User talk:Citation bot/Archive 39

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

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

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

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

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


 * This has nothing to do with Citation Bot. Try Help:Desk. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Unlinking journal parameter
Hello,

According to the documentation at Template:Cite journal:

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


 * Caused by the (JTS) being present for no reason. The bot expects Everything, not Something, something else. 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC) &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is intentional, then I feel like the documentation should be updated that this field needs to have only a single link. I don't really see the problem with the other approach, but I respect that maybe it's needed for bots / microformats rather than humans.  (I saw quite a number of short references to "JTS" hence putting the acronym gloss in there, so it's not like a totally irrelevant piece of information to have somewhere.)  SnowFire (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Introduces ref error when citing Penguin publisher website

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

Past and Present volume and issue numbers
Past and Present only has issue numbers. There is no volume number. That's erroneous metadata. See. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * They call them "volumes" and yet have "number" on the front of the magazines themselves. Oh yeah, and each one is "issue 1".  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Volumes and Issue 1 is the bad metadata. The front cover is what's reliable. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't convert URLs to all lowercase
URLs are case insensitive (URL : "Although schemes are case-insensitive, the canonical form is lowercase and documents that specify schemes must do so with lowercase letters."), if something broke, it's not because of the casing. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Edit, I tried manually setting the casing and... well that website is some kind of special nutjob case because it IS case sensitive. I've never seen that before, ever. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're misreading your source for that, I'm afraid. URLs are case sensitive.
 * 'scheme' refers to the protocol element before the ://, e.g. http, https, ftps. That is case insensitive; hostnames generally are too (because DNS is); other parts of the URL are not.
 * Check these out: https://yorril.uk/test https://yorril.uk/Test https://yorril.uk/TEST. This is perfectly normal web server behaviour (out-of-the-box Apache 2). Conventionally, these days, most people make their URLs fully lower case, but they don't have to. TSP (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the parameter https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/legacy-of-jews-in-MENA/Iraq’s-First-Minister-of-Finance#:~:text is set to the value Iraq's%20First%20Minister%20of%20Finance%20%2D%20World%20Jewish%20Congress&text=Sassoon%20Heskel%20(1860–1932)%20was%20born%20into%20an%20established,the%20Middle%20East%2C%20and%20Asia. Which leads to some odd GIGO problems.  If the the data was set to be a URL instead of done wrong, this would not occur. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it has a URL but missing the url key name. These errors are not very common, but I've seen enough of them, they exist. Not sure how to check. Probably slicing the citation string along "|" and making sure each segment contains at least one "=". It's imperfect since URLs (like this one) often contain a "=". If it detects a URL "https?://" then temporarily mask it out before doing the "=" test. --  Green  C  21:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Journal = Progress of Optics
This is a series, and should not be added to the journal parameter of a cite book.
 * True, but also the bot should not misspell it "Progess". —David Eppstein (talk) 05:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Caps: Farmakologiia i Toksikologiia
Like all other lone I in the middle of a journal name (save for Part I / Section I), should be lowercase. Reporting every single one individually is annoying. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

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

Past and Present issue=1
See also &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:22, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh I had a very different impression. Special:Diff/1223749410 popped up on my watchlist, and I looked into the change. According to doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gty034 we've got volume rather than issue for Past & Present. Folly Mox (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because the OUP metadata is wrong here. It's the 13th supplement, which happened to be in the same year as the 238th issue. See . It should be cited as  Past & Present (Suppl. 13). Nowhere in the actual issue is the 238th issue mentioned (or 238th volume). Headbomb (alt) (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, Headbomb. Folly Mox (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Bot making up dates
Switch the damn thing off. Or fix the errors it introduced. Don't leave it to other poor saps to clean up its mess. DuncanHill (talk) 10:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is reported somewhere else above, and is probably the result of sites with overeager structure putting the current date in the meta elements of the html header. I think the solution to this one is to code Citation bot to check the date it scrapes against the current date, and if it's within 24 hours, don't add it. This will stop it from adding dates to breaking news sources about new developments, which is a fine tradeoff.Another potential solution would be to disable for most users the ability to run Citation bot against an entire category in a way that they aren't forced to review each resulting change manually. Most editors who use this functionality never double check to see if their script run has introduced any errors.Citation bot does a lot of really good work, but it does of work: last I estimated, an average of around two hundred edits an hour, way too fast to clean up after without the help of the people who run it all the time. Folly Mox (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Specifically, these dates: &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another one added to a Good Article after this report was placed: Special:Diff/1227284405, adding today's date to a book published in 2006 (not formatted as a web link), and incidentally masking a bad anonymous IP edit with a bot edit on top of it. It is definitely not what was suggested above, the result of sites with overeager structure putting the current date in the meta elements of the html header, because there is no url and no html header that the bot could have taken this date from. I tend to agree with the original poster: if this is not going to be fixed quickly then the bot needs to be shut down. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also pinging User:Jay8g. Jay8g: please make sure that your bot runs aren't garbaging existing good citations. Ultimately when they do it becomes your responsibility. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the exact same solution I suggested in above, which has been completely ignored. :Jay8g [ V•T•E ] 02:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

MovieCrow
I would not call this a bug, but the site's name is MovieCrow (find this capitalisation over here and their official Twitter X handle), yet adding the ref via WP:VE or WP:ProveIt renders www.moviecrow.com in the website field rather than MovieCrow, and no date. Could this be fixed when the citation bot is used, please? -- Kailash29792 (talk)  06:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't add |title= when there's already |script-title= and |trans-title=
I'm not sure if it ever makes sense to add |title= when |script-title= is already there, but it definitely doesn't seem to make sense when there's both |script-title= and |trans-title=.:Jay8g [ V•T•E ] 02:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting in this case, the superfluous algorithmically added title isn't even correct: what Citation bot got its hands on there is website. Folly Mox (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Editing bot-built pages
, it's pointless getting Citation bot to make edits like and  because the next time that Legobot runs (one minute past the hour), it will ignore what Citation bot did and overwrite it with text copied from the page where the RfC is taking place. If the citation really needs to be amended, this should be done at the source - Talk:Colombia and Talk:Emir Abdelkader. Legobot will then copy the amended version to the RfC listings. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe both talk pages got their edits. I just triggered CB on those subpages so it would clear the DOI categories. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those files are no blocked from editing by the bot. It will just skip them.  fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Add ISSN?
I was recently asked to add ISSNs to all journals at a FAC, and wondered why it isn't automatically added when hitting "expand citations" or when automatically filling up citations in the journal citation toolbar? FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Please see semi-relate discussion about ISSNs in journals on Help_talk:Citation_Style_1. Not exactly relevant, but the discussion may end up where we remove ISSNs instead... Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know who asked you this, but I'd asked exactly the opposite. ISSNs are near-irrelevant, and pure clutter. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would strongly object to automatically adding issns, and if I nominated an article for GA or FA I would strongly object to being told to add issns. If you have an identifier for the individual article, an identifier for the whole journal it appears in is useless clutter. These numbers may occasionally be useful for disambiguating similarly-named journals but they are usually not useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above: I've used ISSN in limited cases (foreign language periodicals where we don't have an article about them and their published articles don't have DOIs), but adding them en masse is wasteful and bloaty. Folly Mox (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ISSN can be an amazing add for super obscure things, but almost always pointless clutter. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * wontfix - flag to archive. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot converts new Google Books URLs to the old format
Previous note: This is more of a FYI / request for clarification than a bug report, although there might be a problem with these edits. Bot edit: Special:Diff/1210636446 changed a number of URLs I added manually using the recent new Google books URLs back to the "Classic" Google books version. Working with the new URL format was a bit of pain, especially getting a page number link to function, and I'm not even sure it is an improvement, but it looks like Google is trying to move to the new format? On all the old style links page I see a link to "try the new Google books". The new style URL looks like this: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Encyclopedia_of_Music_in_the_20th_Centur/m8W2AgAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA379, the Classic style the bot is converting to is: https://books.google.com/books?id=m8W2AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA379  Is this still correct behavior? My feeling is that this wasn't a helpful edit, but I'm worried that neither URL format is necessarily stable now if Google are in the process of changing or deprecating their Books URLs. What format should Wikipedia use? Is there a better place to ask this question? Salpynx (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A better new url would be https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/m8W2AgAAQBAJ?gbpv=1&pg=PA379 since that chunk of text has no effect. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I will work on reworking the code to make "new" URLs. I will have to do it as a pull request to work out the kinks, and it will take time. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

journal = Meth. Enzymol. + series = Methods in Enzymology
Another example: diff which throws a Cite journal requires error. If a cite journal has both journal and series with identical or similar values, then series should be dropped, not journal. Boghog (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Here Methods in Enzymology is a book series, not a journal, so that's the fix that should be done here. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Same for Advances in Genetics, also a book series, not a journal. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

adding journal to cite book
I think a template change to Template:Cite journal would be better. Spinixster  (trout me!)  02:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The fix . This is a book series, but individual books are untitled. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the series and the "title" are the same. Will look into.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Better handling of SPIE proceedings
Still needs lots of cleanup after, e.g + cleanup,  + cleanup. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

And if there are magic words "Proceedings of SPIE" "Proceedings of the SPIE" "Proc SPIE" "Proc. SPIE" "SPIE Proceedings" "SPIE Proc." "SPIE Proc" and "Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers" should all be added. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Those also. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Zenodo
Hi, The citation bot is putting in links to Zenodo. It is consider problematic and best avoided.  scope_creep Talk  10:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Example please. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

CS1 errors from partial journal-to-book conversion

 * This bug is still ongoing and still leading to new CS1 errors in articles. Example: Special:Diff/1213121977, creating a cite book with a journal parameter and triggering a CS1 error. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * STILL ONGOING. Special:Diff/1220922831. THE BOT SHOULD NOT CHANGE ARTICLES WITHOUT CS1 ERRORS INTO ARTICLES WITH CS1 ERRORS. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yet another: Special:Diff/1221441974. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Link in title
It's not really a bug, but I think it's a worthy addition to the bot. Spinixster  (trout me!)  02:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

cite book in place of correct cite web, and insert wrong date
On Gazette de Berne, this edit of this BOT is wrong for two reasons: a) BOT modified a correct cite web in a wrong cite web, b) BOT added a completely wrong date (1677). A ntv (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The date is correct, that's from May 1677. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The date 1677 is not correct. This was a reference to webpage with information about an old newspaper published from 1677 to 1692 (Bern, 1677 - 1692nachgewiesen). This webpage displays an issue in 1667 just as example. More correctly, the date should be Date of referenced source, i.e. the date of that webpage. In case the intention of the (human) editor was to refer to a single issue of that newspaper, the template would be cite periodical, but this was not the case. Probably this BOT should look also in the article to understand what the reference is about: otherwise it is better that the BOT doesn't change the type of template chosen the editor. A ntv (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

New CS1 error from partial cite web to cite book conversion
These errors are improvements, because they flag existing problems that were not reported. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then flag the problems to the person who invoked the bot, and refuse to save the other bot edits until they fix it. By making citations produce a trail of errors across the encyclopedia you are passing off your work to others and making the citations worse until someone else takes the effort to fix them. Does the fact that some other people organize trash cleanup days at parks make it ok to dump your litter in the park? Do it yourself. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Causing template errors

 * I don't know that that's the solution (cite journal almost always already contains title), but despite being a sometimes commenter on this talk page, I actually came here now to report the same error at Special:Diff/1183763093. Maybe Citation bot should check for periodical and its aliases before changing the type of citation template wrapper. I've been working on, and I'm never going to be able to keep up with Citation bot creating this error. Folly Mox (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In both cases, it is a bit of problem with the wrong template and information being entered by a human being. I will see what more can be done.  The bot did shrink  by tens of thousands a while back, but it seems to have hit a steady-state with the bot both fixing and adding members to this category. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1186701879 is another example, a few minutes ago, of Citation bot creating template errors by changing citation wrapper template without appropriate reparameterisation of values already present. For clarity, the existing citation (cite web to a publisher landing page for a book) wasn't great, but this behaviour is not desirable: altering the template called without checking whether it contains unsupported parameters.For changing cite web to cite book where website is present, I can't think of a case where it would be an error to reparameterise website to via, unless via is already present. Folly Mox (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've begun reverting Citation bot whenever it produces this error, which seems to account for between 1% and 2% of its recent edits. I know I take a critical tone here frequently (still traumatised by ReferenceExpander), but Citation bot does a lot of really good work. I do appreciate it and the maintainers.Also I'm aware that the whole reason this type of edit causes a template error in the first place is the underdiscussed and unnecessary removal of support for the work parameter from cite book without adequate preparation time.I do plan to start contacting editors who frequently run Citation bot, introduce this error, and then never check the output or help fix it, as required by the guidance at the top of Citation bot's userpage. I know the responsibility does not fall solely on the maintainers. Folly Mox (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Books series occupy a space somewhere between books and journals. Similar to journals, books series are published on a regular (or at least semi-regular) basis with volume numbers. To at least some editors, book series look like journals, so I think it should not be suprising that they sometimes use the cite journal template for book series. And it is not just editors. Automated tools like WP:RefToolbar will generate at least a partial citation to the chapter selecting "cite journal" and specifying a DOI. In contrast RefToolbar "cite book" option does not even support chapters.  Citeoid in VisualEditor will also generate a  "cite journal" template including the chapter as the title if the DOI is entered. Wikipedia template filling tool will also generate cite journal templates for chapters in book series.  I would argue that using cite journal for chapters in book series, is not wrong.  Furthermore this usage does not throw any error messages.  Converting journals to books without reparameterization is throwing errors. IMHO, Citation Bot should not convert these templates unless it also adjusts the parameters. I think the principle of first, do no harm applies here. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've run across a number of cases that fall into this genre, most recently this one. Here, the book series is Journal of Neural Transmission. Supplementum at Springer; others I can remember off the top of my head are Methods in Enzymology and Progress in Drug Research, both at Elsevier.It seems to me that if Citation bot is both 1. altering the template type to cite book while 2. getting valid data for a parameter named journal (as can be seen in the linked diff: it expands the abbreviated form), then the bot should be reparameterising journal to series if series is not set.I've stated before that Citation bot needs to have more awareness of what parameters are present in the citation it's editing when it changes the template type, but it also occurs to me that it's way too aggressive at changing templates to cite book whenever it finds an isbn. A lot of the errors stem from editors citing webpages with bibliographic information (like library records, publisher landing pages, or book retailers) in order to establish the existence of a book, which is not great practice and has been discussed on this talkpage before. But many other errors come from the fact that conference proceedings and journal issues can also have isbns, and those require different parameters and are created using different templates by other citation tools.In my journey through Special:RandomInCategory/CS1 errors: periodical ignored, my rough estimate is that 50% of these errors (±10%) are introduced by Citation bot. Folly Mox (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

A class of new(?) errors
A user brought to my attention a possibly new type of error by the bot which causes "}}: |website= ignored" and "|journal= ignored" messages. I'm not clear on what's going on, so here are the diffs they found: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Abductive (reasoning) 22:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is often GIGO. The bot adds corrected parameters and leave some bad stuff behind.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I will look into trying to reduce this. I know that the bot fixed many more of these than it creates.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your work on this. It's probably difficult when almost all the engagement on this talkpage is complaints. I believe you when you say Citation bot has fixed this class of error more often than it has introduced it, and I appreciate that. Folly Mox (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This has already improved a lot over where it was last week! Folly Mox (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This bug seems eradicated for many of the more common cases, but I did find another example today, at Special:Diff/1189067865. My fix looked like this. Folly Mox (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ran into a few more GIGO style manifestations of this bug today, but also a bunch of conference proceedings hosted by Springer, all of which caused this same error: Special:Diff/1189110528, Special:Diff/1189117384, and Special:Diff/1189119689 (the last of which alone caused five errors). Folly Mox (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: IF [changed "cite web" to "cite book"] AND ["|website=" exists] THEN [change "website=" to "via="] - - this would preserve useful info. Cheers Protalina (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I see this error is still going on after all these months, like this edit from today. Any chance of implementing 's simple suggested fix just above? That won't fix every kind of issue arising from changing templates that support an alias of periodical to cite book (even the example I just gave is a different kind of problem), but it will at least: not populate ; and display in via whatever value was held in website instead of hiding it behind a template error. Folly Mox (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Lots of these are now . AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Advances in Genetics is a book series
See also. Should cover the undotted version 'Adv Genet' too. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Resolve reut.rs
Example https://reut.rs/3NMDRBT should be expanded to https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/deadly-artillery-attack-hits-donetsk-mar-idOV454213062022RP1/ - we should not have shortned URL links. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Citation Bot edit-warring with OABot
OA-bot is wrong. Scholarpedia is clearly open access. Same for Medknow, ASBMB journals. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Caps: COSPAR

 * and other 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

title things

 * Duplicate to — even down to the source: compare Special:Diff/1228221662. The fix must not have taken. Folly Mox (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Myrealnamm cannot login
Probably your web browser security settings. Your sessions exist on the server. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Even even more Reuters in title
This is when Citation bot changes from web.archive.org to reuters.com, it does not change the title in the same edit. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cannabis_in_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=1230456141 where it did not remove Reuters from the title in the first edit - had to run the page again. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Bot edit-warring with itself at Rafael Riqueni
I have fixed the reference. That is an odd case of bad existing data. I will look at how to make the bot not do this. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Can login but cache gets lost
See User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_39. This is not something that can be fixed. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Headbomb Thanks, I just reposted it because I thought the other editor misunderstood my message into the fact that I can't login at all. Thanks! My real namm  (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "pages got lost during initial authorization" there is literally no way to save that information reliably. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The login is not just you granting the bot permission, it is you being authenticated. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Assumption of uniqueness of titles
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jeannette_Ng&diff=1114953358&oldid=1107442094

This edit is the result of the assumption that a title would only be used by one article in one journal. Ng's short story has been linked to an unrelated essay by an unrelated academic. DS (talk) 13:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

notabug - very old edit. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't remove |access-date when converting |url to |archive-url
They weren't removed. Search for "access-date" in the diff and you'll see them all. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Old edit I stumbled upon
Over here, Citation bot added s2cid, found it identical to the provided URL and promptly stripped out the URL. Now, that might make sense for a lot of citation templates, but this one was using a Cite web template, which promptly throws a CS1 error as a result of not having a URL.

Yes, in this case the reference should have been using Cite journal not Cite web. Still, I don't think taking a functioning if less-than-ideal reference and changing it into throwing CS1-errors without any substantial improvements is particularly helpful behavior. This might well have been fixed since (it was the better part of a year ago, after all, I just happened on it today), but if not, perhaps Citation bot might want to check when stripping URLs whether the reference it's stripping them from is using Cite web, especially in cases where all it's doing is moving functionally the same link to a differently-named parameter? AddWitty NameHere  17:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Zapiski Nauchnykh Seminarov Leningradskogo Otdeleniya Matematicheskogo Instituta imeni V. A. Steklova Akademii Nauk SSSR (LOMI)
In Special:Diff/1232727473, the bot changed the capitalization of the journal above from "imeni" to "Imeni". I don't speak Russian but I'm guessing from context that this is a connecting word that should be lowercase. Anyone who knows Russian care to weigh in? In the original Cyrillic it appears to be mostly abbreviated (and the other proper noun phrases within the title are capitalized only on the first word): Записки научных семинаров Ленинградского отделения Математического института им. В.А. Стеклова АН СССР (ЛОМИ). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Imeni means "named after". There's many ways to transliterate that journal, when lowercase are used, it's often "Zapiski nauchnykh seminarov Leningradskogo otdelenii︠a︡ Matematicheskogo instituta imeni V.A. Steklova AN SSSR (LOMI)", but when capitalized, there's no real reason to leave imeni in lowercase. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't remove URL from cite web

 * I fixed this citation and in doing so tripped the global blacklist for predatory journals (academicjournals.org). Not sure if that's related. Left the citation with attribution, no url, and a predatory publisher. Folly Mox (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Don't add duplicate

 * No templates in headers.
 * cs1|2 supports a named identifier asin and asin-tld so this:
 * could be written:
 * But, since that produces an error because the asin is the same as the book's isbn, use 1-78594-886-5
 * If you really consulted this source you should also have included the rest of the bibliographic detail: author, publication date, publisher, location, insource location(s) (page(s)), etc.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hahaha no one who cites Amazon has consulted the book they're linking. It's almost universally used to establish the existence of a printed work. In this case, the book has not even been published yet, and the reference was made to support a release date.This citation should have remained cite web – since the relevant information is bibliographic data provided on a Amazon webpage – instead of being blindly converted to cite book. Folly Mox (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * But, since that produces an error because the asin is the same as the book's isbn, use 1-78594-886-5
 * If you really consulted this source you should also have included the rest of the bibliographic detail: author, publication date, publisher, location, insource location(s) (page(s)), etc.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hahaha no one who cites Amazon has consulted the book they're linking. It's almost universally used to establish the existence of a printed work. In this case, the book has not even been published yet, and the reference was made to support a release date.This citation should have remained cite web – since the relevant information is bibliographic data provided on a Amazon webpage – instead of being blindly converted to cite book. Folly Mox (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If you really consulted this source you should also have included the rest of the bibliographic detail: author, publication date, publisher, location, insource location(s) (page(s)), etc.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hahaha no one who cites Amazon has consulted the book they're linking. It's almost universally used to establish the existence of a printed work. In this case, the book has not even been published yet, and the reference was made to support a release date.This citation should have remained cite web – since the relevant information is bibliographic data provided on a Amazon webpage – instead of being blindly converted to cite book. Folly Mox (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

MNRAS is open access
This should cover DOI prefixes


 * 10.1093/mnras
 * 10.1111/j.1365-2966
 * 10.1046/j.1365-8711

per https://academic.oup.com/mnras/pages/About

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)