User talk:Bibcode Bot/Archives/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 ^talk 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)

Consensus disagrees with you here. arxiv preprints, bibcodes, dois, jstor, etc... all should be present when available. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ugly ugly ugly ... just wait, I make another suggestion: -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hide links behind logos

If there is really a consensus (reference for that?) that references should be enriched by bibcodes and the like, then it still is not necessary that all this lengthy material is shown at once to the reader. Let me suggest the following: instead of a textual entry, put a small logo that bears a link to arxiv, to bibcode, to whatever the logo stands for. As is commonly done with social bookmarks. -- Marie Poise (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That could easily be done, assuming you get consensus for it, and that the logos aren't copyrighted (which they probably are). However, that discussion is really outside the scope of this bot. The bot just adds the information. How to present it should be discussed at Template talk:Citation. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience articles

This bot is adding bibcodes to a bunch of neuroscience articles, and I am going to be reverting any that I see, as they are just useless clutter. Neuroscience articles already almost all have links to Pubmed; links to Adsabs are redundant and much less useful. Looie496 (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Please don't. You might not find these links useful, but plenty of users do. The NASA database often contain free scanned/digital copies of these articles. They also contain various information not included withing pubmed, such as number of times other articles cited that specific article, information about preprint, reprints, related publications, etc... We let PMID show up in non-medicine articles, so I don't why why links to ADSASB should be excluded from non-astronomy/physics articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just reverted some bibcodes from a medical article on History of virology. This is an astronomy database for goodness sake. And, no, it doesn't contain "the number of times other articles cited that specific article" -- it only collects that data for journals in its database, so pretty useless really. I agree with Looie496 that this is useless clutter. The point about PMIDs misses the point. It is the nature and usage of the cited journal article that determines whether a link to PMID or ADSASB is useful, something that generally only a human can decide. Please restrict this bot to topics where it is likely to be relevant, and add the links elsewhere only by hand when justified. Colin°^Talk 07:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully support the request by Looie496 and Colin. -- Marie Poise (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate arXiv reference

For some reason, the bot has added a duplicate arXiv reference in this article, possibly because the original was not in the ideal format. Will Orrick (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think the problem is that the article used {{arXiv|foobar}} (I only checked for {{arxiv|foobar}}). I'll investigate. Thanks for the report. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Problem's fixed BTW. Forgot to mention it here. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject Astronomy list

Here is a list of Wikiproject Astronomy articles with some cites missing doi and/or bibcode. If I've understood correctly the bot can work through a Wikiproject Astronomy list? Thanks Rjwilmsi 23:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I probably covered all of those already actually. I'm making lists of physics & astronomy articles (doing all stubs, then all starts, then all Cs, etc...), and I run over them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Error on Neptune

Here the bot made an error in some text in math tags. Character encoding issue? Rjwilmsi 21:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I haven't found the exact cause though. I thought I bypassed all cases, but that's the first time I see this particular error. If you know python/pywikipedia, I'll take any help I can with that particular bug. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Something is interpreting \f as a line feed by the looks of it. Rjwilmsi 07:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I know what it's doing, I just don't know why. It affects more than \f. \n is getting interpreted as a linebreak. \t as a tab, etc... But it only affects those in math tags, and prior to that one, only math tags inside |title= parameters. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

bug in math blocks

Please tell the bot to skip anything that is between <math> tags. It has broken twice one equation in Zero-point energy [1][2]. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a weird bug, and I just can't put my hands on it. I'm bypassing 99%+ of likely instances and I usually catch the ones it messed up, but I missed this one (mostly because I didn't review the last 24 hour's edits yet). Thanks for reporting it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Add

Can you please add Straight edge to you list of pages to add numbers too. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 04:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I ran the bot against that article, and there's nothing it can add. This is not really surprising considering this is hardly related to physical sciences. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for running citation bot over it. There are far to many bots doing close things to keep track of them all --Guerillero | My Talk 06:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)