User talk:Citation bot/Archive 14

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1342 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Considering that the correct one would be {{cite encyclopedia}}, therefore second best would be {{cite book}}, and it follows that the third best would be {{cite journal}}, and finally the fourth best is {{cite web}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

That’s really awesome that the page title has html tags in it. Any thoughts on what the bot should do with such titles? Seriously, it is the correct title for the webpage, which is really sad. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

GIGO is hard. Editors who run the bot are responsible for and need to inspect its edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not worth the coding effort IMO. GIGO is GIGO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

As seen in this edit: why are the urls being removed?

Also: The edit summary says: "Alter: title. Removed accessdate with no specified URL. Removed parameters." But the first change removed accessdate AND the url simultaneously, other changes removed urls but not any accessdates. Ergo, the edit summary is incorrect. Is that due to operator inattention? Or is that a bot problem? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

It's accurate in the sense that it first removes redundant URLs ('removed parameters'), then since there was no URL left in that citation, it also removed the accessdate. The edit summary could be clearer though. "Removed redundant URLs" would be much better than "Remove parameters". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

That's nonsense. If after removing a URL "there was [then] no URL left in that citation", the URL was not redundant. That's sheer ludicrousity. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

If I link to you the same thing twice in the same citation, then yes, that's exactly what the word redundant means. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries are not intended to tell everything. Historically the length have been limited too. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I can understand the doubts about current access-date practices, but these are discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#access-date. Nemo 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC

If there are two urls, and you remove one, then by first-grade arithmetic there should be one left. The rationale for removing the accessdates is that there were zero urls, If that is what you get after removing one the implication is that you started with only one, and your premise is false. AMWNP: please read more carefully. I am not complaining that the edit summary was incomplete, but that it was incorrect. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:14, 21 Feb1ruary 2019 (UTC)

Except the edit summary is correct, as explained above. It removed parameters (a URL, because of redundancy), and that left an accessdate without a URL, which it removed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The |url= is redundant in that there is a |doi=. And why is there an |access-date= to begin with? This is a journal article that with the exception of unusual corrections, doesn't change over time, hence |access-date= is redundant with |date=. Hence there is double redundancy in this citation. Get rid of both. Boghog (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Please explain: HOW DOES TWO TAKE AWAY ONE RESULT IN ZERO? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) |doi= makes |url= unnecessary. |date= makes |access-date= unnecessary. Boghog (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The lack of |url= is what makes |access-date= unnecessary. Consensus is you can have |access-date= for journals, if you have URLs, although that's optional. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

For journal articles, |access-date= is usually unnecessary, with or without |url=. Boghog (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Before citation bot:

• Chouliaras, G (2009), "Seismicity anomalies prior to 8 June 2008 earthquake in Western Greece" (PDF), Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9 (2): 327–335, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-327-2009, retrieved July 31, 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

After citation bot, removing the redundant URL, but keeping the accessdate for no reason:

• Chouliaras, G (2009), "Seismicity anomalies prior to 8 June 2008 earthquake in Western Greece", Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9 (2): 327–335, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-327-2009 {{citation}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

After citation bot, removing both the redundant URl and the accessdate:

• Chouliaras, G (2009), "Seismicity anomalies prior to 8 June 2008 earthquake in Western Greece", Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 9 (2): 327–335, doi:10.5194/nhess-9-327-2009{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The arithmetic isn't 2 − 1 = 1, the arithmetic is 1 − 0 = 0. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

{{notabug}} since we are already hitting edit summary length limits AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Should publisher be removed from journals

{{fixed}} discussion closed

Account is currently blocked. Also see discussion above. Boghog (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The toollabs-tool that is operated via script (/use) for manual edit is down as well, which worked until yesterday evening at least. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks. i had read through the other entries. the discussion in "notice" is really dense with jargon and i would not have guessed that was the reason for why nothing was being processed.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 13:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Gadget API is up and running. Naturally, automatic edits are still blocked. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}}, not sure why is was having trouble

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1374 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

“capitalization of the names of the French journals” Wikipedia style guides follow the English formatting rules. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Changing pages makes the template text matched the displayed text. If that is wrong, then fix the underlying text: please see Bot main page for description. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about url changes since chapter is closer to pages than the book. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your second response, I have read it and added {{hyphen}} in the citation instead. I decided to leave the issue covered by your third response be, maybe I'm making a problem out of nothing. As for the first, I don't quite follow. The French don't capitalize names of their journals; therefore, their proper names are not capitalized. If capitalization of such proper names changes depending on the surrounding language, could you provide a link to a rule that says that? I haven't found anything of this sort in en.wiki citation or CS1 rules.--R8R (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CAPITALS? --Izno (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see it at MOS:FOREIGNTITLE: Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language. Retain the style of the original for modern works. For historical works, follow the dominant usage in modern, English-language, reliable sources.

• Correct: 'Les Liaisons dangereuses' (French; the English title is Dangerous Liaisons)
• Correct: 'El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha' (Spanish; the English title is The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha, or Don Quixote for short)
• Correct: "Hymnus an den heiligen Geist" (German; there is no English title, though it translates as "Hymn to the Holy Ghost")

So the change the bot made is more-or-less incorrect. --Izno (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The url change seems reasonable as there is no |page-url=. As for capitalization, we don't use French rules. |language= does not refer to the language title of the work(s) or where the work was produced but the content within, so that reason for not changing is straight bogus in the context of the template. As for hyphens and endashes, that's a hard problem. I'm not sure what the best behavior is for that. --Izno (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

hypens and dashes are annoying. We just change the data to match display. Is 7-8 pages 7 to 8 or page 8 of section 7? Or 3-7–3-9 is really ugly. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Re the capitalization I think MOS:FOREIGNTITLE is the most relevant guideline. It says to respect the French capitalization. I think this is also in agreement with WP:COMMONNAME (a policy!). For instance, when we have articles on journals or magazines with French-language titles, they should be capitalized in the French way; e.g. Revue politique et littéraire. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I get this, and I wouldn't have complained if I had "7-8". I, however, had "IE-87": since what stands before the hyphen is not a number, but a string of letters, there is no unambiguity here. Based on what I know from my shallow coding skills, this shouldn't be too hard to check? I get it that few people might have encountered this so far, but the fix presumably shouldn't be too hard to make, either. If you indeed decide to alter the bot to change the foreign title capitalization (thank you Izno and David for finding the appropriate guideline), wouldn't it be a good idea to change this, too?--R8R (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

(EC) With respect to the French, we do capitalize journal titles (Annales de la Société Entomologique de France). We also don't. Title casing or sentence casing is a matter of preference. Likewise how to capitalize foreign title in English is also a matter of preference. Some style guides use title casing, some use sentence/original casing. The bot isn't necessarily wrong to capitalize them, but sadly WP:CITEVAR is a thing. Best way to deal with this at the moment is to add a comment in the journal name, but exceptions could also be added at the bot-level for the more common journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely the best way to handle issues that reasonably fall under CITEVAR is for the bot not to violate CITEVAR by gratuitously changing everything to its own preferred style? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

as for page numbers we are converting the meta data to match what users see. See the template documentation. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

99%+ of journals cited are in English, and the bot brings it in line with MOS. Again, if you don't want the bot to change something from one style to the other, either a) don't use the bot, b) be prepared to tell it to not touch something specific, or c) report the problematic journal here so it can be added to the capitalization exceptions (La Revue scientifique, not being valid in either title/sentence casing variation). The page number thing above is a bug though.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If the Bot's changes are correct and conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in 99% of cases, that still means that there are roughly 60,000 articles that it is likely to fuck up. Bots can do a lot more damage than humans so they should be much more circumspect. Human editors should not be expected to have to tag every article they edit with bot exclusions to prevent damage by Bots with badly-estimated views of the level of edits they are competent to make. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, exceptions which can be bypassed at the individual levels, or at the bot level. Or by simply not activating the bot.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I stand corrected, the citation templates now detect pages of IE-7 and don’t convert the dash. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1354 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}}

Ah yes. We currently limit them to 100000 and up to avoid GIGO AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

What's the GIGO concern with "replace www.jstor.org/stable/18398 with |jstor=18398"? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the concern was that a really short number is a copy/paste error. 22:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

And yet, we still expand metadata from that URL? If we were to run the bot a second time, couldn't the bot verifiy the metadata from the template with the JSTOR link, and if they match perform the above action (and if they are widly different, assume copy+paste error)? (t) Josve05a (c) 23:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see what's gained by keeping the error hidden behind a url in the cases where someone copy-pasted this by mistake, if that's even a thing to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

true, with the parameter you see the jstor id of one and are suspicious AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1367 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

https://www-jstor-org.libezp.lib.lsu.edu/stable/10.7249/j.ctt4cgd90.10?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=social&searchText=media&searchText=egypt&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3FcurrentPath%3D%252Faction%252FdoAdvancedSearch%26amp%3Bf5%3Dall%26amp%3Bq0%3Dsocial%2Bmedia%26amp%3Bc6%3DAND%26amp%3Bf1%3Dall%26amp%3Bc2%3DAND%26amp%3Bf2%3Dall%26amp%3Bc3%3DAND%26amp%3Bgroup%3Dnone%26amp%3Bacc%3Don%26amp%3Bc4%3DAND%26amp%3BsearchType%3DfacetSearch%26amp%3Bf6%3Dall%26amp%3Bsd%3D2010%26amp%3Bpage%3D1%26amp%3Bc1%3DAND%26amp%3Bed%3D2018%26amp%3Bq1%3Degypt%26amp%3Bf0%3Dall%26amp%3Bf4%3Dall%26amp%3Bf3%3Dall%26amp%3Bc5%3DAND&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

should be changed to |jstor=10.7249/j.ctt4cgd90.10 and remove the URL. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Another one: https://www.jstor.org.libweb.lib.utsa.edu/stable/3347357 (t) Josve05a (c) 12:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Another one https://www.jstor.org.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/stable/44645167 (t) Josve05a (c) 13:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1368 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}}

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1366 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

[Wrapping up the discussion someone was in a hurry to bury in the archive.]

My thanks to Boghog for explaining that single URLs are now count double in the presence of DOIs. Headbomb's "linking twice" explanation would have been more useful if he had mentioned that DOIs count as URLs. (And his arithmetic is still faulty.)

The edit summary is still stupid. I have no problem with removing the accessdate, but removing it on the basis of there being "no specified URL" in same edit where the extant URL is removed is so stupefying that it ought to be suppressed. The "Removing parameters", while strictly true, is so lamely under-informative that I marvel at the possibility someone thought that was a useful message. Surely that could be improved. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

it will take a lot of coding. I will put that on the back burner to attack once oauth is done. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity: why would it "take a lot of coding"? I would expect there is an array of messages, just edit them. Or: is the challenge in extending the messaging function to specific actions? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

last time I looked the message code was a mess. I looked again and we have actually cleaned it up that it was actually easy. I am shocked it is now this easy: https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1365 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Next time I before I say something is hard, I had better double check the current code base! AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

My gratitude for cleaning that up would not be lessened for it being easy. :-) But I am mindful of a comment from Sherlock Holmes: "I thought you might have done something clever." :-( ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I have done some very clever coding in my time, but this is not one of those times. Although, the clean-up that enabled this might have been done by me. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

When expanding from {{Cite journal |jstor = 420824}} (t) Josve05a (c) 00:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1374 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I just tried this for the first time on two pages, the first with Commit edits selected and the second without them. The first time the app stated it made the changes, but nothing appeared changed via View History. The second time I tried this it was with Commit edits turned off, so I reviewed them and submitted via the button on the bottom. Both times nothing appeared edited on the articles themselves via View History. Am I doing something incorrectly or is there an issue with the bot? Thanks. --- FULBERT (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

the bot is currently blocked. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

That explains it. Thanks AManWithNoPlan! --- FULBERT (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Gadget (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Citation_bot/use ) is not blocked. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Odd I used it yesterday and it was fine. today nothing like you say--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

{{notabug}} flag for archive

Hi. This edit changed a citation (Irish University Review) from the page number of the cited content (page 5) to the page range of the journal article (pages 5–21). Please make sure the bot isn't doing the same on other articles. Scolaire (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

the bots actions are correct. If you want a specific page, you need to use |at=. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

{{notabug}}, but template documentation could be better—it is generic and not cite journal specific. Also, incorrectly putting in the first page is so incredibly common that expanding to a range is the right thing %99.99 of the time. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it. I agree that it should be made clearer in the documentation. Scolaire (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

The template documentation is not at fault here. There have been ongoing discussions over the past many years about journal citations referring to the whole work of the article rather than the specific page. The bot should probably not be acting on these at all. --Izno (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I wonder if the bot finds a page that is within the page range then it should change it to |at= for the sake of being precise. If the page is the first page or out of range or blank the update to range. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm still confused. If the "pages" parameter is meant for the page range of the article (which is different from its use in Cite book, for instance), why is there a "page" parameter as well as an "at" parameter? Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You are using the template correctly. The reason that you're still confused is because journals for some reason have a Special Case By Convention perhaps not obvious to everyone. You can search the talk archives of Help talk:CS1 to see that it has been discussed, with no obvious final resolution on the point. --Izno (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd be okay with "if it finds the page inside the page range (inclusive), leave alone, otherwise update". --Izno (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1301 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

but Help:Citation Style 1 says at: place in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text when a page number is not given, is inappropriate or is insufficient. Common examples include column or col., paragraph or para. and section or sec; where are you seeing that |at= should be used for specific pages in the source used for a particular sentence in the article? The same page also says page: page in the cited source containing the information that supports the article text, for example, i.e., it's not saying the page the cited source appears on. Umimmak (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Good point, we were just tossing ideas around. The main idea what that converting to |at= would protect from bots in general. But, that's missusing the templates. We will fix ourselves, but no do the change. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

And |at= and |page(s)= are treated differently in the citations. Compare the use of a colon in "Article Title". Journal. 1: 1. (|page=) vs a period in "Article Title". Journal. 1. 1. (|at=) or the use of a p. in Book Title. p. 1. (|page=) but not in Book Title. 1. (|at=). Umimmak (talk) 01:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1381 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I figured it out. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1384 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Definitely would want metadata confirmation on that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The examples in the diff does have metadata confirmation on JSTOR, so for those it should be done for at least :) (t) Josve05a (c) 18:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1382 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1372 This should help a lot AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Cross_ref lists the book authors as authors of the articles. GIGO.  :-( AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

When the bot dies (such as when it is blocked) the error message goes to the console. This pull once implemented will send errors to HTML also. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1385 (I am attempting to document signifcant code changes on wikipedia) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}}. It now gives errors. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Please track how the bot is activated in edit summaries (toolbar, draft, website, other peoples *.js files). Use whitelist of approved methods, with 'toolbar' being grandfathered. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

{{wontfix}} Just to unreliable. People just copy text for key. No real point if we get User Oauth up and running. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHERE is explicitly not WP:SAYHOW. While |via= may let readers know where a link points to when it's unusual, it's pointless to have when you have no link to go with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is a bad change. I don't need a URL to be reproduced by a secondary organization. --Izno (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed about it being a bad change. |via= is often used in lieu of a URL precisely because EBSCOhost and other repositories don’t have permanent URLs, but it’s still useful to let people know where they got the article. Umimmak (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

And that's exactly what WP:SAYWHERE says not to do. That you read a journal article through an EBSCO database versus PASCAL, ProjectMuse, or GoogleScholar is irrelevant. This is also undue promotion/publicity of paid databases.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

But we still have parameters like |jstor= because it can be helpful to let the reader know that an online version of the article exists on JSTOR. I don’t see how this use of |via= is different; it lets the reader know the article can be found in a particular database which they might have access to. If you don’t want to use |via= at all, that’s one move you could try to gain consensus for but I don’t see the benefit of removing it only when there isn’t a URL. (Surely the URL tells you where you’re going, making |via= redundant, no?) Umimmak (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

JSTOR is very different: it's an identifier, which was also assigned to publications never digitised before and lacking a DOI. (Although some JSTOR IDs have also become DOIs, while other publications with a JSTOR ID have been later been assigned a DOI by a publisher.) Nemo 21:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

|jstor= gives you a link to the specific paper on the JSTOR repository. We don't just add |via=JSTOR with no link to JSTOR. There is no reason for the reader to care that you've personally accessed the article via an EBSCOhost vs PASCAL vs ProQuest vs Whatever database, the only thing that matters is what article you read. How you've accessed the material is irrelevant.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes and if EBSCO had convenient URLs or identifiers those would be used instead of |via=; I still think it’s helpful to say a resource is available online, particularly when it’s a resource Wikipedia editors have access to via WP:LIB. Umimmak (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Which makes it extra pointless to readers (and even harmful since you're directing them manual search for sources they cannot access), completely unneeded for WP:V, promotes a specific commercial service, and against WP:SAYWHERE. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Amazon links and Google links to books are supposed to be removed unless they link to a free preview of the referenced information. This is because we are not supposed to promote individual content providers. This is relevant to consider. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Basically, if via was valid without a url, then |via=Google it you dumbass would basically be the right answer on 99% of {{cite web}}. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No? It has legitimate use even with a URL. See the documentation for the parameter. This bot should not touch via whatsoever. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

When we lose urls we obviously get rid of it, and in most cases it is probably best to get rid of when no url, but this seems like something that should only be removed by an automatic process if there are obvious other links such as doi/pmc. Having a bot just remove them in general seems dubious. Although I do laugh when vis says Google search and remove it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, it is amazing how often I find ‘my local library’ as the |via= AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless |via= provided some uquique source of information, it is simply promoting a specific database. Unrelated side note: EBSCO so-called urls do suck. ProQuest at least gives every document a single number (actually, they sometimes give it more than one) that you can simply use. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb conveniently forgets that the RfC on |via= also closed with consensus against their position (getting to be a bit of a pattern that). However, they are correct that the parameter should not be used to indicate that a paper might be available from a particular database: it's to indicate that database through which it was actually accessed, and some judgement and common sense is required regarding its use (do not blindly add it). There is no good reason to include |via= when the specific source accessed cannot possibly have any differences from a conceptual perfect master: a prime example is a paper journal accessed in a physical copy in your local library (and the same, roughly, goes for an electronic copy on the publishers own website: both are effectively to be considered perfect copy of record, and only third-party republishing/access should be indicated in |via=). However, this does in no way require a link or identifier: you may have accessed the article through a random website or database, identiified in |via=, but omitted to include the link or identifier. That makes the flaw in the citation the absence of links or identifiers, not the precense of |via= (in fact, in that case |via= may be essential to enable locating the source in question, or determining equivalency between copies of indeterminate provenance). The matter of when |via= serves a purpose and when it is just pointless clutter is not a clear cut one, which is why it should not be treated mechanistically: it is not something that can be determined by a bot based on a simplistic rule like presence of |url=. However, there are probably a few (a very few) "blacklist" type cases that could constructively be detected, along the lines of |via=my local library or |via=web search. Things like |via=Google do not qualify: it may be trying to identify a Google Books preview or similar that needs human judgement to determine whether it makes sense or no (that it will likely mostly not make sense does not change that fact). And "human judgement" is not the few self-selected people here: it requires looking individually at each specific instance, and is subject to local consensus processes at each article. You can't make a consensus here that decides what happens over there. Case in point, Headbomb's favourite bugaboo, |via=EBSCOhost, can be argued both ways (include vs. leave out) and thus needs to employ the same consensus processes as all other such issues (SAYWHERE describes what you are not required to do, not what you are prohibited from doing). Removing it with a bot is simply an attempt to circumvent those processes. --Xover (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

There was an RFC on via? When? As for your example "There is no good reason to include |via= when the specific source accessed cannot possibly have any differences from a conceptual perfect master". That's exactly what those databases offer. Perfect reproductions of published version of records, with no material differences, save perhaps for a preamble page unique to the database. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Given you were the one that started the RfC, your question here now is pretty disingenious. And your further argument is a salient one to make when discussing one specific use in one specific citation. I might even conceivably agree with you in such a discussion (or not; it would depend on the situation). --Xover (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, what RFC? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I do remember Headbomb getting some KFC, but I no memory of an RFC. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it is this Should WP:TWL be allowed to acknowledge the services they have partnership with in our articles Where via was generally considered worthless and often harmful, but did in some situations have value (in all the discussions it generally assumed that a url was present. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb - you at one point were involved, but I would not call it yours. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Flagging as {{wontfix}}, since complete removal is beyond the scope of an automatic bot. But, you can always request specific ones. Once this pull is accepted, more will be removed (in this case some publishers when via is set and there is a doi, and no url). https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1394 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: then that should be extended to other identifiers as well, not just DOI. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Updated. This is a nice solution. We get rid of ones that we know are not useful only. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Those are manual changes I had to make manually (both edits). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

How are you activating the bot? It works for me. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I enabled the citation expander as stated here, and then press the "Citations" button in the edit bar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

that’s the right way. Did the bot do anything to the page? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, nothing. I'm presented with empty diffs. This isn't new behaviour either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

it might be your skin is incompatible or it might be that you have your own bot button in your common.js or other file that overrides it or you have part of the old do it yourself bot button in your common.js file that messed it up. Other files like vector.js too. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a css expert, but you can take a look at User:Headbomb/monobook.js/User:Headbomb/monobook.css and see if there's anything that helps troubleshooting. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I copied that stuff into my files and changed to monobook and it still worked for me. Odd. Wikipedia does have a bazillon settings though. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I looked at the gadget source code and the fact that it goes to a diff means that the gadget is running and sending and getting text back. It’s almost as if the text sent to the gadget is encoded in some way so that the bot does nothing to it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Found the issue, it clashes with User:Cacycle/wikEd. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I was literally gonna ask you if you used that!!! AManWithNoPlan (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

{{wontfix}} but added note in use page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1396 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Now is gives an error if nothing has changed. Odd. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

GIGO. The DOI record has no title. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wow, doi records without tiles...what a world. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Per a request at WP:ANRFC, I have closed Help talk:Citation Style 1#RFC on publisher and location in cite journal, which concerns the actions of Citation bot (you). Since your operator has not edited in almost 2 weeks, I have also requested that the bot be blocked until it is compliant with the result of the RfC. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've done so. Sandstein 20:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1364 code written, just waiting for deployment AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it speaks volumes that you apparently think "the RFC went our way mostly" (It didn't. It pretty much did exactly the opposite.) and that, provided I'm reading the code correctly, you've switched from removing it to recommending to the bot's users to remove them manually (that is, you're trying to use them as unwitting WP:MEATPUPPETs). In my book that's a blatant attempt to WP:GAME the system and still use your bot to circumvent both explicit community consensus and WP:CITEVAR. Is this really going to have to end up at ANI before you drop thiis particular stick?

@Sandstein: Please take the above into account before entertaining a request to unblock the bot again, and if in doubt perhaps solicit input from either BAG or AN/ANI (Not trying to "Let's you and him fight": I'm obviously involved which is why I'm pointing at presumably independent forums for input.). --Xover (talk) 20:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

people are allowed to have different opinions on the general outcome. I wouldn’t have posted the link to the pull if I was trying to be a muppet. Also, I have changed the pull following the suggestions. Also, I am not the bot opperator, so using my unaccepted pull as guidance would be an abuse of the operators good faith. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Voicing dissenting opinions and having a different opinion on closures is absolutely acceptable behavior (even if they are on another website in the comment section of pull request). Advising users who use the tool/bot's GUI about the maintainer's opinion on the inclusion of a parameter (i.e. writing on the GUI page "you should probably do this and that") is none of this community's business, and such controlling behavior is a dangerous slope. The RfC was to stop automatic removals, which is being implemented, all other STICKy behavior by users trying to censure opinions by a (volunteer maintainer, not operator) user is way out of line, imo. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

that’s exactly why I included the link. So, people could comment. Thank you for the feedback. The patch is changed to just mention its existence now, or is merely mentioning it have an implication of ‘and this is stupid, so delete it’? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(ec, and past my bed time; will respond at length tomorrow) Short version: yes, even the "less opinionated" version carries that connotation and reads like an attempt to circumvent consensus. Also, if the intent was to seek feedback, you need to write "Here's a first cut. Any feedback?" (or whatever). Your above message in no way suggested that you were looking for feedback, and as all my previous attempts to provide such were ignored there was no possible grounds for me to assume any would be welcomed in this case either. --Xover (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Consensus, as I read, was only that it should not be automated (which is compiled to by this pull). There was no consensus (from what I can tell if they should be removed or not, so by "notifying" users in the GUI that it (in the bot's opinion) should probably be removed, is not "an attempt to circumvent consensus" it is clearly abiding by it. What the maintainers leave in their code comments (or pull comments in this case) on another website has no real bearing here, and what matters is that it is being turned off from automatic. I despise (harsh, but true) any and all attemt to censor what the GUI should "propose or not propose" to the end user, as long as it isn't automated, it will be up to the end user to follow policy and consensus in the end.(t) Josve05a (c) 22:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

@Josve05a: The threading is badly messed up here, so this is actually a reply to your previous message due to intervening edit conflicts etc.

Any editor may voice their opinion anywhere they like, and the bot's operators are free to write all the essays they want (in fact, that approach would have avoided a whole lot of needless conflict and drama). But the bot policy explicitly prohibits using bots for edits that do not have consensus: editors can be as opinionated as they like, but bots should not be.

Oh, and anything on the project is "this community's business": operating a bot is a privilege, not a right. One should feel free to disagree with the community all one wants (I frequently do), but moving something to toolforge does not somehow magically make it exempt from community consensus.

However, your position, as expressed in your second message, is noted. You are, of course, entirely entitled to it, and my disagreement with it, individually, matters very little. You are an editor, not a bot, and your opinions and mine have exactly the same basic ability to effect change. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that people have an amazing ability to blindly follow orders I have removed the informative part of the pull. Honestly, anyone who thinks someone is going to read what the bot says and act upon it gives the Bot way to much credit; although people surprise me all the time. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Still provided I read the diff right, that removes my concern with CitationBot's behaviour on this point and consequently also my objection to its being unblocked once actually implemented and other relevant issues resolved. FYI ping to Sandstein. In addition I want to thank you (AManWithNoPlan) for being both responsive to community consensus (on the general part), and willing to take on specific feedback, on this issue. That certainly disproves my previous complaints on these counts. --Xover (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein Xover The code has been uploaded. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

This is such a useful tool. When can we expect it to be up and running again? Thanks all. --Akrasia25 (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No idea. I am not sure where/who to ask. But, the gadget API still works. That's where you run the bot on text in and edit window. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

The gadget was working yesterday but it is not this am. I would like to push a new page out but not before I fix those references.--Akrasia25 (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Worked for me now. The tool servers sometimes just are overloaded, or something on the page crashes the bot, which is always good to report. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Akrasia25, you can ask the blocking admin on their talk page. Nemo 20:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Call me selfish, but I am enjoying the bot being down and getting a break from bug reports and enjoying the test suite running blazing fast. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

And I am relieved to see fewer dubious "fixes". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

😲😂🤣😆 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

True that, it's ok to pause for a few days and let the maintainers recover. :) Nemo 10:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Headbomb just keeps the reports coming though. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Damn right I do! I'm making the best of the Citation expander gadget, which lead to a couple of improvements on that tool, so yay? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reviewed thousands of diffs in the last few weeks but I can go through some more of them if there is a shortage of manual fixes/reports. :p Nemo 16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Someone complained about something really kinda stupid and while tracking it down I fixed several other things, so sometimes even them minor stupid things are helpful, since they get me looking at the code from a new perspective. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sandstein: The bot has been updates (as stated above; and confirmed by running the manual gadget tool with same codebase) to be in compliance of the RfC, which was the basis of the block. What more needs to be done for you to unblock the bot? (t) Josve05a (c) 21:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, not much of a bot person. Isn't updating the bot something that only the operator can do? The operator is an admin, they can unblock the bot themselves after it's been fixed. Sandstein 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The bot operator merged the change written by AManWithNoPlan four days ago. The bot's source code is open source and anybody can fix issues, but can only be "made live" by the operator which has been done. The bot is essential to the project, so the quicker it is unblocked, the better. (forgot to ping the reply: Sandstein) (t) Josve05a (c) 22:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there and admin in the house? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

  Done Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} - flag to archive. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If this unbreaks the DOI, it's a good edit. If it's still broken, bad edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This template is a poor man's cite journal. However, there could be limited support for the common parameters (|lastn=/|firstn=/|year=/|journal=/|volume=/|pages=) and light |url= cleanup (e.g. trim academia.edu links, but not outright removal of a doi link, since cite LSA doesn't support identifiers). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. Too much "No! not that feature this time!" code to right. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}

{{wontfix}}. appears to be transient database failure. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}. appears to be transient database failure. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, when there are no changes, it does that. I think this fixes it https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1404 maybe AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It was doing that before processing. Now it's doing it after when it finds nothing. However, saying this is an 'Error' is wrong, a better message would be "Citation expander found no suggestions for this article" or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, it's a bug. The bot is supposed to send the text back, but some reason when there are zero changes, the bot sends nothing back. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For clarify, this should remove single quotes at the start/end of journals, or double quotes at both the start/end of journals

• |journal="Journal of Foobar
• |journal=Journal of Foobar"
• |journal="Journal of Foobar"

but not in other cases

• |journal=Journal of Foobar: "Foobarist" Studies
• |journal=Journal of Foobar: "Foobarist Studies"

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1413 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The bot itself works fine though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1407 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The second example here ends up with two |issue= parameters. Keith D (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That's why a bot is better than Headbomb. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1414 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1412 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1400 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: why not capitalization? Magazines are no different than journals here? Not saying there's not a reason, but I don't see it right now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Because magazine traditionally have been footloose and fancy free with titles. And, I don't want to have to start having exceptions for "InStyle", "TIME Magazine", "ESPN The Magazine", "HGTV Magazine", "THE WEEK Magazine", and so on. Seriously, we like to think PlosONE is nuts, but they got nothing on the popular press. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair. It would be have been very helpful in cleaning up WP:MCW/TAR but I can do those by hand/through user:JCW-CleanerBot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That is a much better tool, since it can do more than capitalizations. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually that's exactly why I don't like using JCW-CleanerBot for capitalization mistakes. Citation bot does it better, has other desirable fixes, and saves me an great deal of time because it's much easier to trigger. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The doi leads to pmc which leads to pmid. But pmid search is before pmc is added. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1403 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1398 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: is the list of change not possible? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I now understand what you meant by "<changes>". I will look. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

For simplicity of long-term maintenance, it might be simpler to use the same edit summary as the bot does on its own, replacing "activated by <user>" with "via the Citation expander", or similar. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Same edit summary now. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1399 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The bot does not handle generic {{cite}} citations. Should it? Is this bogus? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a generic alias for {{citation}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1401 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Currently on two articles (one due to the bot): Special:Search/insource:/Emphasis Type/. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1405 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really sure why exactly this is being converted, but if it's because it finds both a DOI and an ISBN, it might be safer to not switch templates from one type to the other. Not saying that's the solution though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

it does not help that it is both a journal and a book https://www.sciencedirect.com/sdfe/arp/cite?pii=S1569486004071402&format=text%2Fx-bibtex&withabstract=true AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah... could be a case of GIGO. Maybe preventable GIGO, but whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1408 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The consensus was that in almost all cases the links are to the chapter, and even if they were not, the apperance of the links in the title is where people expect them to be anyway. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

But especially for a PDF, I want to know if the file I’m about to download is just what I need or the entire book which might be an excessive file size; using separate parameters as Guy Harris wants helps clarify that. Umimmak (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

PDF is interesting point. I will think on that for a little bit. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed in source per instructions. Scenario is too uncommon to reliably address in bot, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}.

You are right, we weren't dropping them if the bibcode parameter was already present. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1419 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

This should be generalized to |work/journal/publisher/...=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

|via=The Guardian is clearly wrong, as |via= almost always is wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1421 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The titles are not similare enough. GIGO shields block it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The if you query ADSABS with a doi, you get this bibcode. Not sure why there needs to be title matching here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

we used to not have it; and we got crap from time to time. If I wasn’t on break at my job I would look in the talk archives and find the bug reports. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

"Fails to add a bibicode" is a bug? I thought that was a feature. :-0 ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How many times did you try? We now give up when the Zotero server is unresponsive. Nemo 14:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried twice, I think. I don't really recall though. It would have been within a short time frame if I did. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1425 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1424 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

...but this is the best place I can think of to ask, since all of you do work with citation templates, so one of you might help me.

Is there a way to search for a list of all cite templates with |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/***** but no |doi=, |pmc= or |pmid= in them? Since the bot does not fetch such data from researchgate.net, I want to find articles such as this so I can manually add the IDs, and then run the gadget. (t) Josve05a (c) 20:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

If you're proficient with AWB, you can get [32] and [33]. This isn't the most efficient way of getting those articles though, a quary query would be better, but I don't know the language.

Then you can use the advanced find/replace settings to implement an "In Template" rule that makes an edit when you find both researchgate and (arxiv|bibcode|doi|pmid|pmc|OTHER)\s*=\s*[^\|\}] in pre-parse mode. The pages it skips are those without identifiers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I was waiting for the bit on the second step before I posted; AWB can make list from this search. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That said, that suggested doesn't work; he's looking for same-template, no DOI, and the above would reject pages where a different place on the page had a DOI but not necessarily the researchgate citation. --Izno (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ammended the above. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks y'all! (t) Josve05a (c) 15:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} flag to archive. Thanks to everybody. One day RG might allow bots. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Once again - French journal titles do NOT capitalise - please fix --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 17:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

it’s on my list-see the above idea from Headbomb. Also, most style guides actually disagree with you on this: they say you follow the style independent of the mother tounge of the journal. Some style guides lowercase everything that’s not a proper name, even when that’s not the journals real title! Style guides are a interesting thing. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

That runs into real problems with German. I have had titles reduced to all lower case, which looks very strange in that language where all nouns are in capitals. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 14:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Diff? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh not recently - maybe that has been addressed. I will watch for it. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as {{notabug}} then. If it pops again, I can be reported with a diff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no way that Key Documents of German-Jewish History is a journal! --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Michael Goodyear: (I'm not an operator or maintainer, merely a WP:TPS) Please provide diffs of edits you are referring to. (t) Josve05a (c) 17:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hannah_Arendt&diff=886257412&oldid=886256568

• Arendt, Hannah (February 15 – March 10, 1950). "Jewish Cultural Reconstruction Field Reports, 1948–1951, No. 18". Key Documents of German-Jewish History. Hamburg: Institut für die Geschichte der deutschen Juden (IGdJ), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). doi:10.23691/jgo:source-126.en.v1. Retrieved 13 January 2019. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |authormask= ignored (|author-mask= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

changed to -

• Arendt, Hannah (February 15 – March 10, 1950). "Jewish Cultural Reconstruction Field Reports, 1948–1951, No. 18". Hamburg: Institut für die Geschichte der deutschen Juden (IGdJ), Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG). doi:10.23691/jgo:source-126.en.v1. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |authormask= ignored (|author-mask= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

--Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 18:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe recognize the 10.23691 part to a cite encyclopedia? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

similar to 10.1093 ones. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem is not the conversion from web to journal. This citation is wrong to begin with. It lists a dx.doi.org url that duplicates the doi, so that gets removed. Without a url, the website= parameter has to be removed. Secondly, the website parameter is wrong to begin with, the website is dx.doi.org not "key documents...". This is a classic case of GIGO. Finally, the template choice of web vs journal vs encyclopedia has zero effect on the final redering. I will think about having the bot fix this automatically. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Without a url, the website= parameter has to be removed. |website= is synonymous with the other Work parameters (journal, [book-]title, encyclopedia, magazine, periodical, and etc.). I assume you did not mean what you said in the way you said it... --Izno (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

You are correct. When the |url= gets removed then |website= get's removed. The bot assumes that the |website= is actually used correctly. But, |website= is not removed if there is no existly |url=. Anyway, the |website= is incorrect in this example anyway. The correct parameter would be |website=dx.doi.org AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

{{wontfix}}, but I did correct manually a bunch of pages AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot changed template {{Cite web}} for magazine sources to {{Cite book}}. Bot changed {{Cite web}} for a website-only source to {{Cite news}}; furthermore, per the template guidelines for {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} regarding which one to use: as of 29 July 2016, given the same set of valid parameters, the output between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} is exactly the same -- which means that choosing which template to use depends on the details about the source (e.g. a newspaper source may need to include edition, volume, issue, location). Pyxis Solitary yak 03:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Could you point to some examples. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I normally don't bother to go this far with what bots do, but it may be happening in other articles. Here's the latest example from an article I am familiar with: 19:38, 7 March 2019. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Beast is considered "news", but you are correct the distinction is largely meaningless since many of the cite templates are really just the same, but different names. Many online "news" sources do oddly include "issues", etc.. While converting "web" to "book" for the magazines is an improvement (a magazine is closer to a book than a website), I will investigate to see if there is anything we can do about that. I suspect that the website self-identifies that information as a book instead of a magazine. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

{{wontfix}} right now, since bad metadata. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Similarly for OUP doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zly047 [34] vs. [35] (but the DOI is included in the final URL, was that test dropped?). Nemo 09:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

10.1093 DOIs have been problematic. So, we do not drop them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah right, I had forgotten. What strategy could be available to deal with them? Nemo 19:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The default needs to be keep them. We could posssibly create a whitelist of good ones, such as '10.1093/zoolinnean/'. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

white list started. https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1426 and done. Yuck. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1431 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a special case where n.paradoxa shouldn't be changed to N.Paradoxa (rather N.Paradoxa and all variants should be converted to the lowercase n.paradoxa.

Likewise Zookeys and Bmj, Cmaj and all variants should be converted to ZooKeys, BMJ, and CMAJ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

is zoo keys not already? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It could be in already, I just know it's very widespread (Zookeys is at least used 2000 times), so I figure I'd mention it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1432 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Instead of Phytokeys Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe I have mentioned this before, but it continues to vex and annoy: the manner in which the bot typically adds a bibcode. It used to just prefix it to the closing pair of braces. Which confuses matters when one has a long list of citation templates line up vertically, with the closing braces deliberately placed in the first column to more clearly show the end of each citation: it hides the braces behind the bibcode, in a position not expected. I have seen a recent edit where the bibcode was placed on its own line, but then it inserted some whitespace before the braces. I wonder if the bot was trying to insert an MS-DOS style "CRLF" newline, and the LF got converted to a space. Perhaps that could be checked. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The bot is supposed to grab the formatting of the second item in the citation spacing, CR, LF, etc.. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

a couple examples please. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1430 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}}

{{Cite book}} with |chapter=, |title=, and |series=, then do not add: seems reasonable. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1440 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This should apply to most/all fields, not just |journal=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Not urls and quote though (The only thing standard about urls is they have no standards). AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1434 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

When running it in gadget mode, it should read "tool" and not "bot" in the edit summary, since it is not a bot that makes the edits (in order not to confuse BOTPOL etc.) (t) Josve05a (c) 19:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Right on! https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1438 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The gadget-tool is not loading properly/given timeouts instead. "plain 502 from nginx". "Some NFS and then grid engine hiccups earlier today that could have put some tools in a bad state". (t) Josve05a (c) 23:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Everything is down, yes. Not just the gadget. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

other than a bug, it is impossible for only part of the tool to be down. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

No one who reads this page can reboot the tool — unless someone with tool server administration privileges is here. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I talked with Krenair, when I noticed this issue with multiple tools yesterday, who said I needed to contact the tool author to restart the tool. I thought this was the best place to find "the tool author". (t) Josve05a (c) 15:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

The users with access are listed on https://tools.wmflabs.org/admin/tool/citation-bot . Do Smith609, Maximilianklein or others just need to issue a "webservice restart"? Nemo 16:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Nemo_bis are you relying on citation-bot? It's no longer maintained, it looks like citations is the new replacement. Maximilianklein (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad, I initially pasted "citations" and then manually "corrected" to the wrong version. :) Sorry for the ping. Nemo 20:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}} AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1448 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I cleaned up the existing uses, but the remaining ones are not journals, but rather entries for the bookshelves, or sub-NCBI pages like Entrez or Genes or whatever, so I'm not sure this is good fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

{{wontfix}} then. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

We may not have consensus to remove publishers in general, but this is a clear case of garbage use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think many of these may have been added by earlier instantiations of Citation bot. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they're mostly added manually, or via semi-assisted scripts by people who don't know the difference. This one was done here.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

a little odd too for a DOI to be an archiveurl.

I've been mulling over the publisher/location thing, and I'm not sure why citation bot didn't do it before, but it seems CB could add the correct publisher/location instead of having simply removed it. --Izno (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This is bug so that removal of garbage information is removed, no different than if the publisher contained a DOI instead. Citation bot may not have consensus to remove publishers, but it certainly has no consensus to add publishers to journals against every style guide out there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

but it certainly has no consensus to add publishers to journals against every style guide out there I'm happy to start another RFC just to see if that does exist contrary to your opinion. That aside, no, it is also your opinion that this bug should be resolved by removal of the offending information rather than replacement with correct information. Since your judgement regarding removal of the publisher and location was clearly wrong according to the community, I would be real hesitant to agree with any stance you take which purports to speak for the community. --Izno (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

In any case that we could get the publisher information reliably would be a case where the meta-data was so available that there would be no need for publisher and location. Also, the meta-data is not that reliable for this parameter. Lastly, it is not as though we could get this information. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

This includes things like [42] ideally. I could file as seperate matter too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1447 Removes |publisher= when it is identical to |journal=. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

{{cite news}} is not part of the normal process, so it gets minimal processing. As such, it is not part of the modifications tracking system. I think we need a second tracking system. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1433 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443/files#diff-db1d6987f6179e55530bd0cb2eb85f87 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1444 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a CONTEXT-sensitive change. It might be reasonable in some journal names but I wouldn't want the bot capitalizing after a semicolon generally. --Izno (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is that a semicolon though? The use indicates a colon is correct. --Izno (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Not really a context sensitive change, since any 'valid' use would mean a break in the phrase, and so capitalization would resume right after. In practice, semi columns are usually signs of GIGO stuff. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

and so capitalization would resume right after No? This is a valid sentence; why did you say this thing? <- is correct semicoloning. See also Semicolon#Usage. --Izno (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Because this is a title, and those are the rules of title casing. You don't write an article published in The Journal of the Assocation; an Occasional Publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

So you accept this should only apply to journal titles as a base assumption? Okay, even in that case, I imagine this case of semicolons in journal titles is vanishingly rare that we shouldn't add the rule to the bot. In most cases, it will be a GIGO situation (as with your example). --Izno (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The rule specifically pertains to journal titles, so there is no issue. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443 Just this for now. I am feeling that doing this in chapter titles and such would be bad form. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1443 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1457 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1456 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1453 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1453 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1458 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

We have code that does this already. I am curious why Wikipedia told us that was valid. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That username reports 'moved', not 'wrong'. Adding test for that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

To catch stuff like Nz Herald. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

{{fixed}}

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1439 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1465 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1460 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Or just when there is a |citeseerx= in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1462 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1463 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1475 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Odd, I thought we did not do that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1477 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1475 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Address the problem at its root source, report the violation to CiteSeerX, if it is, in fact, a violation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

No. CiteSeerX has different constraints than we do on what we can link. WP:ELNEVER is very clear. It is not the responsibility of CiteSeerX to prevent you from adding violating links. And it should not be the responsibility of human editors to hand-check each and every one of these thousands of edits the bot is making. If you are not willing to stop the bot from adding these bad links, I will block it. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

CiteSeerX is a big boy site, and they have their big boy pants on. If there are hosting paper while violating copyright, they're the ones exposing themselves to lawsuits, not Wikipedia. We also do not link to the paper directly, we link to CiteSeerX metadata, which is not a copyright violation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

CiteSeerX does not appear to be violating copyright law in any way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Citation_bot/Archive_13#Do_not_automatically_add_Citeseerx AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

That earlier discussion was about user-activated instantiations of the bot. When a user does this, they implicitly take responsibility for checking the results and making sure that they are not introducing link policy violations. The discussion here is about fully automatic instantiations, when there is no user but Citation bot itself to blame. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Also of note, if you block the bot, very likely you will get in trouble for violating WP:INVOLVED. I know I'd start proceedings against you did you did take an admin action in such a matter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

[edit conflict] That may or may not be true but it is irrelevant. What part of "External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." is unclear? Note the complete absence of whether the link host is in violation of law from those conditions. None of those conditions appear to be true for the link in question, unless you interpret "fair use" so broadly as to make any link anywhere ok. And how am I involved? I have not participated in bot development and have merely watched the bot make many dubious changes and reacted to them, the same as I would for any other editor making rapid-fire dubious changes. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You want to change how the bot operates, and have tried repeatedly to do so, and now are using your admin bit as a blugdeon, rather than demonstrate via consensus there is a problem with the bot's actions, or that linking to CiteSeerX metadata via bot is legally problematic despite the evidence to the contrary. And I'll also point out that there is a very easy way to prevent the bot from repeating mistakes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea whether it is legally problematic, neither do you, and that is in any case a red herring. The issue is that it is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's external link guidelines. They have different and stricter standards than the law, and it is those standards we must live up to here. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Again, we are not linking to a copy of the paper, we are linking to CiteSeerX metadata (e.g. CiteSeer^x: 10.1.1.54.9556). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You are continuing to Wikilawyer but a sentence only a couple lines down is again clear: "If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." That does not have any exception for Playboy-style "we're only reading it for the articles, not the porn" excuses. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The bot doesn't run in a fully automated way. However, see below. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

So your position is now "it's someone else's fault but I can't tell you whose"? That's not good enough. We need these bad link additions to stop. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Meanwhile I wonder what's the point of removing an identifier which at CiteSeerX doesn't even have a PDF. Nemo 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The only point of linking to that identifier is to follow its links to copies of a paper hosted elsewhere which, if pointed to directly, would certainly violate WP:ELNEVER. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's not my understanding. Exposing metadata and a citation graph is the/a primary aim of the linked CiteSeerX pages, per http://csxstatic.ist.psu.edu/home . Nemo 20:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This entire discussion is misguided. The Wikipedia standard does NOT apply to references. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:COPYLINK is the correct standard AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

COPYLINK is also pretty clear... "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" ... "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright" (and I don't want to see you trotting out the old "they've never been convicted so it's not copyright violation" bullshit). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

not try to dodge discussion, just wanted to make sure that we were reading the correct documentation: not WP:ELNEVER but WP: COPYLINK AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Discuss https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#CiteSeerX_copyrights_and_linking AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I might have a test. I notice in the case of possible copyright violations, the listed "where was this found" links on CiteSeerX are usually down. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

That is incorrect in both directions. If you avoid linking to CiteSeerX when its source links are down, you will remove most of the point of ever linking to CiteSeerX for valid links (preserving the links more permanently). And if you link to CiteSeerX whenever its found links are still valid, you will still link to plenty of copyvios. The first link in Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested/Archive_12#CiteSeerX and Citation bot is an example. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That'd be a bad test then, yup. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There is an API that would give the original URL is a farely human bot manner. See: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/oai2?verb=GetRecord&metadataPrefix=oai_dc&identifier=oai:CiteSeerX.psu:10.1.1.337.4 see <dc:source> but I do question the validity of it also AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Since we are blocked, this issue is {{fixed}}. Flagging for archive so this issue discussion will stop here and move where it belongs in the Wikipedia copyright pages that are linked below in the block discussion. Hopefully with more than the usual suspects we can finally 'permanently' put this discussion to bed one way or another. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Example

<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ash-Shareef|first=Abdurrahim Khairullah Omar|date=15 November 2014|title=Aspects of Ancient Muslim Scholars' Induction Drawn from the Holy Qur'an in Proving Earth is Spherical|url=http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=DD2DCDD1CA1A2919464B976C500F9FFE?doi=10.1.1.832.9945&rep=rep1&type=pdf|journal=Journal of Education and Practice|volume=5|pages=210–218|via=}}</ref>

(t) Josve05a (c) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/1461 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)