User talk:Citation bot

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 21 as User talk:Citation bot/Archive 20 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.

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.

� used in title

Status

new bug

Reported by

Redalert2fan (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

What happens

� is used in title parameter

What should happen

[1]

Relevant diffs/links

[2]

Replication instructions

run on https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2018&no=781092

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Funky Unicode punctuation instead of normal characters are a real pain, often not present in the meta data. I am making assumptions since we have no electricity today. :-{ AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The page source at that URL says <meta property="og:title" content="Red Velvet’s Irene, new face of world’s bestselling liquor brand Chamisul soju - Pulse by Maeil Business News Korea"/>

I don't see funky Unicode. I see U+2019, described at https://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2019/index.htm as "this is the preferred character to use for apostrophe". – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

With Google chrome running the bot this is the exact thing I got: "Red Velvet��s Irene, new face of world��s bestselling liquor brand Chamisul soju - Pulse by Maeil Business News Korea" - on the page it self I can see it as "Red Velvet’s Irene, new face of world’s bestselling liquor brand Chamisul soju" normally. Maybe something went wrong while exacting it? Redalert2fan (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I have electricity again. You are correct, the websites meta data is actually right. Will investigate at some point. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Such mistakes usually happen when the encoding is stated incorrectly. The page declares to have charset=euc-kr , not UTF-8. Nemo 18:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

remove ref=harv

|ref=harv is now the default in citations, and having the explicit version no longer does anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

We might want to let the CS1 module updates settle for a few weeks before taking systematic action to remove ref=harv from articles. Sometimes module updates cause problems that result in rollbacks of parts of the code. It does no harm in the meantime, as far as I know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Waiting is a good idea. I think that another bot would be the way to go the first big run. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, a related BOTREQ is at WP:BOTREQ#Cleanup of cite templates after "ref=harv" became default and/or update to HarvErrors.js – came here because I thought this would be something up Citation bot's alley? Anyhow, there's no formal BOTREQ yet, but the issue is discussed at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Cite book Harv warning. Is it possible to let your light shine there, possibly advising what would be desirable and what not, what the bot can handle, and what not, etc? Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

how many pages need this? My main concern is that this bot would take way too long. I could run a slimmed down version for this run, which I have done in the past. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv (0). Removal of this parameter or its value is cosmetic if that is the only change made. But, when combined with other fixes that this bot might do, then the bot can pick away at the articles in that category. There is no hurry, no pressing need to clear the category or remove/replace these parameters.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(EC) This isn't about running the bot on Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv directly (this would be a violation of WP:COSMETICBOT anyway), but rather taking care of opportunity targets and tidying up old useless code like removing |postcript=none when those do nothing. Like the ISBN/isbn capitalization, this shouldn't be the only edit being done on a page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I only just saw this discussion. I understand ref=harv is now a default to all CS1/CS2 templates, and the affected templates are being modified to assume the change is permanent. Was there an open discussion and vote about this? - I probably missed it because I'm not usually tuned in to these things. In any case, I'd like to point out that it will cause a significant mincrease in false positive error messages from HarvErrors.js. In the one case I'm always banging on about, {{EB1911}} is intended to be referenced in a footnote or other style of Harvard reference, so it included ref=harv. But {{Cite EB1911}} is more usually just in a "Further Reading" section, generally without the need for a footnote. On the occasions when it is so referenced, we've been adding ref=harv explicitly. There are several other paired templates with the same pattern. So HarvErrors.js has switched from usually correct error messages (you've generated an unmatched reference) to a lot of false positives. This time, it doesn't matter to the general reader and is probably safe on balance, but, again, was this discussed somewhere first? David Brooks (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Changes to cs1|2 are always discussed at WT:CS1. For this particular change, a series of discussions ending at Help talk:Citation Style 1 § module suite update 18–19 April 2020.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Yet another spectacular example of a change affecting tens of thousands of pages being waved through with little (or, apparently this time, no) discussion whatsoever. ——SN54129 15:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

There was plenty of discussions, see Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#make_ref=harv_the_default_for_CS1 Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with 54129's comment, after consideration I think it's probably a good change, apart from the little matter of adding untold numbers of false positives to the warning message from HarvErrors.js (which I admit I have suppressed). But I did want to verify one thing: will the set of changes to CS1/2, and to templates that call them (e.g. here) still honor a specific value of ref (other than "harv" or "none")? My ability to read template code is rudimentary. Also, this discussion is happening in what is probably the wrong place, but I'll keep it here for now. David Brooks (talk) 21:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User scripts/Most imported scripts would seem to suggest that the cohort of editors using the HarvErrors.js script is rather small. {{EB1911}} will honor whatever you give it.

The change that you note is incomplete. That template uses Module:Template wrapper which, unless instructed to do otherwise, passes everything it gets to {{cite EB1911}}. {{cite EB1911}} also uses Module:Template wrapper so every parameter it gets from {{EB1911}} and every parameter that it has inside gets passed to {{cite encyclopedia}}. Here is a {{harvnb}} linking to {{EB1911}} (prescript turned off for clarity):

{{harvnb|Chisholm|1911}} → Chisholm 1911 – links to the second EB1911 showing that the template honors what you give it

{{EB1911|no-prescript=yes|title=Example Title|ref=none}}

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Example Title". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

{{EB1911|no-prescript=yes|title=Example Title}}

Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Example Title". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As far as I can tell, custom |ref= values will still work, as long as template editors make correct modifications to templates. If something goes wrong, we are likely to see a spike in the article count at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors (32,775 articles at this writing). So far, I have seen no such spike. Please post at that category page or on my talk page if you see any EB1911 template usages with broken links that you are unable to fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I was lazy yesterday, so I actually tested it. Yes, an explicit "ref=CITEREFNobody2020" is handled correctly, after HeadBomb removed the default "harv" setting and then Trappist removed the ref = {{{ref|}}} entirely. Clever wrappers. Thanks for the verification. David Brooks (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC) ETA: Thanks for the patient explanation, Trappist. David Brooks (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, you say "this shouldn't be the only edit being done on a page", but if this change gets added to citation bot, and there are 110k articles currently affected, the chances will be quite high that the bot will end up doing such changes while not doing anything else. Or, if it's configured to abort a series of changes as merely cosmetic (not so trivial), it will waste a lot of resources preparing edits only to discard them. So I agree with AManWithNoPlan: get a pywikibot bot to perform this change on existing articles and only then come here to propose the addition. Nemo 16:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

*OR* get permission for the COSMETICBOT edits via BRFA. It has happened before that COSMETICBOT edits were explicitly approved, when they were due to a change in setup (e.g., removal of commented-out metadata in mainspace when Wikidata became operational). --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: the chances will be quite high that the bot will end up doing such changes while not doing anything else. If the bot coded to not do that on its own, then the chances of the bot doing that on its own would be 0%. The processing power lost on this would be trivial. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose removing "ref=harv". Having that parameter in place gives editors who are not technically inclined a marker that there is a parameter available that controls the production of an anchor. As you know, editors will sometimes move a citation from Works cited to Further reading and vice-versa, which involves switching between "ref=harv" and "ref=none". It doesn't matter to that group of editors which of those is the default, and it is helpful to them to be able to use either value for the parameter without somebody removing one or the other. Software works best when it's designed to accommodate the working practices of the users, not when it forces the working practices of the users to accommodate its idiosyncrasies. --RexxS (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It's there and it does nothing. Why keep it? Users that aren't technically inclined won't be using this to begin with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: you're quite wrong. I've helped lots of technically-unskilled editors install scripts that they have learned to use without having to understand the finer points of what the default value of an optional parameter is. For the majority of users of the Harverrors script, they have become accustomed to using it in a particular way, i.e adding ref=harv to full CS1 citations that they use in conjunction with sfn, and then checking that there are no errors. Now, you're asking them to switch their workflow to not adding anything to full CS1 citations that they use in conjunction with sfn, but having to add ref=none to full CS1 citations in Further reading sections, and then checking that there are no errors. Why can't you acknowledge that the change has resulted in a disjunction in how they are accustomed to work? It is utterly unhelpful to suggest they switch off the harv error checking, because they have made an effort to get to grips with the functionality of the script, and want to retain the benefits of seeing errors, all of them.

"... it does nothing" Of course it does something. It allows folks like me to explain to other editors that there is a parameter which needs to be set to "harv" when they want to connect the citation to a sfn, and set to "none" when they use the full citation elsewhere. That allows them to move a source from reference to reading and vice-versa with minimal effort. It's cognitively easier to learn how to switch a parameter from one value to another than it is to learn when to omit it and what value it has when it must be included. If we had encouraged editors to add "ref=harv" and "ref=none" in the past, hardly anybody would have even noticed when the default changed. Leave the "ref-harv" parameter alone: it's not hurting anything, and it would allow any future change in default to happen transparently. Robust systems don't rely on defaults. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is zero newcomer out there that will see |ref=harv and go "Oh, there's a variety of shortened footnotes templates you can use to make a shortened foot note to this citation!". And robust systems rely on defaults all the time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not talking about newcomers. I'm talking about content editors who have learned to use sfn, but are not technically inclined and won't want to re-learn a different way of working just to do the same job. I'm sure Sarah won't mind me using her as an example. I can remember discussing with her several years ago the pros and cons of citation templates against hand-crafted citations before we had the speed of Lua implementations. She's learned over the years how to use the cite templates and sfn to good effect, and to use Ucucha's script to spot errors, without ever wanting to go into technical detail about their inner workings. Those are the editors who will find it far more logical to switch between "ref=harv" and "ref=none" when moving a source from a reference to further reading or back. The systems that rely on defaults all the time are never going to be robust. --RexxS (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Oppose removing "ref=harv". We need that extra functionality when moving citations around from source sections to FR to Selected works. Without it, the scripts are malfunctioning, articles look ugly, and there's no clear way to fix them. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand what |ref=harv does. There is zero difference with a citation with |ref=harv and one without. If your script is broken, update your script, or get a new one made at WP:SCRIPTREQ. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I oppose these changes, the original change and this bot proposal. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No particular opinion on whether the bot should remove |ref=harv or not, but as I stated on the CS1 talk page: As things currently stand this isn't a WP:COSMETICBOT task - |ref=harv currently throws a maintenance category. Maybe it shouldn't, and maybe a bot removal isn't a good idea, but removing the parameters is not a cosmetic edit according to the definition in the policy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not technically cosmetic, in the sense that there's a maintenance category that goes with it, but the category simply track if |ref=harv is there or not. It's something purely self-referential. If falls in the broader definition of "edits of such little value that the community deems them to not be worth making in bulk". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, and clear to those coming newly to the discussion, the maintenance category is only 6 days old, and was created to manage the consequences of this (surprisingly impactful) change. Seven days ago it would have been cosmetic. David Brooks (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Seven days ago, it would have broken a crapload of footnotes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

You're right; I forgot that this is where we came in (i.e. even without the scripts, we had bluelinks that went nowhere). I withdraw the comment. David Brooks (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

• To those voting, this isn’t a vote. You already lost the discussion and vote. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no need for a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@AManWithNoPlan: I'm voting to make clear why I think removal of "ref=harv" would result in a net negative effect, nothing more and nothing less. As far as I can see, the discussion on that is open, and different opinions of how desirable that would be have been presented in a reasonable manner.

If you'd like me to reopen the discussion on changing the default value of the ref parameter with an RfC at a central location, simply to be able to discuss issues around the implementation, just say and we can re-litigate the entire issue with a much broader participation. Otherwise, why not make constructive contributions to how we can meet different editors' concerns on the consequences of the change? --RexxS (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Another option, instead of removing |ref=harv from citation templates, would be to remove the code from the CS1 module that generates a maintenance category and maintenance message when |ref=harv is used. We don't generate a maintenance message when |type= is present but empty, and that is code that does the same thing as |ref=harv, i.e. nothing. This might be a good discussion to have at Help Talk:CS1. As I proposed at the top of this thread, I propose closing this discussion as being premature, since there is not consensus to remove these |ref= parameters yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The maintenance category isn't the issue here, the clutter is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

As above, empty parameters are just as much clutter as |ref=harv, IMO, but I don't think there is consensus to remove empty parameters. Consensus to remove clutter from CS1 citations should be sought at Help Talk:CS1, not here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Citation bot already removes plenty of clutter, this would be no different. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

there is no plan to implement this until after some other bot Terraforms all of Wikipedia with this change and makes it the clear default. Unless someone does that, as I already said we won’t do it. Secondly and more importantly, since this is a bot page, such policy votes here don’t matter: you should really take this discussion elsewhere as others have suggested before someone else decides to fire up their bot and just does it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, Headbomb has now started implementing this. Does the above count as consensus? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean, but yes, I edited the documentation to reflect the current state of the templates and did some AWB runs in template space. Really not sure what that has to do with Citation bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I can see you've removed "ref=harv" from something like 50 templates using AWB today. Am I right that you're working on the assumption that citations hard-coded into templates will never be moved from a Works cited into a Further reading section, so would not inconvenience editors like Sarah? I trust you know that bot-like edits (around 50 pages in less than two minutes) to create a fait accompli is strongly frowned on when there is dispute over the appropriateness of the edits. I should caution you against doing similar removals in articles where is a chance of other editors objecting.

@Sarah: This section is discussing whether or not Citation Bot should be programmed to remove "ref=harv" from articles. The operators are aware of those of us objecting and the reasons. I usually find bot operators are particularly sensitive to making edits that are known to be controversial, so I expect more rather discussion before the bot is authorised to remove the parameter. Today Headbomb used AWB to manually remove the parameters from citations hard-coded into some templates. Neither of us will see any effect from those, because those citations are inside other templates and we will never need to move them into a Further reading section. I expect that he understands our concerns about removing the parameter from articles – particularly from articles that we might curate – and I sincerely hope that before he considers broadening his manual removals to articles, he will weigh up the benefits of removing what he considers "clutter" against the objections made here (since the same objections apply to manual removals as to removals by bot). I hope this helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing ref=harv has absolutely no effect on Sarah's script, regardless of what section the citation appears in. So I don't understand why you think it would be problematic or could become problematic to remove it. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself as you seemingly didn't see my previous posts, removing "ref-harv" will have an affect on Sarah's workflow, not her script. For example, she told us that she sometimes uses source from the Further reading section in the article and moves it to the Works cited section. And sometimes she does the reverse, taking a source out of an article but leaving it as further reading.

It is far easier for her (or anybody else) to locate a "ref=harv" in citations that are being moved from works cited to further reading and change it to "ref=none" (which is needed to avoid spurious error messages from the script) than to remember to add a parameter that was deliberately and unnecessarily removed. The same goes for moves in the other direction. Why is it wrong for editors to prefer always having a ref parameter whose value is simply changed, rather than having it in some cases and omitting it in others (depending on which is the changeable default)? --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

If removing |harv= from these templates, which does absolutely nothing but remove a maintenance category from the template page and the articles these are transcluded onto, she is really going out of her way to have her "workflow" disrupted because no script is affected, no anchors are affected, and there is zero no rendering changes anywhere on any page associated with that removal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As far as a content editor is concerned, it does a lot more than removing a maintenance category from the template page, but it seems you're not able to put yourself into the position of someone not steeped in the technical side of the project. If all you want is to remove the maintenance category, I could could do that for you at a stroke by disabling it in the module. --RexxS (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, explain to me how anyone's workflow is affected by this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I addressed that a couple of hours ago, and concluded that editing templates wouldn't affect her. Did you not read

@Headbomb: I can see you've removed "ref=harv" from something like 50 templates using AWB today. Am I right that you're working on the assumption that citations hard-coded into templates will never be moved from a Works cited into a Further reading section, so would not inconvenience editors like Sarah? I trust you know that bot-like edits (around 50 pages in less than two minutes) to create a fait accompli is strongly frowned on when there is dispute over the appropriateness of the edits. I should caution you against doing similar removals in articles where is a chance of other editors objecting.

[emphasis added] --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You're really not going to understand anybody else's view if you ignore what they write. --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Someone's views who are based in misconceptions and complains for the sake of complaining is very unlikely to sway me, correct. And if you consider removing 50 |harv= from template pages in a sea of 110K+ articles a fait accompli, you and I have a very different definition of what that is. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I made no complaint about you removing ref=harv from template pages, and I was expecting you to be able to read that. I was also expecting you to understand that I didn't think citations hard-coded in template pages could ever be moved into a Further reading section, but it seems I was to be disappointed.

As an aside, we clearly do disagree about whether editing 50 pages in less than two minutes creates a fait accompli, and although I had no issue with you doing that in template space, I would have an issue with you doing that in mainspace. I really hope that we don't have to test which of us is right about what constitutes WP:FAIT, because I'm pretty sure I understand what's written on that page. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

RexxS, thank you for commenting. The template change has disrupted the workflow for some of us, and this feels like more of it, even if minor. When I need a citation (whether as a source, Selected works, FR, talk-page discussion, etc), I try to remember where I last added it, then I copy it over. For some sections, we'll have to add ref=none now, so it would be helpful not to remove ref=. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

And |ref=none is indeed not removed. When I start removing |ref=none, you'll have a valid complaint. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

remove pp.  in pages parameter

Status

 Fixed

Reported by

Grimes2 (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

What should happen

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erythorbic_acid&diff=952261954&oldid=952260561

Can you remove also p.  in page and pages? Grimes2 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Convert semanticscholar links to use s2cid=

Status

new bug

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

What should happen

[3]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

The parameter is now supported as of the last module update. @Nemo bis: and @Pintoch: since OAbot (talk · contribs) should also make use of this parameter, with |sc2id-access=free when appropriate. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Personally I vastly prefer direct links to pdfs.semanticscholar.org but I know this will go ahead anyway. So sad. :( Nemo 17:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Note to self API is https://api.semanticscholar.org/v1/paper/e50689768feb87fce97a029499a5a1740cfbcdef AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Convert hard-coded special spaces into regular spaces

Status

new bug

Reported by

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

What should happen

[4]

We can't proceed until

Feedback from maintainers

Example for a hidden non-breaking space. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

We already do many of those. For some reasons already discussed we do not do these non-breaking ones. I do not remember why though or if I agreed. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As part of the recent module release, they are now identified in Category:CS1 errors: invisible characters as errors which I suspect is what Headbomb plans to run the bot on shortly. There shouldn't be an issue removing the Unicode version of the character (given that it is invisible and likely unintended). Intentional non-breaking spaces are almost always the   form, which should not be removed. --Izno (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't planning on running the bot against that category, but it would be a good idea to do so in a way that didn't hog down too many resources from Citation bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2822 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Invalid date

Status

 Fixed

Reported by

Keith D (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

What happens

Adds an invalid date of |date=0001-01-01

What should happen

Add a valid date.

Relevant diffs/links

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_libraries&diff=952889502&oldid=952156017

That's acually the date on the website <meta property="article:published_time" content="1/1/0001"/>! I will add some code to catch that sloppiness. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

https://github.com/ms609/citation-bot/pull/2821 AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at BWV Anh. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: Are you deliberately trying to be a drama-monger or what? It appears that you have not looked at this bot's user page, User:Citation bot. If you had, you would have seen the section "Stopping the bot from editing" on steps you could have easily taken to preserve your dubious citation formatting preferences on the article in question. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)