User talk:Citation bot: Difference between revisions

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 32 as User talk:Citation bot/Archive 31 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Note: See also how to prevent the bot from repeating mistakes. See also Help:CS1, and {{cite xxx}} documentation in general.

Note that the bot's maintainer and assistants (Thing 1 and Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Wikipedia. The code is open source and interested parties are invited to assist with the operation and extension of the bot. Before reporting a bug, please note: Addition of DUPLICATE_xxx= to citation templates by this bot is a feature. When there are two identical parameters in a citation template, the bot renames one to DUPLICATE_xxx=. The bot is pointing out the problem with the template. The solution is to choose one of the two parameters and remove the other one, or to convert it to an appropriate parameter. A 503 error means that the bot is overloaded and you should try again later – wait at least an hour.

Please click here to report an error.

Or, for a faster response from the maintainers, submit a pull request with appropriate code fix on GitHub, if you can write the needed code.

Proper conversion of cite journal |doi=10.48550/arXiv.####.##### to proper cite arXiv |eprint=####.#####

Status

new bug

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

What happens

[1]

What should happen

[2]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

That is, when you have |journal=arxiv ..., TNT the template as {{cite arxiv |eprint=...}} and expand. What the eprint is can be determined from the DOI or the url. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Trivial and undesirable changes to |work=

Status

new bug

Reported by

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

What happens

Making trivial changes, with no other edits, in contravention of WP:COSMETICBOT policy.

What should happen

Should not make trivial changes except as part of a more substantive edit. Also, it should not be making this specific change at all, since it is not an improvement: There is no reason to use a long parameter alias when a short one will do, and using this particular short one, |work=, facilitates conversion between citation templates, e.g. when {{Cite web}} or {{Cite news}} would be more appropriate for the source in question.

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Van_cat&type=revision&diff=1083853848&oldid=1083423045&diffmode=source

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

While a bug for it to be done alone, reverting that edit is nonsense. |journal= is clear, |work= isn't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely an unorthodox use of work in the cite journal template. have never seen that system. template clearly shows using journal parameter. seems like the bot made a good fix to me.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

And SMcCandlish's revert was a breach of WP:COSMETICREVERT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Editors also convert from cs1 to cs2 so converting {{cite journal}} to {{citation}} when the journal title is held in |work= causes a loss of 'journal-style' |volume= and |issue= formatting:

{{cite journal |title=Title |work=Journal |volume=123 |issue=6}} – assuming that the source really is a scholarly or academic journal

"Title". Journal. 123 (6).

{{citation |title=Title |work=Journal |volume=123 |issue=6}} – now renders like a magazine or generic periodical

"Title", Journal, vol. 123, no. 6

No doubt, going the other way can cause similar mis-rendering. So, in general, the 'work' parameter should follow the template name: |journal= for {{cite journal}}, |magazine= for {{cite magazine}}, |periodical= for {{cite periodical}}, |website= for {{cite web}}, certainly |newspaper= for {{cite news}} but (until we invent something that is more semantically correct) |website= or |work= also for {{cite news}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Automatic cite magazine conversions

Status

new bug

Reported by

adamstom97 (talk) 03:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

What happens

Quite often this bot converts {{cite web}} into {{cite magazine}} just because the website that is being cited is associated with a magazine. I believe this is incorrect, {{cite magazine}} should only be used if an actual magazine with physical pages is being cited. I'm not sure in what circumstances a bot would be able to determine that.

Relevant diffs/links

I have been ignoring or reverting these changes for a long time so there are plenty of examples out there, here is one recent one: diff.

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Online magazines are magazines. The bot's behaviour is correct. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

They aren't magazines, they are websites. They don't have physical pages, they don't have physical publishers, they don't use identifiers such as isbn, etc. If someone cites a web source with all of the correct parameters according to {{cite web}} this should not be randomly changed to {{cite magazine}} by a bot, which should be fixing actual errors. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

"Online magazines". It's in the name. And they do have identifiers, which for magazines are ISSNs. In this case, 1049-0434 (print) and 2169-3188 (online) Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

A quick Google of "do websites count as online magazines" gave several explanations for why they are not, and our own article clearly describes something that is not a basic website. Entertainment Weekly may have an ISSN for its online magazine (which this page suggests is a digital version of the magazine that can be read like a normal magazine on various devices), but it looks like ew.com is a separate thing. Is there consensus somewhere that citing a website that happens to be associated to a magazine using {{cite web}} is incorrect? Or was it just decided by the bot people that it needed to change those refs? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment: it's not just with {{Cite magazine}}, Citation Bot also converts {{Cite web}} templates to {{Cite newspaper}} and {{Cite news}} from time to time, which I feel is unnecessary. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Gonnym here as they may have something to add. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I also don't agree with these changes and I feel that if the bot wants to continue with them, it should actually see if there is consensus for it. Gonnym (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

{{Cite magazine}} states, "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters." So citations of articles from the website should remain web citations and not be converted to magazine citations like the bot currently does. -- Zoo (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Just letting this page's watchers know that a simultaneous discussion is going on at WT:MCU § Entertainment Weekly citation type. Perhaps it would be better to keeps things centralized. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not see an immediate issue with these changes, as they have occurred on MCU articles such as WandaVision for Rolling Stone, but given how widespread they are, and how the templates are only intended to be used to cite the publications themselves, whereas cite web should remain just for the websites themselves. I'm unsure if there was any consensus to make this change to the bot, but I do not see a need for changing the cite web templates. Cite news and cite web are generally the same, although cite web should remain for sites like Collider.com, which has also been changed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

It also converts Bleeding Cool from cite web to cite news. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that Entertainment Weekly and Rolling Stone, if using the |url= para and clearly pulling an article from their websites, should be using {{Cite web}}, not {{Cite magazine}}. Obviously, if you are citing a print article from either, then {{Cite magazine}} should be used then (and in many of those cases, the |url= parameter would not be used at all). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, Entertainment Weekly was never affected by this tool until recently, so what changed? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears it could have been from this request here back in April. In this instance, the only change should be if {{cite journal}} is being used to cite Entertainment Weekly, NOT {{Cite web}}. The publication shouldn't have a "catch all" adjustment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok so I'm pretty sure in this part of the code, it needs to be edited at line 581 to remove 'entertainment weekly' and 'rolling stone' from "ARE_MAGAZINES" and move those to line 590 for "ARE_MANY_THINGS". I don't know if any of the other bot's files need adjustment, but this seemed to be where the issue lies. And honestly, I feel basically a lot more in the "ARE_MAGAZINES" need to move too... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: apologies for the ping, but I saw you as contributor on this part of the GitHub. Are you able to assist in these changes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

No prob at all with the ping, @Favre1fan93. It's a helpful way of letting me know that I might be able to help.

I have a vague recollection of making a related change a few weeks ago, so I could probably make this one if I approved of it and if there was consensus to do it.

But I don't approve of this change; I oppose it. I agree 100% with @Headbomb's succinct comment that {{tq|Online magazines are magazines. The bot's behaviour is correct|q=y}}. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: The documentation for Cite magazine says: This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters. I would not use this to cite an article appearing on Entertainment Weekly's website, nor Rolling Stone's; I'd use Cite web (or news). Also it doesn't help the fact going forward that EW is ceasing print publication, which even more so shouldn't use Cite magazine in my view. At the very least, I believe EW should be removed from what was done with the add requested back in April, because that was for a single-use instance where an article was citing the print magazine. I don't know how to check, but I'd gather the vast majority of EW cites on the project are from their online articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, is there any visual difference between {{Cite web}}, {{Cite magazine}}, and {{Cite news}}? Or between |url= and |magazine= and |newspaper=? If not, what is the purpose/benefit of the bot changing the templates/parameters? InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: the diff is that {{Cite magazine}}, and {{Cite news}} support some parameters used only for paper publications, but {{Cite web}} does not support those parameters. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Which is why making such a change to online magazine articles is pointless. They're not going to have page numbers or ISSNs and stuff like that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I get that. But still, I agree 100% with Headbomb's comment that Online magazines are magazines. The bot's behaviour is correct, and you appeared to have overlooked our views when interpreting the documentation for Cite magazine.

So for a ref to EW or Rolling Stone, I would prefer {{Cite magazine}}.

For me this is the same issue as using {{Cite news}} for a ref to The Guardian newspaper. Sure, most en.wp editors use the website rather than print, but The Guardian and The Observer that's appropriate because both adopted a "Digital First" strategy in 2011.

"Digital First" did not make The Guardian' cease to be a daily newspaper.

"Digital First" did not make The Observer' cease to be a Sunday newspaper.

The same applies to Rolling Stone magazine and to EW. The move online does not make either of them cease to be a magazine. They are now online magazines, not ex-magazines. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Well seeing as the change made a few weeks back in reference to this request was for a specific instance of the print EW, and sourcing that site had been uncontested until that point (hence this discussion), I think EW should be removed from that part of the code locking it in to just Cite magazine. Or at the very least move it to "ARE_MANY_THINGS" so hopefully instances of EW using Cite web won't be touched by this bot/tool as "incorrect" (if I'm understanding these distinctions correctly). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl you say that you agree with Headbomb's statement that Online magazines are magazines. The bot's behaviour is correct, but I don't think either of you have explained why you believe this or if there is any consensus to support it. In my response to Headbomb above I gave what I thought was reasonable evidence that online magazines and magazines are not actually the same thing, are you able to refute that or have you guys just unilaterally decided to make these widespread changes that are clearly controversial? - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: sorry, but I did not find your comments to be either substantive or persuasive. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:11, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

So you guys have just decided that you want it to be like this with no evidence or reasoning to support your position, and it sounds like you are planning to ignore the fact that many editors disagree with you (including some who do have evidence and reasoning that goes against your position). It would be fine for you to continue to do whatever you want if this toy of yours wasn't changing many articles across Wikipedia without consensus, but unfortunately it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Your false claim that I have offered no reasoning is deeply uncivil conduct. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I am curious, is there a location/past discussion that justifies which publications should be using which citation template? Has consensus been reached for any? Or have requests just come to this bot noting "issues" and then those that maintain put the publications in the certain categories? I am asking because I felt seeing the tool go through and adjust EW from Cite web to magazine as vandalism given what I felt was a stable status quo on the matter. That is why at the very least I feel as I mentioned above, moving it to "ARE_MANY_THINGS" would be acceptable since the comments in the code states "These are things that are both websites and newspapers", which applies here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

The tool is still being used on pages I watch and making these adjustments (obviously because nothing as changed), but I am viewing this now as WP:DISRUPTIVE. I continue to suggest my change be implemented, or a full removal of EW from the magazine-only list be made until some sort of great consensus can be reached on the matter. Though I have found the area of concern, I'm not confident in my own ability to make edits to the GitHub lest it causes greater issues. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there a venue where we can get more voices on this? InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @Favre1fan93 that at the very least, move EW to ARE_MANY_THINGS as it seems to fit what EW is more than just a website or a magazine. It's gotten tedious to constantly clean up after the bot and I've held off on running the bot myself, hoping for something to be changed first. -- Zoo (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: I have left a discussion notice at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (here) which seemed most appropriate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the list of believers in "Online magazines are magazines". Our article Entertainment Weekly clearly classifies this source as a magazine. I think {{cite magazine}} is an appropriate choice for this source. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: EW was a physical magazine that is now just an online magazine, but the sources that are being automatically changed to {{cite magazine}} are not for either, they are for the EW website which is a separate thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the bot seems to be applying CS1 citation guidelines (although this is not explicit in the documentation):

If I remember correctly, {{cite web}} was originally implemented to cite websites as sources that cannot fit any other classification. In general {{cite xxx}} CS1 templates cite by work (source) type, regardless of the delivery medium or publishing platform. In this case the work type is a serial (magazine). The bot is correct in its application of the CS1 formatting guidelines. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

But it isn't a magazine, that is the whole point of this discussion. It is related to a magazine, but these sources are for the website not magazine articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I suppose a real-world example is needed. Unless a missed a diff posted somewhere of such presumably erroneous conversion. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 01:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Just one example from the diff included in the report summary at the start of this section: this source is an article on ew.com that was cited using {{cite web}}. It was then automatically converted into {{cite magazine}} because EW produces a magazine, but the source is for the website not the magazine. Some users have claimed that because it comes from the magazine company's website it is actually an article from an online magazine, but that is not the case. EW's online magazine is literally a digital version of a physical magazine and is available from digital magazine provider websites such as magzter.com or zinio.com. It is a separate thing from their website at ew.com. Sometimes they may include articles (or partial articles) from the magazine in a web article, but that still does not count because the actual magazine has not been cited. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not correct. Many print sources have digital fascimiles, and also web-delivered editions that may or may not have different (usually additional) content. The distinction regarding the medium is independent of the type of source cited. EW is still a magazine, that may have print/digital/audio or whatever editions published. 172.254.162.90 (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Irregardless of "is it or isn't a magazine", using {{Cite web}} for such content on EW's website is not incorrect. I feel at this point the crux of my issue is that this bot is unilaterally putting content from this source in {{Cite magazine}}. As I've been pointing out, if it is put under a different classification within the bot, uses of Cite web should remain as they are (which is how they've been for this publication since only a few weeks ago with no issues), but presumably if the bot finds a bare url formatting, it would then format it to Cite magazine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It is also not incorrect to use a hypothetical {{cite serial}} for any EW version or even the also hypothetical {{cite print}} for content on EW's paper version. But CS1 generally does not cite per medium, but per work (source) type/function. If the source is classifiable as a serial: subtype magazine, and CS1 provides a specific facility for the classification, then it is best to use that specific facility. It seems that the problem here is one of disputed classification. The bot apparently applies CS1 guidelines, as also noted above. To resolve the classification dispute, CS1 would perhaps be the proper forum. But I think the current CS1 format guideline is OK, and the bot is correct in applying it. 65.88.88.201 (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

For clarification, the issue at hand is a change made to the GitHub code that put EW under such classification. Another question I have regarding that code, is how were which publications put under each heading? Just by the maintainers as "bugs" arrose? This is the part of the source code in question, specifically this change that was made off of this bug request a few weeks back. Until that point, EW was not listed here and things were functioning "fine". Entertainment Weekly in my view should just be moved to "ARE_MANY_THINGS" given the comment for that classification is "These are things that are both websites and newspapers" which is 100% what EW is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

{{cite serial}} is a real, though rarely used, template for episodic television, radio, web brodcast programs. Perhaps you meant If the source is classifiable as a [periodical]...

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Add me to the list of those who consider that "online magazines are magazines". The medium is irrelevant. Do you categorise documents according to writing implement used to write them? A magazine is a magazine if its publishers say it is. Even if it is posted on a wall as samizat, it still a magazine. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

To pick an orthogonal example, consider The Economist. It is a weekly, printed on gloss paper in demitabloid format. Per WP:DUCK and the logic of some editors above, we should use cite magazine. But its publishers say it is a newspaper, so we use cite newspaper. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A magazine is a magazine is a magazine is a magazine. The bot's edit was semantically correct. While not obvious to readers who consume cs1|2 citations visually – the visual renderings of the example bot edit in both {{cite web}} and {{cite magazine}} are identical. For those who consume the citations using reference management software, there is a notable difference between the metadata emitted by {{cite web}} and the metadata emitted by {{cite magazine}}. The source is a magazine so it should be cited as such using the proper cs1|2 template, {{cite magazine}}.

Off-topic: Thor: Ragnarok has 190 cs1|2 templates that have |archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/... parameters. Archived snapshots at webcitation.org are no longer available. Those who care about Thor: Ragnarok might want to start revising those cs1|2 templates so that the original sources are not permanently lost when they go 404 due to link rot.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Better issue/date declusterfuckering

Status

new bug

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What should happen

[3]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

It is a thing, and not an easy one to solve via automation at first glance. Unrelated observation: the last word of the section title cannot be used in Scrabble, as I think you made it up. 50.74.109.2 (talk) 01:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

|chapter= is not a valid parameter for cite web

Status

new bug

Reported by

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

What happens

bot changed |title= in {{cite web}} to |chapter= and changed |url= to |chapter-url=

What should happen

in this case, the best possible action would have been to change {{cite web}} to {{cite grove}} as I did here; barring that, bot should not use |chapter= (or aliases thereof) in {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite magazine}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite periodical}}; this same restriction applies to adjunct parameters |chapter-url=, |script-chapter=, etc

Relevant diffs/links

diff

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers