Jump to content

User talk:Citation bot/Archive 42

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42

I believe these changes are unwarranted

Status
Red X Not a bug
Reported by
JudeFawley (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the bot has made these changes in error. If not, may I please know what is the reason behind them? Change

Cheers, JudeFawley (talk) 03:22, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

It

  • removed a dead link that cannot be archived (watermark.silverchair.com)
  • it marked an inactive DOI as inactive
  • remomed a pointless |via=ProQuest
  • Removed italics from a series, because series shouldn't be italicized

All of those changes are clearly warranted. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I was not referring to all those changes, only the first (sorry, I posted the wrong link - I thought I posted a diff, not the link to an article revision). That link is now dead, the bot is indeed right. (The doi though is still broken, so I just reinserted the doi broken date after your last edit).
Sorry for my stupidity and hubris, I really am a terrible human being.
Cheers, JudeFawley (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to bother again, can you please look at the last change the bot made to the article? It deleted the inactive doi tag. But the doi is inactive. JudeFawley (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
thank you for the report. I actually check every good to bad and bad to good DOI and then double check. This DOI is in the "kinda works" category. DX.doi.org works, and the url resolves to something valid. BUT, the the final valid URL is a publisher/journal landing page. I have added it to the list of "trust me bro, it's bad" DOIs for the bot. We have similar issues with sites that have non-404 "404" pages and journals that have disapeared and now are websites the set herbal viagra or offer slot machines. And yes, the checking every changed DOI is a thankless but time consuming task, but it does not involve humans, so no ever complains. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Add Category:CS1 errors: archive-url to one-click autorun list

Self explanatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:06, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I've been maintaining this category with WaybackMedic and manual fixes - all the more help appreciated! What is one-click autorun? Is it something that could be documented at Category:CS1_errors:_archive-url#Bot ? thanks. -- GreenC 16:09, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
@GreenC: See the third box at the top of the page. I keep a list that can be CB-bot cleaned up at User:Headbomb/Sandbox. Dates/Invisible characters need a lot of manual love, and Bibcodes will always have like ~25 in the category because it lags in time. The others can usually be brought down to <5 with automatic cleanup and the rest done by hand. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:30, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Headbomb, OK. One of my bots expands archive.today shorform to longform every 15 days (around 1,000) and this creates entries in the category (50-100), because it exposes archive timestamp mismatch with the |archive-date= which typically happens because of timezone mismatches eg. editor adds an archive-date based on local timezone not GMT. Thus you may see the category bloom in size every 15 days because of my bot. I try to get to it by the end of the day to fix those cases. Unfortunately due to the design I can't do both at the same time (fix the short form and fix the archive-date), they are separate programs. — GreenC 17:11, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Citation bot seems to mostlyt catch missing information, rather than fixing wrong information. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Just for you!

Saint-level Patience
You work tirelessly and never complain. Though your work is little known or appreciated now, your true value will only be realized when something prevents you from doing your job. I hope that that doesn't happen any time soon! GrinningIodize (talk) 17:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
Seconded! Nemo 09:03, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Status
 Fixed - I have already felt that the people who wanted better edit summaries were being overly particular, but those really helped this time.
Reported by
PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
What happens
It thinks cite web citations to bibliographic data are citations to books and replaces them with cite book links
What should happen
It leaves the cite web citations alone, as said in the RFC
Relevant diffs/links
When we did the WorldCat RfC I supported with the condition that the bot knew how to distinguish citations to WorldCat for their bibliographic data to book citations. It does not. Please stop it from doing this. [1]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

This was my one request in the WorldCat RfC - that it does not make this extremely obvious error. The consensus was to keep WorldCat links when they are to bibliographic data, not the source book. The bot cannot tell these apart, when it was said in the RfC that it could. It does the extreme obvious error, against everyone's consensus in that RfC. It has done this on three pages I can see, please stop before it ruins more. if it can't distinguish this it should not be running this operation whatsoever. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Headbomb, any comment, since you were the person who suggested this and said the bot could tell them apart? PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:29, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Still doing it [2]/ PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Yes, a cite web with website=wordlcat should be left alone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
That is now fixed. Code interaction within the bot that I did not expect. Sorry about that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
revert done AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you! PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Another question

I am using the web, and how do I use this version of Citation bot? WikiHelper3906 (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

That is the only version. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Removed "URL-status"

Hi there - the Bot deleted two "url-status=live" tags from two Cite news templates without giving a reason (in this diff), while it was also adding a ProQuest "id=" tag. I've reinstated the "url-status" tags there, because both of the news articles are still live online. Is there any reason to remove those tags, or was it a mistake? Thank you, 101.98.24.129 (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

The edit was correct. See Category:CS1 maint: url-status.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
{{not a bug}} Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Usage in a Userpage

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I am interested in using this bot (and the OA bot) on User:Snoteleks/bibliography. Is there any way I could activate these bots on that page? — Snoteleks (talk) 20:25, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Go to https://iabot.wmcloud.org/index.php?page=runbotsingle&action=analyzepage and login and make sure that the wiki is set to the english one. Then run it on your page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Go to https://citations.toolforge.org/ and run it on your page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Lastly do not do this at the same time. Let one finish, or else the second one will either fail or blow away the first ones work. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I just can IABot and it did nothing. Odd. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Added source

How do you fix the source link I have added my source to Denisovan page can you fix it. Wikipedian reader 1234567 (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

{{#invoke:cite|web|}} breaks when author added

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Snowman304|talk 05:05, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
What happens
{{#invoke:cite|web|}} without author or first/last becomes {{#invoke:cite|author1=foo|web|}}. This may not be exclusive to {{#invoke:cite|web|}}.
What should happen
It should become {{#invoke:cite|web|author1=foo|}}.
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_alternative_rock_artists&diff=1302926998&oldid=1302456443
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

For fixing citation errors.

hey look forward to draft article Draft:Tanka Timilsina & fix it. MountainWriter42 (talk) 10:43, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing this bot can do on that page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Question

Greetings, bot runners. I'm curious about this edit. The edit summary refers to, among other changes, an "altered title," which, I assume, means the article's title. But I see no change there. Could you, please, enlighten, me? -The Gnome (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Curly apostrophe: Brett Kavanaugh’s Opinion ... → Brett Kavanaugh's Opinion .... See MOS:CURLY.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. -The Gnome (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

DOi is incorrect value

Status
Red X Not a bug
Reported by
WikiHelper3906 (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
What happens
Bot creates incorrect DOI value
What should happen
Bot creates correct DOI with correct value
Relevant diffs/links
PosterMyWall
Replication instructions
use DOI 10.3390

doi=10.3390/ was already there. [3] Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

Quotation marks in non-English citations

The bot changed the quotation marks in an article title from the language-appropriate ones to the English ones. I do not want to get into an editing war with the bot and am wondering whether this is an oversight or part of some manual of style. I have not found anything in my limited search suggesting that language-appropriate quotation marks should not be used on the English Wikipedia in citation templates. Stefán Örvar Sigmundsson (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

See MOS:QUOTES. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Ten consecutive Citation bot edits over six months, only two minor visible changes

In [4], over ten edits, the bot changed the capitalization of a template name, added a class parameter to an arxiv cite, and added an issue parameter to a journal cite. This is the last part of a stretch of 38 edits among which only four were not Citation bot, and two of those four were Headbomb manually fixing something in a citation that Citation bot didn't do. Can we do something to throttle this never-ending churn? At a minimum these many consecutive edits could be prevented by a rule like: if the most recent edit was by Citation bot, and was less than three months ago, skip the article rather than making another edit. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The core bug is that doi:10.14321/realanalexch.30.2.0719/JSTOR 10.14321/realanalexch.30.2.0719 are no longuer valid, when they used to be in the past. This is the fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:19, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
That's the symptom that triggered the issue in this one case. It is not the underlying issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
It is the underlying issue, if the JSTOR page wasn't taken down, the bot wouldn't keep this cycle of adding/re-adding it and it would just stay added. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:34, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
The underlying issue is that, whatever causes the bot to start cycling, there is no throttle against this cycling. The simple rule I suggested above could act as such a throttle. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
When someone asks the bot to run on a page, the bot should run on that page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I disagree. My watchlist is overrun by Citation bot edits, on a long term basis (and edits that are too error-prone to ignore). I have been saying here for a long time now that a single run of Citation bot frequently makes big improvements, but that running the bot over and over and over and over on the same citations tends to amplify minor inaccuracies into total garbage, and it wastes the time and effort of everyone else who cares to check that the bot isn't garbaging the citations in the articles they care about. It needs throttling. If you don't want to hear that, then fine, but to me it's one of the biggest problems with the bot. From this point of view, this specific example was one of the better outcomes: the bot succeeded in being merely useless, instead of actively damaging, over its many edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I was wondering why I almost never notice any Citation bot edits. Then I noticed that I filter them out of my watchlist. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
That would work if you're not interested in preventing the bot from occasionally garbaging citations. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Bad pmid

Status
{{fixed}} in pubmed
Reported by
—David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
What happens
On a citation to "A circular slide rule" (Dempster, Science, 1946, doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488.b), the bot added PMID 17832087, which links to "Reply to Prof. Chamberlain" (Dewar, Science, 1946, doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488-b [doi broken]).
What should happen
Not that. I don't know how it found this pmid but it's neither the right pmid for this reference nor a useful pmid to add to any article (because all it does is link to a broken doi).
Relevant diffs/links
Special:Diff/1309956814
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

Update: User:jacobolus has tracked down the actual PMID for this reference, PMID 17832088. It is still useless, and still only links to a broken doi, but at least does not also give the wrong author and title. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is compound, the dois are matched thusly

Article DOI (Crossref) DOI (Pubmed) PMID
More Reversed Winter Flounders doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488.a doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488 PMID 17832089
A Circular Slide Rule doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488.b doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488-a PMID 17832088
Reply to Prof. Chamberlain doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488.c doi:10.1126/science.103.2677.488-b PMID 17832087

Note the DOI mismatches, which are offset by 'one' letter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:47, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I've reported the issue to Pubmed. First time doing so, so I don't know if I did it right. Support messages says to expect a reply within 2-5 business days. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Pubmed replied. They've made the correction, which should go live by Friday. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Even if the PMID was matched correctly, I'd skip it here though. It includes zero additional information not already in the citation. It's basically an empty link to the publisher's site, which doesn't really have any value for readers. –jacobolus (t) 01:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Agree. We should omit links whose only content is another link redundant with the ones we already include. That is often true of pmid, bibcode, and s2cid. (The ones that include an open copy of the article text, or someone else's review of the article, can be kept, of course.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Pubmed has been updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:20, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Publisher removed

Status
new bug
Reported by
— W.andrea (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
What happens
Publisher removed without explanation
Relevant diffs/links
reversion
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

My best guess is it sees that the publisher is Google and it assumes it's a mistake, like if a novice got the info via Google Search. — W.andrea (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

{{not a bug}}
The edit was correct. See Help:Citation Style 1 § Work and publisher: "The 'publisher' parameter should not be included for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work." In this case, |publisher=[[Google]] is the same or mostly the same as |website=[[Google Fonts]].
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Oh, OK! The bot should still explain that though, as opposed to just "Removed parameters." Something like "Removed redundant parameters" would be fine, or better yet "Removed redundant publisher". Thanks. — W.andrea (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Supplement PDF

Status
Red X Not a bug
Reported by
— Omegatron (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
What happens
"Removed URL that duplicated identifier." except the removed URL links directly to the supplementary content being cited, while the DOI only goes to the document itself.
What should happen
URLs with more info than the DOI should not be removed.
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GW250114&diff=prev&oldid=1312201892

Linking to the PDF https://journals.aps.org/prl/supplemental/10.1103/kw5g-d732/GW250114_supplement.pdf, not the summary page will "fix" this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:00, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Bad title: Private Site

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:57, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[5]
I've submitted a pull request with a fix for this: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/4806 .--Redalert2fan (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g: Pull request has been implemented, the bot will no longer add "Private Site" as a title. --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:08, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Numeric name added to citations (August 2025)

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Achmad Rachmani (talk) 23:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[6]
What should happen
[7], [8]
Relevant diffs/links
Iran–Israel war
@Achmad Rachmani: Like the other ones, this is now also fixed. --Redalert2fan (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad author: "User, Super"

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jay8g [V•T•E] 07:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[9]
@Jay8g: Fixed, author "user" and "super user" will no longer be added. --Redalert2fan (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad title: "Rate limit reached"

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[10]
I've submitted a pull request with a fix for this: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/4807 .--Redalert2fan (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g: Pull request has been implemented, the bot will no longer add "Rate limit reached" as a title. --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

10.1093/pnasnexus; 10.11158/saasp; 10.11646/megataxa; 10.11646/mesozoic; 10.22073/pja; 10.35249/rche; 10.37520/fi; 10.53562/ajcb are free

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:44, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
What should happen
[11]
All have been added to the list of free DOIs.--Redalert2fan (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad author: "Edit"

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jay8g [V•T•E] 19:43, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[12]
I've submitted a fix for this with this pull request: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/4808 . --Redalert2fan (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
@Jay8g: Pull request has been implemented, the bot will no longer add "Edit" as last/first for author. --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Fictious name added to citation

Amigao suggests this edit. Bontang Post must not be an author's name. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I can't seem to reproduce this error right now, but I will add it to the non human author list to be sure. --Redalert2fan (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Marking this as fixed. --Redalert2fan (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

10.53347 is free (Radiopedia)

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
What should happen
[13]
10.53347 has been added to the list of free DOIs. --Redalert2fan (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Enable bot run on Category:CS1 maint: missing class

Self-explanatory. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:19, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

By now there were only 3 articles left in the category, so no bot enabled run needed anymore. I requested it myself, the bot made edits to all 3 pages. Redalert2fan (talk) 09:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

403 Forbidden is a useless title

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
What happens
title is set to "403 Forbidden"
What should happen
a meaningful title should be used
Relevant diffs/links
Special:Diff/1312247661
I've submitted a pull request with a fix: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/4809 . --Redalert2fan (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
It will no longer add it as a new title, but after a test it still changes archived copy to 403 Forbidden. I'll try something more. --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
This fixed the issue: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/4811 . @Redrose64: Should be resolved now. The archive page that is linked itself seems to be bad so there is no better title available. --Redalert2fan (talk) 13:23, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad date

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Green Montanan (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
What happens
Citation has no date. Bot got confused because the author responded to a post, and added the date of the response to a citation template
What should happen
Do not add a date because the website has no date
Relevant diffs/links
special:diff/1313487570 (see the last change, made in the "Further reading section")
Fixed, bot will no longer do this on this website. --Redalert2fan (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Numeric name added to citation (October 2025)

FMSky suggests this edit. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 02:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Achmad Rachmani: Has been fixed, the bot will no longer add the combination of "edit" with a number as an author. --Redalert2fan (talk) 12:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

10.1109/OJ ... and 10.1109/OA ... are free

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
What should happen
[14]

@Headbomb: I've added 10.1109/OJ . Do you have an example of a DOI 10.1109/OA that is free? A quick search didn't show up any for me. --Redalert2fan (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

There's one use on Wikipedia [15]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I will see if I can manage to fix the rest of the DOI's you mentioned on this page as well. Redalert2fan (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2025 (UTC)
Fixed. --Redalert2fan (talk) 09:12, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Unknown provenance of date

In the article on Miklós Csörgő, I don't see where the bot in this edit got the date from.--CRau080 (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@CRau080: If you follow the URL of the reference, and use your browser's "view page source" feature (it might have a slightly different name) and search for 2014, you will find the HTML element 
<meta property="article:published_time" content="2014-09-30T09:28:47-04:00">
This works out as 30 September 2014. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much – this may also be useful to me when encountering a similar situation in the future.--CRau080 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Since this is correct I'll mark this as Red X Not a bug for archiving. Redalert2fan (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

10.9778 are free DOIs

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
What should happen
[16]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

For CMAJ Open. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I've added 10.9778/cmajo to the list of free DOIs. --Redalert2fan (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Not sure why you'd want to specifically target 10.9778/cmajo, all 10.9778 are CMAJ Open. The non-open CMAJ dois have prefix 10.1503. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)
Ah apologies, I read it as just cmajo being free of 10.9778. I don't know anything about DOI's, so 10.9778 being all CMAJ Open wasn't in my mind. I will change it to just 10.9778 then. Redalert2fan (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Bibcode error report

Status
{{notabug}}
Reported by
WikiHelper3906 (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
What happens
Bot created bad bibcode that had to be fixed
What should happen
Bibcode created properly without any errors
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Betty_Klepper&diff=1302941443&oldid=1295798772
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

The discussion has started, let's get this over with.

As wild as it seems, this is the correct bibcode. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

last1=Gear first1=Top

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
 Stepho  talk  02:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)
What happens
Bot adds last1=Gear |first1=Top for references to www.topgear.com but this is just the website name "Top Gear". Appreciated if "Top Gear" can be added to the list of disallowed author names.
What should happen
Even better if the actual change from https://web.archive.org/web/20120329005622/http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/porsche-911-gt2-rs-2010-05-12 could be last1=Philip |first1=Sam
Relevant diffs/links
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porsche_911&diff=1308886375&oldid=1308885409
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers
"Top Gear" has been added to the list of bad authors. --Redalert2fan (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect author

Status
new bug
Reported by
Joko2468 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
What happens
Adds non-romanised media corp as author.
What should happen
No author is cited.
Relevant diffs/links
[17], [18]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

On Andriy Melnyk (officer) and Melnykites, this bot reliably misreads Ukrainian Radio Liberty articles and adds "|last1=Свобода |first1=Радіо" to the citation without romanising the text. This translates to 'Radio Liberty' which is already cited as the website/ publisher. Another mistake it reliably makes is to change the citation template of online encyclopedias from cite web to cite journal.

I'm not awfully fond of this bot, is there a way I could stop it from interacting with these pages? I've fixed its mistakes a couple of times now and I never know when it's going to strike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joko2468 (talk • contribs)

@Joko2468: if you fix the mistakes, does the bot make them again? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
@Headbomb: I think it's done the author thing specifically on two occasions on Melnykites-- how do I check? I'm not too familiar with how these bots are directed. Joko2468 (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
If you put the correct authors, or tell the bot to leave the authors alone with |author=<!-- CB mistake-->, does the bot make the same mistake? See the hatnote at the top of the page which points you to User:Citation bot/use#... the bot made a mistake? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
Oh thank you, sorry for wasting your time. Hopefully that works. Joko2468 (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not a time waste, the bot shouldn't do that. But in the meantime, you have an easy way to fix it. If you know regex, search for \|( *)last(\d? *)=( *)Свобода *\| *first\d? *= *Радіо replace with |$1author$2=$3<!--CB bypass -->. E.g. [19]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:42, 13 October 2025 (UTC)
We could add Радіо / Radio to the list of non human authors, since I don't expect there to be many people with that as a last name. Or we can play it safe by just limiting it to Радіо Свобода / Radio Liberty. Let me know. Redalert2fan (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
After taking a look, Radio is already on the list, so going by that I'll put Радіо on there as well. Redalert2fan (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Should be {{fixed}}. Redalert2fan (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Perfect thank you! Joko2468 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad title: Access Restricted

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jay8g [V•T•E] 23:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[20]

Will no longer be added as a title. --Redalert2fan (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Incorrect author 재외기자 / Overseas Correspondent

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Redalert2fan (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
What happens
|last1=재외기자 |first1=박정연
Relevant diffs/links
[21]

재외기자 means "Overseas Correspondent" so that is not a correct last1. --Redalert2fan (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Pull request accepted, will no longer be added. --Redalert2fan (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Bad title: No document found

Status
 Fixed
Reported by
Jay8g [V•T•E] 01:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[22]
Will no longer be added as a title. --Redalert2fan (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

breaks cite journal template by adding |pmc= when |title= is wikilinked

Status
{{not a bug}}
Reported by
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
What happens
adds |pmc= to {{cite journal}} when |title= is wikilinked
What should happen
probably nothing; don't break the citation template. alternately, when adding |pmc= (or |doi= and |doi-access=free) remove partial wikilinks from |title=; if |title= is wholly wikilinked or |title-link= is set, do nothing.
Relevant diffs/links
diff
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers
This sounds line an error with the cite template more than the bot's actions. However, yes the bot breaks the layout due to the bad template coding which is not good. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
This sounds [like] an error with the cite template more than the bot's actions. How so?
In 2014, Editor Neurobio461S at this edit created a plain-text citation with the title Repetitive motor learning induces coordinated formation of clustered [[dendritic spines]] in vivo. At this edit, Editor Rjwilmsi converted that plain text citation to {{cite journal}}.
So far as I know, the community have not, via the WP:MOS said that partial wikilinks in |title= are not allowed. Therefore, it is not the place of {{cite journal}} to emit an error message. But, when another editor (Citation bot in this case) added |pmc=3292711, which pursuant to demands from WP:MED, autolinks |title= to the url created by |pmc=, summat has to give because links within links are not supported by MediaWiki and likely not supported in HTML. So, because of the conflicting demand, cs1|2 opts to link to the cited source rather than to the en.wiki article wikilinked in the title. cs1|2 emits an error message so that a human editor can decide which link is the most important.
the bot breaks the layout due to the bad template coding which is not good. Describe in detail how the bad template coding should be recoded so that it isn't bad or, make the necessary changes yourself at Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox with descriptions of what you have changed at Help talk:Citation Style 1.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Re: "how the bad template coding should be recoded", simple. When there are urls and wikilinks in the linked entity, ignore wikilinks, and emit a error/maintenance message. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Which is more-or-less what happens now:
{{cite journal | last1 = Fu | first1 = M. | display-authors = etal | year = 2012 | title = Repetitive motor learning induces coordinated formation of clustered [[dendritic spines]] in vivo | url = | journal = Nature | volume = 483 | issue = 7387| pages = 92–95 | doi = 10.1038/nature10844 | pmid = 22343892 | pmc = 3292711 }}
Fu, M.; et al. (2012). "Repetitive motor learning induces coordinated formation of clustered [[dendritic spines]] in vivo". Nature. 483 (7387): 92–95. doi:10.1038/nature10844. PMC 3292711. PMID 22343892. {{cite journal}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help)
The link to dendritic spines is ignored (doesn't work) and an error message is emitted. Editor Josve05a must surely know how cs1|2 can be improved or the bad template coding claim would not have been voiced.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
In this case it’s a straightforward case of GiGo. We generally shouldn't be linking individual words inside a citation’s title unless the link is to an article about the actual source itself, not to a term used within the title.
That said, if a wikilink is present in the title, the template should not then attempt to autogenerate a |url= from the |pmc= parameter. Per {{cite journal}}'s own documentation: Do not use [|url=] if |title-link= is provided, and vice versa.
The bot's addition of a |pmc= value should be encouraged—it's doing what it’s meant to—but the fact that the template turns that parameter into a hardcoded |url= link is the underlying problem. That behaviour belongs to the template logic, not the bot. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
The underlying problem is that someone wikilinked something that shouldn't have been wikilinked in the first place. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
No doubt; but such links are not, so far as I know, prohibited. Perhaps cs1|2 should emit an error message when a wikilinked term appears in a {{cite journal}} |title= parameter regardless of free-to-read autolinks.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree that this is a case of gigo; I also agree that we should not be linking individual terms in a reference title. But you and I agreeing on that does not serve as a sound basis for prohibiting such links. The authority to prohibit lies with WP:MOS. I am no MOS expert. Perhaps somewhere MOS proscribes links in titles; if it does, I've not seen it. That which is not prohibited is permitted.
I disagree with your suggestion that a title should not be autolinked if it has a wikilinked term. The purpose of a citation is identify the source that supports our article text by, in very many cases, linking to the source itself. In this particular case, and many others, the wikilink in the title is not the supporting source so cs1|2 should not prefer it over the autolink to the source identified by |pmc=.
|title-link= is not the same as a title with a linked term. |title-link= in {{cite journal}} templates has a specific meaning. When |doi= has a value, |doi-access=free and when |pmc= has a value, editors who prefer that |title= link to the source identified by |doi= may set |title-link=doi to override the |pmc= autolink. Perhaps there are historical journal articles that have en.wiki articles about them or they are available at wikisource and there is a |pmc= identifier, then in those (rare?) cases, setting |title-link=none will allow editors to link to those local articles without autolinking getting the way. All of this is also in the {{cite journal}} documentation; see here.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Untitled_new_bug

Status
{{not a bug}}
Reported by
Zhenghecaris (talk) 01:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
What happens
There are tons of duplicate refs on Sunella
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

Nothing this bot can do about it, try WP:AWB, e.g. [23]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Korean author name

Status
Red X Not a bug
Reported by
Redalert2fan (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
What happens
author1=박소연
What should happen
first1= 소연 last1= 박 or correctly translate to first1= Soyeon last1= Park
Relevant diffs/links
[24]

There's a few more cases of different names on the edit linked on this page. --Redalert2fan (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps not. There are editors who will complain that a cs1|2 template rendering of |last=박 |first=소연 → 박, 소연 is wholly improper and that |author=박소연 → 박소연 should be preferred for names entered using any of the CJK scripts. If you search the Help talk:Citation Style 1 archives, I'm pretty sure that you will find some of those complaints.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
If you put it like that, I can see their point. Redalert2fan (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Red X Not a bug Redalert2fan (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Bad author: Webmaster

Status
{{fixed}}
Reported by
Jay8g [V•T•E] 09:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
What happens
[25]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers

"Webmaster" will no longer be added as an author. --Redalert2fan (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. Over half of my work team is gone, and the work has not gone down. Dr./LtCol/HelpfulDude AManWithNoPlan. May the lord have mercy on us all. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_42&oldid=1320587086"