:

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 &#32; 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)

bot borked the journal title for GSA Memoirs
In this edit, the bot changed this:

to this:

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
 * 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)
 * 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/S0167-4781(99)00008-1

 * 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. &#32; 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.&#32; 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? &#32; 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)

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. &#32; 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
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 or  .  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
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)
 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2947 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Convert semanticscholar links to use s2cid=
The parameter is now supported as of the last module update. and since  should also make use of this parameter, with free when appropriate. &#32; 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)


 * Note to self API is https://api.semanticscholar.org/v1/paper/e50689768feb87fce97a029499a5a1740cfbcdef AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:31, 24 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)
 * 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)

The dedicated S2CID parameter greatly simplifies maintainance reduces edit-window clutter, and combined with 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. &#32; 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
Immediately after the User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20 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)
 * I suggest that, after you have been told the previous time how to prevent the bot from changing your citations, you actually pay attention this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No such advice was given. My advice to the bot operators was to not run unapproved tasks. AManWithNoPlan's comment on the edit-warring edit performed by the bot, at User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20, was that its only substantive part was "questionable" (the rest of the bot edit was purely cosmetic) . --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "No such advice was given" is a falsehood. From the first reply to your earlier thread: It appears that you have not looked at this bot's user page, User:Citation bot. If you had, you would have seen the section "Stopping the bot from editing" on steps you could have easily taken to preserve your dubious citation formatting preferences on the article in question. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you think the particular page in question requires special attention you can find how to prevent the bot from editing at User:Citation_bot and User:Citation_bot/use, This is what was told to you by that it was explained on the bots userpage. For the edit warring part again it is not the bot doing it by itself, which it seems you are implying. It is someone activating the bot which can be seen in the edit summary. The bot is not going against you because it is a fully automated process that actively disagrees with you. It doesn't seem to me anyone but you disagreed with the edit itself so far and to me it also seems to be explained why the jstor url was changed to the parameter. I think AManWithNoPlan' specifically referred to the fact that the jstor url was non-free, not the actual edit itself. Multiple other bot operators and administrators responded in the discussion and did not seem to notice your advice about "unapproved tasks". This is what I gathered from the previous discussion, it was archived because no action needed to be taken, so no changes were made to the code. Also issuing a 3RR for something you are involved in as a party that disagrees and also keep reverting the bot seems a little dubious, I say again the bot is not a person that is going on without discussing, it continuous because it doesn't know any better. The operators responded and did not seem to find any problems with the bots edits. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the bot should not be performing unapproved tasks. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, again, this is not about denying the bot access to certain pages. The bot is, afaik, allowed to perform approved tasks on any page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So how does one stop the bot performing unapproved tasks? Other than that, please don't explain me things I already know. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , How do you know the bot is running unapproved tasks? what are the supposed unapproved tasks? It would be hard for anyone to discuss if you won't share this.
 * Also I disagree with the fact that "I can't explain things you already know". According to the documentation of Template:Cite journal the edit the bot is making is in fact correct as far as I can read. There was some talk about if the jstor url in question was usable in the previous thread, but I think the operation of changing to a jstor parameter by itself is not a bug.
 * Information on bot issues can be found at WP:BOTISSUE and judging by what you want the section "Major malfunctions and complaints" can be helpful, but as suggested there it might be a good idea to try discuss it here first with the bot operators. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "How do you know the bot is running unapproved tasks?" – I don't, but whenever I raise the issue here, the topic is archived before the question is answered. So, is the bot running unapproved tasks? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's too vague a question to be useful, meaningful, or answerable. What specific tasks do you see the bot performing that you think might be unapproved? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The substantive part of the one I reverted, that is the one of which AManWithNoPlan said it was "questionable" (see above, see previous discussion linked to above). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it's really not. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then maybe try to sort it with, since you seem to be contradicting one another. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for someone else's remarks, nor your interpretation of them. Especially since the "questionable" part was clearly put in quotes, indicating that it was dubious to call that questionable to begin with. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether it is questionable or "questionable" or neither: is it a task approved for the bot? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is, yes, since 2008. See Bots/Requests_for_approval/DOI_bot_2 for the url conversion thing (in that one, for DOIs, but there's no difference between a conversion of DOI urls to DOI parameters, and JSTOR urls to JSTOR parameters).&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, I was skimming through the bot approvals (again) and couldn't find anything that would support the edit you had the bot perform.
 * First, in the 8th approval I found: "If something like JMA Miller (2000), [the bot] would leave it alone, since the URL is not bare." Of course, in a cite template,
 * Kein Bach-Autograph: Die Handschrift Brüssel, Bibliothèque Royale, II. 4093 (Fétis 2960) https://www.jstor.org/stable/932505
 * would be the equivalent of
 * Kein Bach-Autograph: Die Handschrift Brüssel, Bibliothèque Royale, II. 4093 (Fétis 2960)
 * ... so I'd expect the bot to leave it alone (based on what was explained as the bot's approved 8th task).
 * Second, regarding the 2nd approval: no, it does not seem to cover this action, not for dois nor for jstors. Even if it would for dois, that is not the same as performing such task on jstors: especially when the doi is defined in the template and directs to a jstor location, there's no use to add a jstor when the doi reads like 10.2307/932505 (emphasis added), while in that case the jstor reads 932505 (emphasis added), a.k.a. doubling info – I see no added value from that information. So, the bot would need approval for that task anyhow. what are your thoughts on this? --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See Bots/Requests_for_approval/DOI_bot_2 where this was explicitly tested and approved. Extending the task to other identifiers, like JSTOR, is a trivial extension to an already approved task, which does not require subsequent individual approval. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It was approved for the cite doi template, where that action makes sense. Not for cite journal where it is better to have a clickable link for the article title. Anyhow, seems best to challenge this not-so-trivial-as-you-seem-to-think task expansion. --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Where is it stated that it is better to have a clickable link for cite journal templates? or is that personal preference? on the cite journal documentation under identifiers it states: When an URL is equivalent to the link produced by the corresponding identifier (such as a DOI), don't add it to any URL parameter but use the appropriate identifier parameter, which is more stable and may allow to specify the access status. The url parameter or title link can then be used for its prime purpose of providing a convenience link to an open access copy (as in, at least accessible to everyone for free) which would not otherwise be obviously accessible. a JSTOR is an identifier (as is also documented) so the change is correct. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * a JSTOR is an identifier That's incorrect: JSTOR does not provde identifiers, just stable URLs (actually, they offer their clients DOI registration as well, but most publishers have stopped using these because they prefer to use their own). This is unlike the DOI and HDL systems that provide namespaced unique identifiers that can be looked up in a directory and dereferenced to an URL (that may or may not change over time, and may or may not resolve to a stable JSTOR URL). These are entirely different beasts. Also, please keep in mind that the CS1/CS2 template documentation does not supercede WP:CITEVAR (citation style is a matter for local consensus on each article). Neither does local consensus here (or blanket assertion) determine what is a "trivial" difference in terms of bot approval under WP:BOTPOL: that's what we have the WP:BAG and WP:BOTREQ for. --Xover (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * JSTOR does provides JSTOR identifiers. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Citation needed. --Xover (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Identifier: "An identifier is a name that identifies (that is, labels the identity of) either a unique object or a unique class of objects". refers to a unique document hosted on the JSTOR repository. No different than  which refers to a unique document, which is resolved via doi.org. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is what I ment with it being an identifier. As far as I can read from the template going by this the edit is correct. That WP:CITEVAR supersedes this on an article is nice to know since there clearly is a disagreement about the style that is or should be used, which should be discussed. But I am just interested in apart from personal preference the edit (changing to a jstor parameter) was okay by itself. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See also CS1/CS2 documentation which prefers dedicated parameters to hard-coded URLs, and WP:DEADHORSE. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Only to make place for a link to a freely accessible version of the document. As it happens, free access is possible via the offered link, and as it already doubles with the doi link, no further doubling is necessary. Click on title = access to most accessible version of the article, as found by wikipedian, is a principle respected here, and no longer respected after the bot edit. I think we're done here: if you want it otherwise for that article, take it up on its talk page. --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * How can we be done when you have still not taken any steps on the article to ensure that the bot respects your formatting preferences and will no doubt come back whining here when the bot happens across the article again? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the bot is welcome but should not run unapproved tasks. As it happens the task was unapproved: it was a, yet unapproved, extrapolation of a previously approved task. Plus what Xover said above, including that CITEVAR needs to be discussed on the article's talk page. The same is true regarding excluding bots from certain pages: if you want that for this mainspace article, then discuss it on its talk page. Anyhow, content discussions regarding individual articles don't belong here. Further, if an approval of the actual task is sought this is not the place where to discuss that, so in any case, here, on this talk page we appear to be done. Unless you have to add something that is relevant here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The bot has been doing this for all CS1/CS2 supported identifiers since time immemorial, from arxiv links, to SSRN links, to OCLC links, to DOI links, to Bibcode links, to JSTOR links. There is nothing special about JSTOR urls/identifiers that makes this suddenly contentious or controversial. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For scale jstor is used on about 65,000 articles. Whereas equivalent raw JSTOR links in CS1/2 templates are used on ~50 articles (and most of those are misused in lay-url). &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No use soliciting me on this page for an approval of multiple extrapolations of a somewhat related task approved 12 years ago – which could likewise be seen as extrapolations of a task the bot would not be performing according to clarifications given nine years ago. This is not the place where such approval can be given, nor am I, nor likely any of the other participants here, the ones who would be handing out the final approval, if any. Look, it is nine years ago any additional task of the bot has been approved, and it seems likely these tasks have more than doubled. Time for a refresh of the approvals anyhow, I'd say, even if they were totally uncontroversial (which they're not). Also guidance may have changed in the mean while, like CITEVAR which has been rewritten and fine-tuned quite a few times in the last decade if I'm not erring: things that were OK 12 years may no longer be so now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The bot edits inline with the most up-to-date template documentation. The bot does not switch citation styles (CS1 to CS2 and vice versa), convert un-templated citations to templated citations, or otherwise violates WP:CITEVAR. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That template documentation is not kept up-to-date, and anyhow has no more value than an essay in WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL context. Bot tasks only OK when giving a somewhat peculiar interpretation to such documentation would need approval anyhow. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then take it to Help:CS1 and get consensus to change that documentation. Because that's longstanding, and has consensus. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , The fact that CITEVAR needs to be discussed on the articles page instead does not mean the comments made her about differences in preferences of citation styles raised here can be waived away as not valid or can be ignored, you have read here that at least some people think the changes that the bot made are okay - this is apart from the fact that there is disagreement about if the bot is allowed to do so by approval. I think the change itself is okay, I would as a person make the same change. Now I won't do so because I have read here you do not think it is the preferred. Should I just change it myself to the jstor parameter because technically you posted your oppose only here? No that would not be right. but I and everyone else can copy all the exact messages same over to the talk page if that is "required". The fact that something should be discussed somewhere else does not mean whatever was posted here before CITEVAR was mentioned suddenly becomes moot. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The bot runs unapproved tasks. You saying they are "OK" (as you did above, and now repeat as if someone else said it) means nothing on a page where the approval of these tasks can not be handed out. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a state of denial: anyhow everything here has been said... twice over. If the bot is not running unapproved tasks (as you seem to be contending), getting an approval for all these extrapolations would be a mere formality, no? So, why aren't you going to the place where that should be handled, which would leave me satisfied? Or is this just trying to postpone the inevitable? --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "Getting an approval for all these extrapolations would be a mere formality" it already has approval, so there is no need to seek it again. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * & continuing the state of denial... --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , Now you are saying something I didn;t say. I am not saying the bot should run unapproved tasks or that running unapproved tasks is okay. I am not asking for permission for the bot to run any tasks. I have no idea why you think this or try to change my words in to this. I do not run the bot. I am saying the change itself is okay. The change made was correct, the exact change of letters that comprises all the parameters and urls is in my opinion correct - You keep on hammering on the fact that the bot made it. I am saying you that is not part of my exact point. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You left out the part of the disagreement about citation style under the guise that I approve unsanctioned bot editing.
 * There is also an disagreement about whether the task are approved our not, I cannot change anything for you about this. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As said, the article's talk page is where to assess whether the edit (as such) is right for that page or not: please go there with your comments. That has nothing to do with the discussion we're having here. It is anyhow not up to you to say whether edits are (in absolute terms) "correct" or not. Please show a bit of modesty in your opinions: everyone's entitled to have their opinion, not everyone gets to decide what "is" correct and what isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 03:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I guess this is your reply to my removed comment from your talk page trying to resolve our disagreement? I that case I see no further need to continue Redalert2fan (talk) 10:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Unless and until you edit the article itself to tell the bot not to change certain aspects of the citation style, the article's talk page will be irrelevant. And as long as you continue to argue here while refusing to make that edit, I will continue to draw the conclusion that you prefer drama-mongering to being a useful contributor to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the bot is welcome to edit the page but should not be running unapproved tasks. Not on that page, not anywhere else. So placing a tag preventing the bot in one single article is *not* what this is about. Headbomb was now running AWB to do tasks which were recently disapproved for Citation bot. Placing a tag that prevents Citation bot is of no use against AWB, so,, your repeated comment is of no help at all. Further the bot is welcome on any page I know or have edited: I give a lot of attention to correct references, but that is a complex job, leading to errors every now and then, in which case I'm but too glad a bot catches errors like that and corrects them: so no, I am not going to place tags preventing a bot, and your insistence I should do so is highly unhelpful. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The citation bot shouldn't be used to edit war like that. Headbomb, please make sure it doesn't edit that page again. It's changing Google Books links and removing issue numbers. And some editors prefer to place jstor links in url=. SarahSV (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , The changing to of the google books url is just clean up, it doesn't change the page where you end up. Its a case of the department of the redundancy department. books.google/books ? books.google is all that is required. You can try and follow both versions of the link and you will end up at the same book. Are we on the same article about the issue numbers removal? on BWV Anh. the both is actually trying to add an issue number. Redalert2fan (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for the response. If you follow the links, it appears that Google changes them back again to, e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=opcDAAAAQAAJ. So an editor adds the link obtained from Google; a bot changes it; then Google changes it back. Why not leave out the bot step?


 * As for adding jstor to url=, one benefit is that you can click on it from the diff. Re: issue number, you're right, I misread the diff. The bot is adding it. SarahSV (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Personally I don't know the exact reason, but it might save a little space on wiki? I don't think its done as a separate edit since in this case the addition of an issue number + the jstor (whether preferred or not) are done as the main part the edit, at least to my knowledge. Now I'm actually a little interested why it is actually done then. Redalert2fan (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

notabug -- bot follows exclusion standards and discussion has ended.

Other edit-war
Meanwhile 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)
 * Or you know, you could follow the instructions given to you repeatedly by David Eppstein and others. Or convince the world that best practices are actually 'deteriorations'. I don't monitor, not do I care to monitor, which pages you decide to personally WP:OWN and impose your idiosyncratic styles on, against conventions. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Not up to you to decide whether this conversation is over. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You've got just about the worse case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT in the world. This discussion is over, because you'll be talking with yourself. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:54, 1 May 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)
 * I don't think I've ever seen citation bot being used like this. citation bot shouldn't be used to impose citation preferences repeatedly if an editor reverts. See WP:CITEVAR. If Frances prefers to place jstor links in url=, that's okay and in fact beneficial in a couple of ways. Ditto with the other factors. What can be done to stop this? SarahSV (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , On the user page it is explained how to prevent the bot from operating on a single page or per citation basis if this is needed because of a bug etc. This has been mentioned multiple times in the discussion. Now citation bot itself can't know what style is preferred per page or by a user and whether it is editing waring. It either can edit a page or can't because the bot is denied or the person that wants to activate the bot or the bot itself is blocked. It seems that Francis Schonken has so far not wanted to do this (deny the bot on the specific pages) since the parties involved disagree about if the bot is approved and should do this in the first place, and if the preferred way is also the correct way. This message is not ment as a way to speak for anyone, just to summarize the current situation. There are multiple solutions to the problem which both sides, or anyone else could do. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , It might be obvious but as you can see since no one so far has wanted to take action since they think they are right and the other is (extremely) wrong. Because of this it seems that probably no one is willing to change or do anything about it. Francis prefers x and Headbomb prefers Y, maybe you or I prefer z, what should we do now? Clearly It should be discussed in some way but so far that has lead to an apparent stalemate. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , no one should be edit warring over style preferences, per WP:CITEVAR and ArbCom. And no one should be using a bot to edit war over anything, also per ArbCom (as I recall). So we have a double whammy. Therefore, it's not about stopping the bot from editing one or two pages but about making sure it isn't used this way. I don't know anything about citation bot, so I don't know how access to it is regulated. SarahSV (talk) 22:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Of course I wholly agree that an edit war should not be what is happening. I want to clearly stress to everyone that I do not support edit wars. I already got accused here of supporting unsanctioned bot editing before :(
 * I understood your question as about stopping the bot from accessing the pages since there was a dispute about style preference, or stopping the jstor change in general on every single page. My mistake. Your intention is to prevent the bot from being used in edit wars, regardless of who is right or what the preference is?
 * The way it works is anyone with an account can direct the bot to operate on a page via multiple ways explained here: User:Citation bot/use. Blocked/banned users can not use it. - this is the extent I know, since I'm not an operator. Redalert2fan (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no "edit war" here. But the bot will eventually edit those pages again when someone asks to run the bot on those. If you don't want the bot to touch that page, then tell the bot to not touch it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Regardless of opinion about if this is an edit war, or who does it, or who is right would it be practically possible to implement a feature for citation bot that recognizes edit wars by a single activator or even by multiple different activators vs a "reverter"?
 * I'm not sure any bot on Wikipedia is able to recognize that at the moment, the fact that it is "edit warring" itself of forced by anyone to do so. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for bots to recognize edit wars. Considering that people often cannot see them, I doubt a bot ever could.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yeah it would have to become like self aware, I just wanted to confirm that it would not be possible. Since the bot is only used as a tool at the moment I guess the activator in question should be careful of their edits when opposed on a page, apart from just checking for bugs like normal. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, do not just keep running on a category or page over and over again. In such cases run it in tool (non-bot mode) and explain in detail why you are making the edits (perhaps split into multiple edits) within the edit description.  I for one welcome our bot overlords.......  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bot, the edit summary does the explaining. If the "reverter" wants to stop the bot from editing, there's instructions linked at the top of the page for how to do so. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * x2 I'd rather suggest the bot ceases edits of which the benefit is marginal and/or questionable and/or liable to being counterproductive. The question when programming a bot instruction should be: "would the resulting edits be a benefit under all circumstances with zero, or at least near to zero, false positives?" For instance, the WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL policy says that template documentation is a local consensus, not exceeding the consensus level of an essay. Any time an edit exclusively based on such base-level guidance is performed, it can easily be overturned by a local consensus established on the article's talk page. Bots should stay far away from performing edits exclusively based on local (or other base-level) consensuses. Note also that such local (or base-level) guidance can easily change (doesn't even need a wide consensus to change it): that is another reason for not letting bots engage in edits exclusively based on such local (or base-level) guidance. Policies, on the other hand, are more stable in expressing a long-term approach to certain issues: if it isn't directly in a policy, a bot can only perform a task that is expressly approved as beneficial to the encyclopedia. For which there is the BRFA process. I think the situation has gone a bit off-rail with Citation bot: too many tasks with marginal benefit, or otherwise controversial, lack of responsiveness by the bot maintainers (see number of archived issues without actually addressing the problem because it was not perceived as a "bug", while indeed, not following the WP:CONSENSUS policy is *truly* not a "bug" – it is a bigger problem), etc. "Has been going on for a long time" maybe explains why such issues have been under the radar for so long, but is not a justification for continuing them. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And the answer to "would the resulting edits be a benefit under all circumstances with zero, or at least near to zero, false positives?" is "yes". Having one person throw a big stink for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons does not change that. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing jstor links and converting to the parameter is not a local consensus, but a wikipedia-wide consensus. You are not supposed to link non-free copies directly, and jstor access is almost never ever a free for all. URL cleaning and removing user-specific parts is a wikipedia policy, not just a personal preference.  In fact, there is a task force dealing with this.  You are not supposed to link to Google Books unless the relevant parts are free, otherwise just use ISBN.  That again is a wikipedia-wide consensus, not just some template documentation.  Lastly, when I say "wikipedia", I mean this one, who knows about the German one. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe don't use expressions like "wikipedia policy" too liberally. There are rather clear distinctions:
 * Wikipedia policy : Afaik there are only a very few, but essential, rules about the (re-)formatting of references in Wikipedia policy. That is, afaik, in the WP:V core content policy, which mandates "inline citation" for content that is (likely to be) challenged. And that sources need to be cited "clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)". Could you direct me to the Wikipedia policy that mandates "URL cleaning and removing user-specific parts"? Afaik such actions are only covered by Wikipedia policy if they contribute to precision and/or clarity of the reference, not in general.
 * Wikipedia guidelines : According to Wikipedia's policy on consensus levels, Wikipedia guidelines trump Wikipedia essays and template documentation. The most important Wikipedia guideline on (re-)formatting of references is, afaik, WP:REFERENCES, containing sections such as WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT (which means, e.g., that url cleanup which would make less clear where the content was gotten is not OK) and WP:CITEVAR (basicly, respect how major content contributors format the references in an article – which, if I see some of the comments above, is easily misrepresented)
 * Wikipedia essays, and essay-level guidance such as template documentation : Again, according to Wikipedia's policy on consensus levels, Wikipedia essays and template documentation are trumped by Wikipedia guidelines (and of course also Wikipedia policies) any time. Essay-level guidance, including template documentation, is, per the above-mentioned policy on consensus levels, considered to be a "local consensus", which means that any talk page consensus can challenge template instructions, if there is a sound reason for it, e.g. based in Wikipedia policies or guidelines. For that reason, bots should never perform tasks based on template documentation exclusively. A minimum is an additional successful WP:BRFA, which gets the approval of the task above "local consensus" level – and which makes the task challengeable if it would not, or no longer (e.g. when guidelines change), conform to guidelines and policies.
 * "How long" a bot has been performing a task is about the most irrelevant consideration in that respect. As said, guidelines may change, or even, just the sensibilities regarding certain policies and guidelines, whether or not their text actually changed, may change over time. That's the same for anything in Wikipedia. For example, I have some experience with categorisation guidelines (wrote some many years ago): although the actual text of these guidelines changed very little, say over the last 10 years, categories that were perfectly viable according to these guidelines ten years ago, were recently, after a third CfD, voted down. I mean: consensus is not only a Wikipedia policy, it is also more than just following the same rules in a mechanical way for a long period of time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "which means, e.g., that url cleanup which would make less clear where the content was gotten is not OK". Do you have any examples of the bot doing that? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * E.g. here – where the bot changed:
 * to
 * The second layout rather suggests that the source used for providing the referenced content would be behind a paywall, would require subscription, or would, e.g., have been a hard copy in a library – none of which was the case: the source is freely available for everyone who clicks the link, and that freely accessible web source was used as a base of the referenced content. (PS: compare User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20, which was initiated as a consequence of the bot performing such edits) --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT also says "So long as you are confident that you read a true and accurate copy, it does not matter whether you read the material using an online service like Google Books; using preview options at a bookseller's website like Amazon; on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering); through your library; via online paid databases of scanned publications, such as JSTOR; using reading machines; or any other method." WP:LINKSTOAVOID discourages links to places like JSTOR unless the copy is full free copy (not the same as a JSTOR link).  URL shrinking in is CS1 encouraged https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_Style_1#Online_sources.  The removal of user specific parts is a policy of wikipedia, which is one reason we remove a lot of stuff from Google Book URLs.   There was an RFC that said (I cannot find it, since it was archived) you should not link to Google Books, unless the page needed is free -- But it also said that you should not remove it without some reason.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, seems somewhat confused:
 * WP:REFERENCES (including WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and WP:CITEVAR) is for references
 * WP:EL (including WP:LINKSTOAVOID) is for external links
 * In particular, the EL guidance on preferring "free content", which is contained in, for example, the 6th and 15th item of WP:LINKSTOAVOID (direct links:WP:LINKSTOAVOID and WP:LINKSTOAVOID) and WP:ELREG, has, in each case where such guidance is mentioned, the same explicit caveat, which reads:"This guideline does not restrict linking to websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles."
 * So, unless Citation bot can discern links to "websites that are being used as sources to provide content in articles" (note that "sources" is a link to the WP:REFERENCES guideline) from external links that are not used for the purpose of referencing content, it should not modify any of these links. The presumption should be, if the bot can not make the distinction between "references for content" and other external links, that citation and cite templates are primarily used for referencing content, thus these links should not be modified. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As for user identifiable information, they actually block you from adding URLs with some proxies. There are other bots that are approved to do this also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/KolbertBot_4  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/PrimeBOT_17 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "they actually block you from adding URLs with some proxies" – but for each of these proxies a consensus (i.e. a consensus above "local" level) has been established that they should not be used; for the bots preventing the links (in addition to what has already been excluded by blacklisting), they need a BRFA. It is not up to Citation bot's developers to de facto extend the number of "blacklisted" or otherwise excluded website links, based on "local consensus" (which then would be superseding the higher level consensus of the WP:EL caveats), and then impose that local preference by bot ... without even a successful BRFA. That would be stretching it beyond boundaries of what can be done without a suitably broad consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As for user identifiable information, they actually block you from adding URLs with some proxies. There are other bots that are approved to do this also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/KolbertBot_4  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/PrimeBOT_17 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re "they actually block you from adding URLs with some proxies" – but for each of these proxies a consensus (i.e. a consensus above "local" level) has been established that they should not be used; for the bots preventing the links (in addition to what has already been excluded by blacklisting), they need a BRFA. It is not up to Citation bot's developers to de facto extend the number of "blacklisted" or otherwise excluded website links, based on "local consensus" (which then would be superseding the higher level consensus of the WP:EL caveats), and then impose that local preference by bot ... without even a successful BRFA. That would be stretching it beyond boundaries of what can be done without a suitably broad consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:17, 6 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 jstor and other (often non-free) identifiers. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * this discussion is way beyond the scope of this bot. The bots actions are approved, and the bot obeys the exclusion rules and even allows citation parameter specific exclusion.  As a person who has regularly clicked on links to only find them to be "Open your wallet" or very often with Google Books "Here's nothing" links; I do not understand how fooling people into thinking they will get something quick and easy is useful unlike that jstor link which lets you know "probably an abstract or pay up for more".  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re. "The bots actions are approved,..." – as it happens, no, not all of the bot's actions are approved. Other than that, I appreciate your candour in stating your personal preferences. I have personal preferences too: they overlap largely with yours, and where not I suppose mine are closer to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But I don't go around Wikipedia changing to my preferences, which wouldn't even be allowed per WP:CITEVAR and other guidance.
 * The bot operates on a thin line between what is allowed and what isn't, and is more than once on the wrong side of that line, whether you like that appreciation or not. On the ground of the matter: for external links, in WP:EL sense, when there is a tension between accessibility and quality of external data, maybe the accessibility aspect comes first. For references, and, e.g., further reading items, discographies, lists of works (by an author), etc. it's always the quality of the content linked to that should come first, whether or not that material is very accessible. That is my stance, and that stance is completely conforming to core content policies such as WP:V, and subsidiary guidance such as WP:REFERENCES. I'd rather not catch the bot again performing tasks that run contrary to such guidance, like the bot edits that set off this subsection on this talk page: so I trust the bot's editing patterns will be modified enough to prevent that happening again. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They will not be, and the bot will eventually edit that page again, per consensus. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The consensus can be broadly split into three levels "Only humans should do it" (changing all citations to one specify style), "most people agrees on it, so bots can do it, but people should be able to block with a no bots flag" (what citation bot does), and "bots should even ignore the no bots flag" (anti-vandalism bots). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * is useful for flagging individual citations to be skipped without nobotting the whole page. --  Green  C  02:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Volkswagen_emissions_scandal&type=revision&diff=960526073&oldid=960510127

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. &#32; 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)

Don't unlink when decapping
Also there's something weird going on with  vs   &#32; 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

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)
 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3007 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

fixed

not adding archive-url and archive-date
[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)

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? &#32; 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

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)

notabug i guess then.

Too many URLs from OAI-PMH discarded

 * 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)
 * https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3019 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to add link to Semantic Scholar s2cid when an open access link is not available
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 |template discussion, the Semantic Scholar Corpus ID has been added to the |Citation 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 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)
 * see also User_talk:Citation_bot above. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, opened a talk at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources about the copyright aspect. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Let me add this request to User_talk:Citation_bot and we can archive/close this request (I didn't want to overload the other request). 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 – 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. &#32; 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. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:37, 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)

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)

More sciencedirect URL cleanup
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
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3034 Special BBC code. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Cite arXiv

 * 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
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3152 will deploy soon AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: Proceedings of the IRE
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: Nauka i Zhizn
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: MedChemComm
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: MIS Quarterly
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3174 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Caps: JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
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)

Better Pubmed URL cleanup
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3177 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: ICES Journal of Marine Science
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3176 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: IBM Systems Journal
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. &#32; 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)
 * fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: HLA
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3176 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: Hylli i Dritës
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: UNED Research Journal
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: CrystEngComm
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: Commlaw Conspectus
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: ChemCatChem
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3178 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: Inside Higher Ed
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3188 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: AIP Advances
https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/3188 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

CAPS: ChemBioChem
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. &#32; 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. &#32; 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)

No changes but edit summary is non-empty
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"You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here."
 * 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)

How to cite WorldCat?
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 . &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably best to be paranoid  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That level of paranoia isn't really needed with the current version of the bot though. &#32; 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)