Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:36, 18 January 2009

Please read this before reporting a bug

Before listing your bug, it would be appreciated if you considered the likely extent of the problem. Most new bugs have resulted from quirky, non-standard ways of specifying data. The bot has already made thousands of edits without your bug being detected – despite very thorough checking of its edits. In many cases, it would probably be quicker to change all the affected references to use the standard format than to re-write extensive portions of the bot, and I'm now hoping to use my time for more constructive editing!

Current issues

Please report instances of the bot malfunctioning here, including a link to the errant edit.

Combined different citations

Your bot recently combined two citations on Echo & the Bunnymen discography (diff). However, they are different citations webpages with different citation names. Please look into this. --JD554 (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How very bizarre. I've put the bot on "manual edits only" until I work out what on earth is going on there! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This should now be resolved. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong initials

This edit changed the initials of the authors of a paper, incorrectly. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoops... well spotted, thanks. I'll look into it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't replicate the bug so I assume it's been fixed. Let me know if it crops up again. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot status

I don't want to see bot edits in my watchlist, yet this bot is all over it. Doesn't it have bot status? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the bot flag was removed when I shifted operations to User:Citation bot. No more edits will be made from the DOI bot account. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Switching references

In this edit, the DOI bot mistakenly switched references to two pages in the same reference. -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The page contained an improper ref, see here. Maybe the bot reacted on that? -- Crowsnest (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

FASEB J

FASEB J is changed incorrectly to Faseb J. FASEB is an acronym of an organization's name.Fconaway (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide an example of this in use, please? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Here is an easily accessible example: Ibuprofen (Oct. 8,2008),Fconaway (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I'll get on it as soon as I get the chance. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unintended results

Mémoires de Physique et de Chimie de la Société d'Arcueil changed to Mémoires de Physique et de Chimie de la Société d'arcueil.Fconaway (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for the report. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

European Society of Cardiology

Hi! I reverted a Citation Bot edit on European Society of Cardiology to what I thought was a more standard style and simply because it looked better! Best regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The bot should have formatted the date better... I'll get onto it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk)

Thank you. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed 19:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect DOI/journal edit

Looks like the Citation bot made an error here: diff on Young Legionary it added a DOI and a second journal entry to the citation template changing the journal from School Library Journal to International Journal of Cancer. I verified that the ISSN listed in the citation template 03628930 is correct for the School Library Journal. I have reverted the edit. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The bot didn't equate the "periodical" field to "journal". I'll fix that before I let the bot run again. Thanks for the report! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 12:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed19:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Date format

The Citation bot should use the ISO 8601 date format YYYY-MM-DD instead of MM/DD/YYYY. see this recent change to Tyrannosaurus.   —Chris Capoccia ⁄_C 13:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

or even the linked format ] since {{cite journal}} doesn't automatically link the date.  —Chris Capoccia ⁄_C 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It will do, and it shouldn't be linked - see discussion at cite journal.

 Fixed

Arthur Oliver Wheeler

It deleted an entire citation. I'll add it back, but I thought you should be aware. Clerks. (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed 19:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding dates to citations that already have dates

This edit by the Citation bot to Autism therapies added "|date= 09/01/1999" to a citation to Tsai 1999 (PMID 10511014) that already had a "|year=1999" parameter. This caused the resulting citation to be formated like this:

Tsai LY (09/01/1999). "Psychopharmacology in autism". Psychosom Med. 61 (5): 651–65. PMID 10511014. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)

which is not what is wanted: the usual citation style in medical articles is to give the year only. Can this please get fixed? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated above , I'll fix this issue when I get the chance. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed - now adds month and day to their own parameters. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Updating year for articles on final publication

One other change I noticed in that same edit. It's quite common to cite medical articles when they have been published online but have not been officially assigned year, volume, and pages. For example, Autism therapies formerly contained this citation:

Shimabukuro TT, Grosse SD, Rice C (2007). "Medical expenditures for children with an autism spectrum disorder in a privately insured population". J Autism Dev Disord. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0424-y. PMID 17690969.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

because the paper was published online in 2007. Eventually the paper was published in the official journal in 2008, and Citation bot updated the citation by adding volume=38 and pages=546, resulting in this partially-improved version:

Shimabukuro TT, Grosse SD, Rice C (2007). "Medical expenditures for children with an autism spectrum disorder in a privately insured population". J Autism Dev Disord. 38: 546. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0424-y. PMID 17690969.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

To finish the improvement, I had to manually change the year=2007 to year=2008, add issue=3, and add the last page number (552), resulting in the following:

Shimabukuro TT, Grosse SD, Rice C (2008). "Medical expenditures for children with an autism spectrum disorder in a privately insured population". J Autism Dev Disord. 38 (3): 546–52. doi:10.1007/s10803-007-0424-y. PMID 17690969.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I understand that Citation bot does not have the issue=3 and the last-page 552 information available, so it cannot fix that part of the citation. However, it does have the date available, so it could update year=2007 to year=2008, thus saving me a bit of work. (I have to clean up after the Citation bot a lot, so every bit would help.) Could you please fix the citation bot to add 1 to the year if necessary, when it adds a volume= and pages= info? Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do this. The downside is that where the data in the central database is incorrect, there is no way for users to stop the bot inputting the incorrect year each time it visits a page. I'll leave it up to you to decide which will cause editors more inconvenience - it's a tricky one to resolve! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot retrieved wrong DOI

At phenethylamine, it seems Citation bot has retrieved a wrong DOI with this edit. I corrected it manually. I don't know if this is a bot error, or some type of error in the database it retrieves DOIs from. Just thought I'd let you know so you can decide for yourself whether it's worth looking into or not. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a database error, but thanks for fixing the DOI and bringing it to my attention. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lincoln Stars (baseball)

This edit introduced an error and may reflect a possible bug. BRMo (talk) 01:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing capitalization of EMBO J.

In this edit the bot changed the capitalization of EMBO J. to Embo J. checking the journals website and NCIB journal database shows the correct abbreviation is EMBO J.--Salix (talk): 20:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed: Exception added for EMBO J. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Internal Link on |location

In , the bot has placed around the location, Aberdeen, as if to give an internal link, but somewhere in the process, it has simply become square brackets. I'll remove them, but thought you might want to know. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed: the error lay with the publisher but I've written a workaround. But I've not been able to test it because today's ISBN search quota has been exceeded! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Undesirable location= and publisher= for Cite book

This edit to Autism added "|publisher= AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PRESS INC (DC) |location= United States" to two citations of DSM-IV-TR. In both cases, the publisher= and location= information is undesirable: a "location= United States" is useless for an American organization, and a "|publisher= AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC PRESS INC (DC)" is simply duplicated (and poorly-capitalized) information for a citation that already says "|author= American Psychiatric Association". The Citation bot used to not make changes like this; can you please fix it so that it continues to not make these changes, or let me know how to shut it off for these citations? In the mean time I by hand. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this; can you propose a solution for how the bot can work out when it's inappropriate to add a publisher and location to a citation? If not, the usual trick of adding a <!-- comment --> into any field you want the bot to ignore will work. And I'll make the capitalisation prettier when I get the chance. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot output

Just because I haven't seen it mentioned here -- is there any plans to work on the bot's current output? Back when it was the DOI bot it used to only scan the article once. If you follow the output now it appears to do it incompletely several times in a row progressively generating new tables indented further and further in. I liked it much better the old way.

I do appreciate all of the work you've put in to this bot, just curious. -- Scarpy (talk) 06:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it's started indenting itself; I'm going to look into it when I get the chance. Thanks for reminding me to take a look! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just ran it on Cold fusion and had it loop three times! I interrupted it.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a problem with the new server. Hopefully it'll fix itself soon.

Hmmm. Just ran it on "Capitalism" (something nebulous but real). It looped endlessly, using computing resources to no apparent purpose. I hope there's a human somewhere in the area to correct this.Fconaway (talk) 18:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Author problems

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Global_warming&diff=249014723&oldid=249014451

Is this a bug?

Is this a bug? I don't know why it added that parameter to the citation template... I'm still semi-new to things here. Killiondude (talk) 07:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a bug, it's to bring to editors' attention the fact that some data is included in the template but is not displayed because it lacks a parameter (e.g."title=") before it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot never finishes on "Causes of autism"

When I visit http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/DOI_bot/ and enter "Causes of autism", check only the "Thorough mode" box (without committing edits), and hit "Submit Query", the bot seems to give up about halfway through. The last few lines of output look like this. Maybe that citation is putting it into a loop?

Mercury exposure and child development outcomes
Already has a DOI. All details present - no need to query CrossRef. No CrossRef record found.
Determining format of URL...assessing URL Done.
Checking that the DOI is operational...

Eubulides (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it; there are still some issues with the toolserver servers which are making debugging difficult at the moment, so it might be a short while. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (arχiv)

• How about extending the bot to cover {{cite arXiv}}?
• How about extending the bot to search the arχiv database for preprints/author info/publication info when published...?
• Make sure to read this before, else the arχiv might not be too happy

Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

That sounds a good idea. I'd need to find out if they had an 'API' first though - i.e. a way that bots are allowed to access their data. If you can find out if they have a robot access policy that would allow the use you are suggesting, then please let me know and I'll add its implementation to my to do list. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm no coder so I don't know exactly what you need, but this seems related.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks promising, thanks. It may be a while until I get round to it but I'll look at implementing it as soon as I can. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While on the subject, I though I should mention a script I'd written some time ago to semi-automatically normalize arXiv URLs: User talk:Ilmari Karonen/fixarxivlinks.js. Perhaps there are some features there that you might want to include. The linked page on arXiv identifiers for for interacting services may also be useful. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks handy, thanks. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Any update on the subject?Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion (format parameter)

Lots of templates have a |format= parameter, where the type of file linked by the URL is written (typically PDFs). DOI bot could easily fill those parameters.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, this is an idiotic idea. There is already the PDF symbol. If anything the bot should remove the |format=PDF parameter.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia told me that her browser doesn't display the PDF symbol, and handles PDFs very poorly (can't recall if it crashes the browser or if it runs very slowly). For users of such browers the "|format=PDF" is essential so that users are warned not to click on links to the PDF documents. Eubulides (talk) 08:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright then. Then it's back to where I was before.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Pages bug

In this edit, the citation bot missed one case where the pages parameter had the page number right next to the "pp" string as "pages=pp.217", and it didn't get fixed. I think it would be a good idea to try to find those cases as well. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Good spot, thanks. Now it does. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Doi comment bug

This edit by the citation bot replaced this:

|doi= <!-- 10.1097/01.yco.0000179486.47144.61 says Diberri; but this incorrectly points to PMID 7473944 -->

with this:

|doi= 10.1097/01.yco.0000179486.47144.61 says Diberri; but this incorrectly points to PMID 7473944 -->

This edit incorrectly removed the open-comment symbol "<--" and caused the citation to mis-format. I worked around the problem by restoring the "<--". Eubulides (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

pages= with one page

The same edit replaced this:

|pages= p. 12

with this:

|pages= 12

However, the latter formats as "pp.12", whereas "p.12" is desired. Can you please fix the bot to recognize this situation and to format it to this instead?

|page=12

Thanks. (I worked around this particular problem with this obvious edit.) Eubulides (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I second the request/urgency to fix this bug, as the bot is still making the same edit. -- Ynhockey 01:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First to clarify that this isn't a bug, but a feature request - using the pages parameter to refer to a single page is erroneous input, and the bot is not making anything worse. Secondly to confirm that the matter has crossed my attention, and I'll implement an algorithm to determine whether page or pages is appropriate when the bot takes its second pass through the 'cite book'-using pages. I probably won't have time to do that until next weekend, but in the meantime, no damage is being done. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

This most definitely is a bug. Previously the cite book template only accepted "pages=" as a parameter, not "page=", so using "pages=" to refer to a single page was not erroneous input. And damage is being done - I have spent much of this morning cleaning up incorrectly displayed citations. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DOI issue?

No clue why, but this edit brought in a DOI for glbtq.com. The rest of the edit looks good, just that one little thing. I've fixed it, but thought you should know. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Unexplained addition of nopp=true

See this edit where a reference with pages=pp. viii–ix was changed to pages=viii–ix...|nopp=true. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 12:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks for the report. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Bug

Here the bot added already entered parameters (journal, year, volume, issue, and pages were all previously entered). Note that a few of those are re-entered because of typos, these are not the ones I'm talking about. It seems limited to the Nano letters and Critical Reviews in Solid State and Materials Sciences journals. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How interesting. Thanks for the report, I'll look into it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Small error in "pp." removal

In this edit, citation bot changes pp. 16–17 to  16–17—it should instead become 16–17. Also, I'm confused why Citation bot removed "pp." from Cite journal when the edit summary mentions an update to Cite book only. The journal references in that article now do not display the "pp." at all. Pagrashtak 15:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Any update on this? It's still happening. Pagrashtak 16:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it when I get the chance and remove surplus NBSPs on the next run of the bot. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright. In the mean time, can you stop removing "pp." from Cite journal calls? They don't automatically add p. and pp. as shown here:

• {{Cite journal|journal=Impressive Journal |title=Impressive article |page=4}}
• "Impressive article". Impressive Journal: 4.

unless the intent is to add that functionality to the template. Pagrashtak 17:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding wrong URLs

The bot keeps adding incorrect URLs. I have used your tool in the past without any problems until today when it seemed to start doing a lot of bizarre things regarding adding incorrect and irrelevant URLs. Here is a list of edits that I had to reverse manually after using your citation tool., , , , , , .--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, thanks for the report. Looks like a problem at the PubMed database. I'll try and implement a workaround as soon as I get the chance. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are right. I noticed that they recently changed at least the layout of search results, so they have certainly made some changes to their system. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring parameters editor-last, editor-first

The bot seems to not handle these, inserting author=editor from the isbn record instead. See this diff Near the end, citation with editor-last=Venzon.LeadSongDog (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the report, I think these are new parameters since I wrote the bot. I'll incorporate then when I get the chance. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect DOI when different sources have same page number

This edit inserted doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.869 for Carapetis et al. 2001 (PMID 11683165), but that's the wrong DOI: that DOI points to Powles 2001 (PMID 11683163). What seems to have happened is that there are four PMIDs (11683163 through 11683166) that all have identical page numbers (PubMed says they're all "BMJ. 2001 Oct 13; 323 (7317): 869"), and the citation bot is confused by this and is mistakenly thinking that the DOI for PMID 11683163 is valid for the other PMIDs. Eubulides (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to treat this false positive: I've manually inserted the correct DOI as a resolution. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that edit was not correct, as it reinserted doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.869, which (as described above) is the wrong DOI for Carapetis et al. 2001 (PMID 11683165). I worked around the problem by replacing the DOI with a comment saying "citation bot fodder". Is there some way to find out the correct DOI in cases like these? If so, I can insert the correct one by hand. Eubulides (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the DOI I found here, which is the page I found when I googled the title quoted in the citation. Perhaps, because the articles are on the same page, they have been given the same DOI? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 03:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so (and if so, it's clearly an error; see this brief summary of DOI errors (PDF)); but for whatever reason doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.869 clearly does not work for Carapetis et al. 2001 (PMID 11683165). The URL you gave, http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj%3b323/7317/869/a, hints that doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.869/a or doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.869.a might work, but they don't work either. And I can't use the doi_brokendate= parameter of {{Cite journal}}, since it would generate a claim that doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7317.869 is inactive, even though it is not inactive: it's a perfectly valid DOI for Powles 2001 (PMID 11683163). For now I can't think of any better solution than putting a citation-bot fodder comment into the doi= field. Eubulides (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Probably worth making sure this comment explains the situation to human editors, and following this up with the publishers. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Not removing p. in pages parameter

If you look at this edit, you'll notice that it is not removing the p. in cases where there is a range of pages. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot's doing a separate run to remove page numbers; the affected page was edited in the course of its usual duties; the p will be removed when it encounters it on its dedicated page-removal run. Thanks for the alert though. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently logged out bot

The bot seems to be logged out at the moment. But it's working away: contribs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hm. How strange. I think I've fixed this. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: ISBN

Any reason why the bot doesn't search for ISBNs for {{cite book}}?Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

API thingy whatever an API is.Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics}

The database only permits 100 automated queries per day; once the bot has exceeded this limit it cannot search for more. These queries are prioritised so manually-initiated uses of the bot get first dibs on the queries. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for "ed. ed."

It used to be that {{cite book}} required you to write "edition = 3rd ed" or "edition = 3rd ed." or "edition = 3rd edition" or "edition = 3rd edition." (with the period depending on other parameters to the template). Now one should write simply "edition = 3rd". But there are many articles that still use it the old way, resulting in citations that look like this (taken from The Beatles):

• Turner, Steve (2005). A Hard Day's Write: The Stories Behind Every Beatles Song (3rd ed. ed.). New York: Harper Paperbacks. ISBN 0-06-084409-4. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Could the bot be improved to patch this? It would save us editors a lot of work. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's top priority on my to-do list for this bot. I'll implement it with the next run of the bot. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A period in the author's name?

After running a request for DOI bot, it performed this edit. The last edit it made put a period after the author's name. Is it really supposed to be doing this? -ΖαππερΝαππερ _Alexandria 20:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

UPPERCASE change to Titlecase inappropriately

Some journals have all uppercase words, e.g., FEBS Journal. Your otherwise very useful bot changes these to titlecase (Febs in this case). Xasodfuih (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Feature Request

Is there any way that the bot could check http://en.wikipedia.org/Mirrors_of_Wikipedia and see if one is used as a reference and then flag the article or warn the contributor that they just used[REDACTED] as a referenced to itself? I've been cleaning up findtarget references and external links and it seems like it could be automated by this or a similar bot...I kind of wonder how many similar issues are out there with articles that (inadvertently in most cases) cite a[REDACTED] mirror as a source Reboot (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

looks like something that could be better handled by XLinkBot.  —Chris Capoccia ⁄_C 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I made the request there Reboot (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Bogus page number 090107124726076 added

This edit added the bogus page number 090107124726076 to the following citation:

{{cite journal |author= Gerber JS, Offit PA |title= Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses |journal= Clin Infect Dis |volume=48 |issue=4 |pages= |year=2009 |pmid=19128068 |doi=10.1086/596476 |url=http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/596476}}

Eubulides (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Added month= and day= when not wanted

The same edit added "|month= Feb |day= 02" to the following citation:

{{cite journal |journal= Psychiatr News |year=2007 |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=22 |title= Schizophrenia risk factor found in maternal blood |author= Arehart-Treichel J |url=http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/3/22}}

Generally speaking, I don't want month= or day= added to citations: I want only the year to be displayed. There are exceptions (e.g., newspapers) but this isn't one of them. Eubulides (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)