| Revision as of 15:48, 11 August 2011 editMarie Poise (talk | contribs)1,723 edits Please stop this bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:18, 11 August 2011 edit undoHeadbomb (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors453,894 edits :Consensus disagrees with you here. arxiv preprints, bibcodes, dois, jstor, etc... all should be present when available. ~~~~Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Suggestion== | ==Suggestion== | ||
| Not so much a bug as a pair of suggestions. In the bot added a (correct) bibcode field to a reference. However it a) ignored an already existing but empty |bibcode= field within the same citation template, and b) added the field in horizontal layout, whilst the rest of the fields in that template are in vertical layout. It would be nice if the bot could recognise both of these and change its behaviour accordingly. ] ] 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | Not so much a bug as a pair of suggestions. In the bot added a (correct) bibcode field to a reference. However it a) ignored an already existing but empty |bibcode= field within the same citation template, and b) added the field in horizontal layout, whilst the rest of the fields in that template are in vertical layout. It would be nice if the bot could recognise both of these and change its behaviour accordingly. ] ] 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
| In the physical sciences, bibcodes are rarely used. This bot is bloating references in an utterly unnecessary way. Please stop. -- ] (]) 15:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | In the physical sciences, bibcodes are rarely used. This bot is bloating references in an utterly unnecessary way. Please stop. -- ] (]) 15:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :Consensus disagrees with you here. arxiv preprints, bibcodes, dois, jstor, etc... all should be present when available. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; whitespace:nowrap;">] {] / ] / ] / ]}</span> 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:18, 11 August 2011
Suggestion
Not so much a bug as a pair of suggestions. In this edit the bot added a (correct) bibcode field to a reference. However it a) ignored an already existing but empty |bibcode= field within the same citation template, and b) added the field in horizontal layout, whilst the rest of the fields in that template are in vertical layout. It would be nice if the bot could recognise both of these and change its behaviour accordingly. Modest Genius 16:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's a somewhat older version of the code. The current version inserts bibcodes at the correct place. Figuring out whether things should be on the same line or on a new line isn't yet implemented, but it's on the list of things to do. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Bug report
Bibcode bot got confused at Template:Cite doi/10.1007.2FBF02102090. r.e.b. (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Please stop this bot
In the physical sciences, bibcodes are rarely used. This bot is bloating references in an utterly unnecessary way. Please stop. -- Marie Poise (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)