| Revision as of 17:12, 25 November 2019 editAManWithNoPlan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users95,890 edits →removing links to worldcat← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:59, 25 November 2019 edit undoSashiRolls (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,627 edits →removing links to worldcat: I think you're looking for WP:Citing sources#Linking_to_Google_Books_pages, which doesn't say what you think it does.Next edit → | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
| ::: This is not a vote. Misplaced Pages already says to not link to google books, unless it is a complete and free preview. Can someone find that policy and link it here. These are worse than google book links. They point to some random page instead of a front page or a specifically chosen page. ] (]) 17:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC) | ::: This is not a vote. Misplaced Pages already says to not link to google books, unless it is a complete and free preview. Can someone find that policy and link it here. These are worse than google book links. They point to some random page instead of a front page or a specifically chosen page. ] (]) 17:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC) | ||
| ::::I agree that it would be good for someone (perhaps you?) to dig up this policy that you say you've seen, as it would directly contradict the guideline, I'm more familiar with. (NB: it says quite clearly that the OCLC, ISBN, etc. coexist with the link in the citation as of this writing). 🌿 ] <sup>] · ]</sup> 19:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
| == Fails to convert a JSTOR == | == Fails to convert a JSTOR == | ||
Revision as of 19:59, 25 November 2019
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 20 as User talk:Citation bot/Archive 19 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
 Archives |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 40000 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Note that the bot's maintainer and assistants (Thing 1 and Thing 2), can go weeks without logging in to Misplaced Pages. 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.
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.
Handles list expansion
Headbomb will provide a list of Handle providers that we will add to our constants files AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)🤔
- Time to call in Leeroy Jenkins to extract the handles. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to work on User:Headbomb/Sandbox and see which prefix resolves or not. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Fails to decapitalize
I had to whack on the bot to make this happen. It should have decapitalized FRONTIERS IN IMMUNOLOGY and BIOGERONTOLOGY on its own (adding the '(journal)' pipe was me, i don't expect the bot to do that). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think you posted the wrong edit link. But it sounds like you want us to fix fully capitalized journal names like we do titles that are all caps. Is that correct? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes that's the wrong link. However, we already decapitalize all caps journals usually, see e.g. . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- fixing links currently does not work via the gadget since the bot is not logged in to query the database. It should be possible to use curl to get the same information. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes that's the wrong link. However, we already decapitalize all caps journals usually, see e.g. . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
ZooKeys issues
ZooKeys is like that. You can safely TNT |issue= every time for those. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
- What makes you think zookeys is unique with issue=1 data entry error, of are you just saying that since Zookeys has no volumes it is very unlikely to be correct? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Better ieeexplore support
This was achieved by replacing the ieeexplore.org url with the doi found on the corresponding ieeexplore.org page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's possible to find the DOI from CrossRef or derivatives, looking for an URL which ends in "arnumber=8386824" or a DOI which ends in "8386824" (in the example). Nemo 08:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- If not actually parsing the page to search for the doi on the page, then make sure that the prefix is 10.1109 for IEEE journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- IEEE takes pride in blocking bots. Sometimes we work sometimes we don’t. I will investigate reverse lookup of url in crossref. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- If not actually parsing the page to search for the doi on the page, then make sure that the prefix is 10.1109 for IEEE journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Need to run twice?
- What happens
- +
- What should happen
- Should happens in the same edit
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Removes URL for IUCN Red List
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Umimmak (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- What happens
- Bot removes URL when there is a DOI for IUCN Red List citations despite it being recommended to include both.
Unfortunately, both the new DOI-based URLs and the old ID-based URLs are problematic. A DOI links to a permanent web page with a specific year's assessment that will never be updated, so when a new assessment is issued, a new DOI will be created and the old one will then point to the previous assessment. An ID-based URL should always link to the current assessment, but that URL is not guaranteed to work indefinitely. Thus, it is probably best to use both, and to use the ID-based URL if only one URL will be used.
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ba_humbugi&curid=55945782&diff=927146556&oldid=915761684
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
- No, the static page is best, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and per the information listed at the redlist at the time it was cited. If you follow the 'old' link, the page will mention there is an update, so if you need the updated information, you can check it then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- This was discussed at length before (example). I still didn't get confirmation of whether it's true that IUCN reuses the DOI for significantly different documents (i.e. that an assessment can change content without a new assessment being released, and that this results in a new ID in the URL but not a new DOI). Nemo 09:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Access date removal bug
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- What happens
- archiveurl parameter not treated as url
- What should happen
- No edit needed when archiveurl specified
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rock_Hill,_Missouri&curid=123224&diff=927371471&oldid=923378647
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
So annoying when parameters are used wrong. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
JSTOR book meta data
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
- What happens
- Multiple things
- Adding a
|chapter=despite not being an actual chapter - Adding a
|chapter=which is included in the|title=
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User%3AJosve05a%2Fcite-sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=927656726
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
Don’t remove rubbish URLs if someone grabbed an archive of it
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- What happens
- Leaves red text of broken syntax
- Relevant diffs/links
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
removing links to worldcat
- Status
- new bug
- Reported by
- 🌿 SashiRolls 20:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- What happens
- access to /viewport is zapped.
- What should happen
- access to /viewport should not be zapped.
- Relevant diffs/links
- https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tiffany_Midge&oldid=926539338
- We can't proceed until
- Feedback from maintainers
I suspect this is probably a feature rather than a bug, but I don't understand why this should be a feature... seems very counter-intuitive. The difference appears to be that the deleted url led directly to the full-text whereas the OCLC field does not lead to /viewport. (not sure where to click to get there either) 🌿 SashiRolls 20:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Preview this book" right below the image. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- "deleted url led directly to the full-text " that is simply untrue. It leads to a limited google books preview. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I understand a bit better now. Clicking on preview this book, and then clicking on google preview is what I missed... because I thought it was a worldcat digitization. I only scrolled through the first few fifteen-twenty pages, so did not realize it was partial. I have to say it's not very user friendly to have a link to (partial) full-text labelled 1113896227 instead of just directly linked from the reference title, but then I suppose we are expecting wiki-readers to be sufficiently geeky to know that 1113896227 will lead them to more info whereas the secret code 978-1-496-21803-2 leads nowhere useful (like the bluelinks to ISBN and OCLC). Thanks for looking into it and explaining the odd logic. :) 🌿 SashiRolls 22:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- "deleted url led directly to the full-text " that is simply untrue. It leads to a limited google books preview. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- One of the objections to including links to Google Books is that what different readers will see varies unpredictably, and may change. These WorldCat digitized previews are stable, which is a major plus. They don't allow linking to the specific page, which we've come to do, but I think the stability can only be a plus. ISBNs and OCLC numbers lead to full bibliographic info, but the reader is still stymied if they can't get access to the book, which is quite common. (Interlibrary loan is very limited for readers in most places, and we can hardly expect readers to always buy a book, or even to be able to do so in whatever country they live in.) So where's the downside of also adding a link that guarantees they can scroll to the relevant page? In particular, it's hardly a duplication at all, especially since this OCLC link is largely unknown; I had no idea it existed. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
These WorldCat digitized previews are stable, which is a major plus.
Not true. The OCLC viewport link is just a link to a Google Book preview. Google books did the scanning. Worldcat simply builds a little box and links to the google scan in that box. This is the same mechanism that other websites (unrelated to google maps) use to display a little box with google maps content. The problems with google books preview that you describe above are still there. My vote is to always remove worldcat links from|url=when there is a matching|oclc=identifier.- —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Misplaced Pages already says to not link to google books, unless it is a complete and free preview. Can someone find that policy and link it here. These are worse than google book links. They point to some random page instead of a front page or a specifically chosen page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that it would be good for someone (perhaps you?) to dig up this policy that you say you've seen, as it would directly contradict the Citing Sources guideline, I'm more familiar with. (NB: it says quite clearly that the OCLC, ISBN, etc. coexist with the link in the citation as of this writing). 🌿 SashiRolls 19:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Misplaced Pages already says to not link to google books, unless it is a complete and free preview. Can someone find that policy and link it here. These are worse than google book links. They point to some random page instead of a front page or a specifically chosen page. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Fails to convert a JSTOR
Remove soft hyphens
Series: Advances in Pharmacology