Jump to content

User talk:Bibcode Bot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Headbomb (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 8 September 2017 (→Destroyed formula: :::You don't need to be unblocked to collaborate on bots. ~~~~). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Suggestion

Not so much a bug as a pair of suggestions. In this edit the bot added a (correct) bibcode field to a reference. However it a) ignored an already existing but empty |bibcode= field within the same citation template, and b) added the field in horizontal layout, whilst the rest of the fields in that template are in vertical layout. It would be nice if the bot could recognise both of these and change its behaviour accordingly. Modest Genius talk 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a somewhat older version of the code. The current version inserts bibcodes at the correct place. Figuring out whether things should be on the same line or on a new line isn't yet implemented, but it's on the list of things to do. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bug report

Bibcode bot got confused at Template:Cite doi/10.1007.2FBF02102090. r.e.b. (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this bot

In the physical sciences, bibcodes are rarely used. This bot is bloating references in an utterly unnecessary way. Please stop. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus disagrees with you here. arxiv preprints, bibcodes, dois, jstor, etc... all should be present when available. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugly ugly ugly ... just wait, I make another suggestion: -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is really a consensus (reference for that?) that references should be enriched by bibcodes and the like, then it still is not necessary that all this lengthy material is shown at once to the reader. Let me suggest the following: instead of a textual entry, put a small logo that bears a link to arxiv, to bibcode, to whatever the logo stands for. As is commonly done with social bookmarks. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That could easily be done, assuming you get consensus for it, and that the logos aren't copyrighted (which they probably are). However, that discussion is really outside the scope of this bot. The bot just adds the information. How to present it should be discussed at Template talk:Citation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscience articles

This bot is adding bibcodes to a bunch of neuroscience articles, and I am going to be reverting any that I see, as they are just useless clutter. Neuroscience articles already almost all have links to Pubmed; links to Adsabs are redundant and much less useful. Looie496 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. You might not find these links useful, but plenty of users do. The NASA database often contain free scanned/digital copies of these articles. They also contain various information not included withing pubmed, such as number of times other articles cited that specific article, information about preprint, reprints, related publications, etc... We let PMID show up in non-medicine articles, so I don't why why links to ADSASB should be excluded from non-astronomy/physics articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted some bibcodes from a medical article on History of virology. This is an astronomy database for goodness sake. And, no, it doesn't contain "the number of times other articles cited that specific article" -- it only collects that data for journals in its database, so pretty useless really. I agree with Looie496 that this is useless clutter. The point about PMIDs misses the point. It is the nature and usage of the cited journal article that determines whether a link to PMID or ADSASB is useful, something that generally only a human can decide. Please restrict this bot to topics where it is likely to be relevant, and add the links elsewhere only by hand when justified. Colin°Talk 07:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support the request by Looie496 and Colin. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate arXiv reference

For some reason, the bot has added a duplicate arXiv reference in this article, possibly because the original was not in the ideal format. Will Orrick (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think the problem is that the article used {{arXiv|foobar}} (I only checked for {{arxiv|foobar}}). I'll investigate. Thanks for the report. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problem's fixed BTW. Forgot to mention it here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error on Neptune

Here the bot made an error in some text in math tags. Character encoding issue? Rjwilmsi 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I haven't found the exact cause though. I thought I bypassed all cases, but that's the first time I see this particular error. If you know python/pywikipedia, I'll take any help I can with that particular bug. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something is interpreting \f as a line feed by the looks of it. Rjwilmsi 07:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it's doing, I just don't know why. It affects more than \f. \n is getting interpreted as a linebreak. \t as a tab, etc... But it only affects those in math tags, and prior to that one, only math tags inside |title= parameters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


bug in math blocks

Please tell the bot to skip anything that is between <math> tags. It has broken twice one equation in Zero-point energy [3][4]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weird bug, and I just can't put my hands on it. I'm bypassing 99%+ of likely instances and I usually catch the ones it messed up, but I missed this one (mostly because I didn't review the last 24 hour's edits yet). Thanks for reporting it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Astronomy list

Here is a list of Wikiproject Astronomy articles with some cites missing doi and/or bibcode. If I've understood correctly the bot can work through a Wikiproject Astronomy list? Thanks Rjwilmsi 23:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably covered all of those already actually. I'm making lists of physics & astronomy articles (doing all stubs, then all starts, then all Cs, etc...), and I run over them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add

Can you please add Straight edge to you list of pages to add numbers too. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran the bot against that article, and there's nothing it can add. This is not really surprising considering this is hardly related to physical sciences. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for running citation bot over it. There are far to many bots doing close things to keep track of them all --Guerillero | My Talk 06:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Orionis C

Please, could you check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Theta%C2%B9_Orionis_C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.231.54 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to check? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bug report

The Bibcode bot caused a paragraph and a half of text to be removed from the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_detection, leaving only a partial word. I'm going to repair the article so please check the history to see what happened. Galaxiana (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It did no such thing. The removal was IP vandalism. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good bot!

I saw Bibcode Bot adding arxiv links across a few articles on my watchlist. Nicely done. Amble (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth Complex

Hello. I reverted here two bot additions to the references. The doi references contain the abstracts of the works, whereas bibcode does not. Am I missing something here? If there is no added value there is no need to add another reference, much less list it first, in front of the doi which has the abstract to the article. Kablammo (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well usually, the bibcode entries are much more complete than that (e.g. Bibcode:2010ApJ...709L..95B), and they have the abstracts, the full article in PDF or GIF, a full list of authors, with author affiliation, citation history, cross-references to other databases, a list of articles that cite the article, and many more. I've submitted corrections to the bibcode database and they should kick in at some point in the near/mid future.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Unless it has greater utility, and is a more common source or has other advantages, I am dubious about its value in articles which already have an adequate way to access article information. Perhaps one size does not fit all here. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I leave it to the bot owner to decide how to procede, but -- The articles removed by Kablammo DO indeed have abstracts in ADS, and also additional information, such as links to citing articles, which the doi link does not have. The ADS links in general are not static, they are maintained for this type of information, and regularly updated. MJKurtz —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate DOIs

Bibcode Bot mangled a couple citations in this diff, both of which were produced using Magnus' reference generator. I'm not entirely sure why that tool is currently inserting {{doi}} into the id param, but you'd best accommodate it to prevent causing a major headache.   — C M B J   10:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh... some of these TS tools should require BRFAs before being deployed... Gonna do a cleanup run in the near-to-mid future. Also, magnus should probably be told to update his tool. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Space after bibcode

A space immediately after the bibcode number, rather than two immediately before it, would make the source code easier to read. See final three edits (of five) here. -- 79.67.249.178 (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template namespace

Does the bot process the Template namespace? E.g., Template:Cite doi/10.1007.2Fs10853-013-7630-0. It would be a nice addition. Lfstevens (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does yes. I'll run the bot on it tonight. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this is a fairly new article, and its entry is not yet in the ADSABS database. So the bot can't add anything there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. Thanks for checking. The subject came up while editing Graphene which has lots of bibcode id's in it. I tend to go with cite doi when possible and was wondering if the refs it comes up with get processed. Lfstevens (talk) 18:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit broke math formulas

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brownian_motion&diff=665168290&oldid=664752787 Glrx (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that stupid bug again. Though I bypassed all of those instances, but I guess not. I'd have eventually found the mistake, but good that you caught it before I got that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume this is the same bug: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cosmic_age_problem&type=revision&diff=671908444&oldid=670707271 (bottom part of the edit). (I've already manually reversed that.) --DanielPharos (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be the place to report this flawed edit at the article on Earth, where the bot changed two instances each of \frac into �rac, and of \right into ight with newlines prepended. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently working on a solution to those. Fix coming soon, hopefully. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance: this edit converted \t into a tab character - but it was actually part of \tfrac. Ørjan (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit broke instance of cite journal template

The edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bell_number&oldid=682324953 introduced some apparently unrelated changes into the citation; have manually reverted this change. Please review the diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bell_number&diff=prev&oldid=682324953 for what went wrong. Ott2 (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I swear one day I'll finally get all instances of that stupid bug. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

concern

Why aren't you called BibBot. It'd be so cool Huritisho (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying disruption of template formatting

There is an aspect of Bibcode Bot that is quite annoying: the way it simply inserts the bibcode before the template's closing "}}". When the template is strung out horizontally this isn't a problem. But when a template is formatted vertically (i.e., on multiple lines) the placement of the closing braces at the beginning of a line is important for ready recognition of the end of the template. When the bibcode (or any other data) gets shoved in front of the braces it's harder to read, and confusing. So I would like to request that the bot check for newline (CR/LF) characters preceding the "}}", and preserve them in that position. If the bot could also check whether the vertical bars are preceded with a newline and possibly white space, and add its vertical bar in a conformable manner, that would be so much the better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it would be an improvement, I've tried many times to implement that, but all my attemps have caused more headaches than it solved. It's something I've been meaning to look into again, but my time is fairly limited at the moment. Should free up in May or so however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:27, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to ask for an improved formatting (example post-fix format). Maybe coding would become simpler if only a limited number of formats had to be recognized (my example uses one of the most used standard format for segregated refs). I also think that it is not a good idea to (manually) remove redundant url/arxiv params. Having a link on the citation's title is generally beneficial. Thx, Rfassbind – talk 00:38, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Links on the citation titles should only be used when the source is freely accessible. Those links I removed were paywalled and redundant with the arxiv/doi/etc. Arxiv preprints also tend to differ from published versions, so cannot be used instead of the actual publication, so arxiv links for a published article are inappropriate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My regex work-around for this is to completely grab the last parameter and all surrounding whitespace using (\s*\|\s*)([\w_]+)(\s*=\s*)([^\}\|]*?)\|?(\s*\}\}) and replace it with $1$2$3$4$1bibcode${3}BibcodeString$5, where $1, $3, and $5 store the last parameter's whitespace around |, =, and }}, respectively, and duplicate $1 & $3 around a newly-place |bibcode= parameter. Curly brackets surround ${3} so the engine doesn't accidentally use the first character in BibcodeString if it's a digit (which it probably will be). Unfortunately, all I know about python is that it can be an unintuitive pain in the ass and idk how well it plays with regex, but hopefully this helps.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid arXiv identifier

This edit added an identifier I can't find in arXiv. Choess (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure why it did that. It's a rather non-standard bibcode, so it may be related to that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It did the same thing here. The common factor seems to be that they both have ASCL ID numbers, which the bot seems to be misidentifying as arXiv IDs. Modest Genius talk 09:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems so. I was reviewing the bot's edits, but you caught it before I did. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibcodebot is adding arxiv= values when there is already an eprint= value

Edits like this one and this one are creating redundant parameters in citations, placing the resulting articles into Category:Pages with citations having redundant parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, guess I'll need to update the bot to take into account the new alias of |arxiv= in {{cite xxx}}. It used to be disallowed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like |eprint= was added in April 2015, when {{Cite arxiv}} was modified to use the standard CS1 module. The |eprint= parameter was added as an alias of |arxiv=. The change was a net positive, but your coding labor has ended up on the debit side of the cost/benefit calculation. Sorry to make work for you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

doi number issue

After some CS1 maint, I did a self revert [here] because I noticed that some citation lead names weren’t in the actual papers provided by the citation doi numbers. Further history checking suggests that a problem may have occurred [here] I’m not sure how the bot captures the doi numbers but I think they are wrong. I suspect that this [1] is the correct Kushwahal ref, likewise correct cite for Pasquini[2] I think there may be others, hence it was easiest to self revert for now.

References

  1. ^ Kushwaha, Pallavi; Lakhani, Archana; Rawat, R.; Chaddah, P. (2009). "Low-temperature study of field-induced antiferromagnetic-ferromagnetic transition in Pd-doped Fe-Rh". Physical Review B. 80 (17). doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.80.174413. ISSN 1098-0121.
  2. ^ Pasquini, G.; Daroca, D. Pérez; Chiliotte, C.; Lozano, G. S.; Bekeris, V. (2008). "Ordered, Disordered, and Coexistent Stable Vortex Lattices inNbSe2Single Crystals". Physical Review Letters. 100 (24). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.247003. ISSN 0031-9007.

Best Regards. CV9933 (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I think I know why it happened, so I'll refine the logic if I can ever get this bot to run again. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyed formula

Bibcode Bot destroyed a display formula in TeX at General Relativity. See here. Apparently it deleted "\n" and "\t" where they appeared in the formula. "\n" was replaced by a new-line; and "\t" by a tab or some blanks. JRSpriggs (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a known bug. Trying to fix this with User:Δ. I review every bot edit until the bot is fixed, so I fix those manually when they happen. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Δ (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked. So someone else will have to take over Bibcode Bot. JRSpriggs (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to be unblocked to collaborate on bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bibcode_Bot&oldid=799628728"