 Archives | ||
|
||
|
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Note that the bot's maintainer and assistants (Thing 1 and Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot.
Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx= to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least an hour.
Please click here to report an error.
Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.
Adds URL instead of Project MUSE parameter[edit]
- Status
- feature request
- Reported by
- — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- What happens
- expanding doi 10.3751/69.3.12 adds URL, but seems like better choice would be to use Project MUSE template with id parameter, Project MUSE 586504
- Relevant diffs/links
- diff
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
- URL is better unless the identifier auto-links. Nemo 22:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
- what do you mean by "auto-links"? — Chris Capoccia 💬 15:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Some identifiers can automatically add themselves to the title, when
|muse-access=freeis present with the|muse=12345678. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- Some identifiers can automatically add themselves to the title, when
- what do you mean by "auto-links"? — Chris Capoccia 💬 15:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
italics[edit]
Why does citation bot add italicization to Associated Press and Reuters as seen here? Our own articles about those news agencies don't italicize them. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, fourthords,
- You might try asking the bot operator. Being a bot, it won't be replying to inquiries here. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Since my inquiry was about this bot's edits, this seemed the most appropriate place to ask. Apparently plenty of editors (and possibly the bot's programmer, somewhere) are watching this page. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Because
|agency=is to be used when the work of Reuters or AP (and other agencies) is republished in another publisher's work (typically a newspaper). When Reuters or AP (and other agencies) is cited directly, then the source is the 'work'. We cite the work not the corporate entity. The en.wiki articles are not italicized because the articles are about the corporate entities. In both of these cases, the corporate entities have eponymous websites that are the sources so those names go in|work=when citing their articles directly. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Should, then, this script not be performing its edits in contravention of this bot? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- The Associated Press is an organization, not a collection of documents, and should therefore be listed under
|via=or|publisher=, not|work=. Organization names are not italicized; periodicals, edited volumes, websites, or other collections of documents are. The current name of the collection of documents that the Associated Press publishes appears to be AP News. If "Associated Press" is being used in the work parameter, it is being used incorrectly there. If the bot is moving "Associated Press" to the work parameter without changing it to "AP News" or some similar name for the work rather than the organization, it is doing the wrong thing and should stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)- Ah, that seems to be in contravention of what Trappist the monk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said,
[AP and Reuters] have eponymous websites that are the sources so those names go in
Is there an explicit MOS or guideline that says one way or another, then? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)|work=when citing their articles directly.- I presume that Editor David Eppstein did not intend to write:
Organization names are not capitalized
(emphasis added) - Editor David Eppstein and I rarely agree on anything but in this case, for the most part, I think that we agree. The Associated Press is an organization, my term was 'corporate entity'. We don't cite organizations or corporate entities, we cite their work. The Associated Press has an online presence at AP News (I hadn't bothered to look – Reuters has an eponymous online presence). That name for the collection of documents is italicized when one of the documents that it holds is cited. AP News is sufficiently similar to the corporate name that it is not necessary to write
|publisher=The Associated Press(|via=The Associated Pressshould not be used for work distributed from AP News because AP News is the publisher's outlet). - I do not know of any MOS or guideline covering this though the topic is surprisingly volatile with entrenched camps on both sides of the italic/no-italic divide. There is some, reasonably stable text at Help:Citation Style 1 § Work and publisher.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Typo fixed; I meant "italicized" not "capitalized". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- I presume that Editor David Eppstein did not intend to write:
- Ah, that seems to be in contravention of what Trappist the monk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) said,
- The Associated Press is an organization, not a collection of documents, and should therefore be listed under
- Should, then, this script not be performing its edits in contravention of this bot? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
ISBN in Cite web[edit]
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Johannes Schade (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
The bot changed "{{Cite web|last=Coolahan |first=Marie-Louise |date=9 May 2019 |title=Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth |website=[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]] |doi=10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775 |url=https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-112775 |access-date=14 March 2021 |url-access=subscription}} – Online edition" -> "{{Cite web|last=Coolahan |first=Marie-Louise |date=9 May 2019 |title=Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth |website=[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]] |doi=10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775 |isbn=978-0-19-861412-8 |url=https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-112775 |access-date=14 March 2021 |url-access=subscription}} – Online edition". I doubt the bot checks the book against the website. The website could differ from what was published in the book with that ISBN. I do not think an ISBN should be added under these circumstances. With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- A diff would be more useful than the above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- To cite the ODNB, use
{{cite ODNB}}:{{Cite ODNB |last=Coolahan |first=Marie-Louise |date=9 May 2019 |title=Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth |doi=10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775}}- Coolahan, Marie-Louise (9 May 2019). "Dowdall [née Southwell], Elizabeth". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/odnb/9780198614128.013.112775. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- Normally this would work, but in this case, DOI is broken and needs to use the URL parameter instead. I fixed all 3 articles using this citation to use Cite ODNB with the URL. — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:10, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Community Wishlist Survey 2022: More capacity for Citation bot[edit]
See my proposal at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Citations/More_capacity_for_Citation_bot
If you support this idea, or have suggestions for improving the proposal, please post at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Wishlist_Survey_2022/Citations/More_capacity_for_Citation_bot BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
I support the idea, but I'm not sure it's anything the WMF can do anything about. Or would be willing to, given they only filled one relatively trivial request lasts year. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: the WMF certainly can do something. In the year to end of June 2021 the WMF's income was US$163million and its expenditure was US$112million, so it had a US$51 million surplus. With net assets of US£231 million, the WMF is in a very strong financial position.
- Employing a few skilled programmers on the community tech team wouldn't cost even 0.5% of that 2020/2021 surplus.
- It may indeed be the case that the WMF is not willing to spend their money to assist editors. But they could if they wanted to. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl and @Headbomb: we could also spend Google's money; see WP:VPT#Proposed Google Summer of Code project: expanding citations. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)