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.

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.

Remove duplicate citationsEdit

Status
feature request
Reported by
RayScript (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
What happens
I noticed there are articles with duplicate citations. It seems like it would make sense to merge these duplicate citations (as the ReFill bot does) instead of leaving them separate. There are some cases (such as different pages of books) where it makes sense to cite one source many times. However, I can't think of a case where it is useful to have the exact same citation two times. Here's an example where number 32 and 33 were identical and could be collapsed. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patrick_Combs&diff=955932647&oldid=955932567&diffmode=visual
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Extended content
I believe AWB does this already, but only on pages where refs are already "re-used". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I've also seen that AWB does this. But I don't have Windows. I can't find it now but I've seen a few pages with many many duplicate references and then it's easy to cleanup with search and replace but seems like it would be worth automating via a tool like this. RayScript (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I have seen ReFill fail spectacularly on this task (very destructive). I feel that this task would be a heavy lift of testing/writing at this time. A feature I actually have wanted for years. Not sure worth the effort since other things do it. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
The bot actually used to do this, adding names to references based on authors and years of duplicated citations. I believe that there was a beaurocratic kickback: perhaps someone objected that a separate BRFA was required, but had not been obtained? The advantage of Citation Bot performing it is that it can detect identical references that differ in e.g. white space only. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
If the bot's purpose it to help cleanup citations removing duplicates seems like would be a great fit for something that's so visibly annoying and an easy mistake for new users to make. Do you happen to remember when/where that discussion may have taken place? Before posting this I did a little searching on the archives of this talk page but didn't turn up anything directly related to removing duplicate citations. In regards to AManWithNoPlan, I'm not sure about the work required to make this change but if other tools do it but are buggy/destructive (refill) or only available on Windows (AWB) then perhaps it could be useful to look at how they other programs are doing it and implement something similar (given the licenses permit). However, I am respectful of the developers time and if this isn't something they're interested in doing that's okay. I wanted to put it out there to share that it's a feature that I would find helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayScript (talkcontribs) 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
WikiCleaner also does this semi-automatically. It detects exact duplicates and suggests they be "fixed". AWB does it automatically but needs another ref on the page already use "ref name" (where multiple refs are already re-used). Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
I think everyone is in favor of doing this. If we implement it, then we would have to get a lot of test case. Have it only run in tool mode to start. Phase 2: combine citations that have same parameters but in different order - including blank ones. Phase 3: existing refs with different names. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, anybody out here who knows what happenend to reFill? Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing links from titleEdit

Why is the bot removing links from titles of articles? There is clear consensus that editors want titles to be linked to the best available online source, especially when that is free to read. --RexxS (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The bot is removing other editors' work and is preventing users from freely accessing information. If nobody corrects this quickly, I suggest that editors remove doi's from citations that have direct links to titles. Corker1 (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Extended content
If you mean the recent RfC to link DOIs with doi-access=free, that's something the cite templates need to do (the sooner the better, I add), but the usage of the "url" parameter remains the same. I agree however with the sentiment that it's not particularly helpful to migrate URLs from the url parameter to an identifier when there is no method yet to mark those URLs as able to provide an open access copy (several identifiers don't have an -access=free parameter). Nemo 18:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I mean Help talk:Citation Style 1 #Auto-linking titles with free DOIs and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs where it is abundantly clear that nobody should be removing links from titles in citations without exceedingly good reason. I believe such behaviour is contrary to consensus and disruptive. I will take action to prevent that if necessary. --RexxS (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, the first thing you can urgently do is to transfer the change approved by consensus from the sandbox into the actual template. That will make it easier to respect consensus. Nemo 19:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
In the meantime, the onus to respect consensus not to unlink titles falls on whoever is doing the unlinking. It shouldn't be necessary to have to seek sanctions against established editors when they can simply desist from disruption until the changes are made to avoid unlinking titles. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The RfC only asked about the effects of the doi-access parameter. Maybe you're right and a new consensus was formed which was broader than that, but if so it wasn't immediately clear so I hope this won't escalate. It will be easier to process the effects of any broader consensus on further identifiers after we've deployed the change on DOIs, I think: discussing everything at once won't work. Nemo 20:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
The semantic scholar people actually asked for us to do this. I personally do not see a the consensus that you claim to exist based upon the discussion (I suggest others chime in), and I believe that if this had been raised as a possible interpretation, then things would have exploded. Lastly, I do not have time at this point to make changes to the bot to implement a new consensus. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I personally do not see a the consensus that you claim to exist based upon the discussion Oh, really? How do you read these comments then?
  • "As a reader, it is natural to click on the title of a citation to access it. Clicking on identifiers is less intuitive, even when they are marked as free" – User:Pintoch
  • "In all of our articles, readers generally know that a blue-linked title takes them to free full text. We cannot expect our readers to understand (in medical content) what PMC, PMID, DOI or anything else stands for." – User:SandyGeorgia
  • "the simplest thing for a reader to learn is that clicking on a title link takes them to the freest available online source." – User:RexxS
  • "this can significantly improve usability for those whose first instinct will be to click on the title." – User:Forbes72
  • "it's overwhelmingly obvious that a linked title is closer to user expectation than a linked [insert weird number/abbreviation most have never heard of]" – User:Ocaasi
  • "The less-informed reader will end up at a site where he/she/they can read the full article" – User:Markworthen
  • "This is my default way to indicate that links are free." – User:Buidhe
  • "this is the best indicator that more information is available.....no run around links is best" – User:Moxy
  • "standard web formatting is that the linked title takes you to the actual article being referenced." – User:PresN
  • "I would like readers to have the simple benefit of clickable titles whenever there is a free and legal full-text version available for them to access." – User:Biosthmors
  • "Clicking on a linked source title is the intuitive interaction." – User:czar
  • "Agree that clicking on the title is far more intuitive than clicking on the identifier" – User:The wub
  • "readers are used to clicking on titles." – User:PamD
  • "a general rule that almost all Wikipedia article citations follow: if the source is available online then it's linked through its title" – User:Bilorv
There is no need to have a fresh RfC on exactly the same issue every time another identifier parameter is added to the citation template. I'm absolutely certain that the general sentiment is in favour of having the title linked. I'm asking you politely to respect that and not unlink any further titles. But I will take whatever steps are needed to prevent further disruption if it continues. --RexxS (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

It is very discouraging to have to go through this all over again, after We Just Did This. It is also discouraging to get answers non-BOT people can't always decipher.[1] I only want to provide links to full articles, when possible, for the benefit of our readers. Can anyone explain to me why Semantic Scholar is in a position to be dictating how we link on Wikipedia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I think that the consensus was to generally link in url all free access identifiers, but the hierarchy (if there are multiple free access identifiers) also needs consesus. For instance, a free doi is usually better than semantic scholar, which doesn't always do a good job keeping copyrighted material off their website. If a source has both free doi and semantic scholar, the title should link to the doi and it's entirely correct to remove the semantic scholar from url. buidhe 22:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Buidhe, that is not what is occurring in any of the examples I give above; titles that have free links are simply being unlinked. Again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that the bot was converting two kinds of URLs to SemanticScholar identifiers: www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ (which may not have a full text) and pdfs.semanticscholar.org (which are generally the actual full text, except when they redirect to the previous). I assume the concern is only about the links which actually go to an open access full text, but it's not always trivial to tell one from the other. There are 9000 articles containing either kind of link at the moment, let's not get everyone blocked who stumbles upon one. Would it help to stop the conversion to s2cid for now, and rethink this after the RfC has been implemented? Nemo 22:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • From reading through this thread, stopping the conversion sounds like a good idea until this is sorted out. But I don't think anyone would object if the bot behavior was changed to adding the sc2cid parameter while keeping the existing url.   Forbes72 | Talk   22:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Nemo bis: The problem was not that the bot was being used to add SemanticScholar identifiers; the problem was that it was also removing the url parameter and hence unlinking the title. No doubt at some point in the future, it will be able to remove url when it adds doi, pmc, s2cid, etc. because all of the free identifiers will be coded to auto-link the title. But until that happens, I don't agree that degrading the experience for readers must be a necessary consequence of adding a free identifier. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Nemo, see my examples ... real URLs to free links were removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
      • I've now found that Headbomb has been running the bot to make hundreds more edits after I alerted him to the unlinking of titles. I've blocked the bot for now, and I'm requesting sanctions against Headbomb if he fails to take steps to restore the links he is responsible for removing. --RexxS (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
        • There is a certain oddity to the Citation Bot being threatened with being shut down for adding S2 links because they were considered either useless DOI duplicates or copyright violations, and now it gets shutdown for converting them to ID numbers. The paradox can be resolved, but still it is an odd situation which calls for discussion. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
          • I have been asking about this for more than a day, and we have had considerable discussion on your talk ... and just now hearing there is a copyright issue? If there is a copyright issue, and if these links are useless DOI duplicates, why are we adding them at all? Why have we honored a company that violates copyright with its own link, which is just adding clutter to citations? Could someone please indicate where these copyright concerns were raised? It seems to me that this s2cid identifier is nothing more than clutter, and I still don't understand why we have semantic scholar driving our citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The copyright problem has many facets. S2 has copies of licenses papers and scraped from the web papers. Wikipedia rules say to not linked to copyright infringing works (there are exceptions) - that is the scraped ones. This bot wont add links to citeceerx for that reason. Similarly, it wont add S2 links. There are editors that activelly remove these links if they cannot verify a license. S2 now has an API for determining licenses (see discussion above) and so there is a debate on adding tbose. The agrument against is tbat all legal S2 links are also free from the publisher. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

As long as we are discussing links and such, another reason ID conversion got started was because linking to PDFs instead of landing pages violates disabilty access rules. Is that still true? AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
It's the opposite: direct links to PDFs work fine with screenreaders because the PDF gets downloaded immediately and the PDF reader can perform text-to-speech, while links to the landing page are not accessible because the link to full text may be hidden behind JavaScript without any semantic in HTML, so the link often cannot be followed with the keyboard. Nemo 18:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Interesting that the PDF link policy has reversed, although it has been years since I read that. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I've not made claims about a general policy, I'm just describing accessibility considerations for this website. With other open archives, the landing page is often more accessible because it has semantic HTML, which is probably why Citation bot traditionally prefers to link the landing page. I don't know what's the policy, although I would hope that accessibility trumps other considerations. Nemo 19:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Accessibility is not the only concern. You get to see a very light HTML document with the abstract, which lets you decide if you want to download the PDF or not [which tend to be much larger]. As well as all the other benefits from the SemanticsScholar website, like share buttons, related papers, etc... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
"Very light" sometimes, but definitely not in the case of Semantic Scholar, which downloads about 1 MB for JavaScript only. PDFs are often smaller than that. I just checked a sample of 100 pdfs.semanticscholar.org URLs and their median content-length was a bit less than 500 KiB, so less than half the size of the landing pages. Nemo 22:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
I hope that is a one time download of javascript. A lot of websitse these days are just somthing like <body><run javascript="BigFile.js" /><body>, but the script is the same for all pages. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't help the occasional visitor. Most Wikipedia users are not regulars at Semantic Scholar. Nemo 10:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
True. More important is that PDF links expire. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020Edit

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RexxS (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

lol… here we go again  — Chris Capoccia 💬 01:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended content
can we at least get an example of what this "disruptive edit" would be?  — Chris Capoccia 💬 01:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Read two sections up, or the ANI currently on, or AManWithNoPlan's talk page. The issue is being discussed in about five places already. And typically, a result of bot operators not communicating very clearly when editors raise concerns or ask questions ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
exciting… maybe everything will be back in order by august. the bot has been moving urls to identifiers for ages.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 02:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Where is the official conversation occurring? —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Blocking this account is causing disruption. User:RexxS can you please unblock it? It does other useful work for me too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: I understand that the bot does useful work, which is why I was loathe to block it in the first place. Nevertheless it is currently set to unlink titles in citations, contrary to the principle that we should provide a free-content link in the title, as clearly demonstrated in the RfC quoted two sections above. I do not believe it is reasonable to start the bot running again until such time as it no longer removes those links. I hope you will understand the difficulty in fixing damaging edits made a high speed, and agree that such edits should not occur. --RexxS (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
moving redundant links to identifiers is what this bot has been doing for ages! if you put a link that duplicates a DOI, it gets rid of it and lists the DOI. same for JSTOR, PMID, and all the rest. it's not new behavior that should be needing some new approval. there are probably million citations formatted this way.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 16:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
That's because the bot users didn't believe that the title needed to be linked where possible to a free text source. But when last month's RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs overwhelmingly endorsed the principle of linking in the title, the bot users should have modified its behaviour to comply. It's not as though they were unaware of the sentiment. I was therefore surprised to see the bot removing more links from titles yesterday. It needs to stop and the lost links should be restored. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
so we're blocking the bot because the part-time programmers haven't updated the bot yet? seems kind of silly. at the rate this bot's owners are involved, it will easily be 2 months before it's ready to go again. meanwhile, lots of bare URLs used in many articles that are just going to collect unformatted.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 17:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The alternative is to see hundreds or possibly thousands of links to free text being removed from citation titles. The bare urls will be fixed as soon as the bot is working again, but there's been no fix supplied for restoring the links it removed. --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the vast majority of redundant URLs that the bot is removing are behind paywalls (sciencedirect.com, elsevier.com, etc.). If there are no freely accessible source, the title should not be linked as this results in needless MOS:SEAOFBLUE and unnecessary bloating of citation templates. Most URLs that are included in citation templates are not carefully selected but rather automatically added by citation template generators who are completely oblivious to whether the source is freely available or not. The meaning of the   icon next to document identifiers is immediately obvious. So why are we linking titles at all? Boghog (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot is removing links to free text sources from the title in citations. You call that redundancy and I call it contrary to the community's clearly expressed view that titles should be linked. If you read the RfC linked above or even just check the quotes I provided above, you'll see that your view was thoroughly rejected. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
My view was not thoroughly rejected as I was one of several dissenting voices that participated in that discussion. Boghog (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Your view was one of a handful of dissenting voices whose arguments were rejected. Support was so overwhelming that the RfC was closed early. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: The survey that you point to was flawed because it was not neutrally worded. A closely related RfC that was neutrally worded ended in no consensus. Boghog (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@Boghog: The RfC was not flawed and nobody objected to the wording, which was a neutral description of Pintoch's proposal. You contributed and had the opportunity to object to the wording at the time, and it is disingenuous to try to do so retrospectively. That RfC was also recent and held at a central location, Village Pump, unlike the year-old RfC you cite at a the talk page for CS1 citations. The RfC you quote attempted to remove autolinking for the title when the pmc parameter was used, and failed to find consensus to do so. There is no doubt that a large majority of editors want to see titles linked to free content where possible, just as there is no doubt that the bot does not have approval to remove such links. --RexxS (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Taking into account both RfCs, the opinion is not as one sided as you make it out to be. Boghog (talk) 17:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
The old RfC you quote contained exactly one editor arguing that titles should not be linked: and that was you. Considering you also expressed your view in the new RfC, it doesn't alter the balance of overwhelming support for the principle of linking titles one jot. In fact, in the old RfC Colin, who didn't contribute to the recent RfC, stated "Readers expect article titles to be URLs if they can read them. Hieroglyphics at the end of the citation are impenetrable to normal folk". Taking the old RfC into consideration actually makes the support for the principle of linking titles even more one-sided. --RexxS (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: exactly one editor arguing that titles should not be linked: and that was you – clearly false, there were a number of other editors that shared my opinion. Why are you fixated on crushing others that don't agree with you? With that kind of attitude, no wonder why WP:MED has become so dysfunctional. Can't we agree to disagree? Boghog (talk) 12:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we can. --RexxS (talk) 12:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I think you're both right. The bot generally removes paywalled URLs which are redundant with the DOI, but in the last few days it was particularly busy removing (legitimate) (mostly green open access) repository links now supported by a specific parameter. ::::::::::::Nemo 19:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
The issue is that the bot has been converting URLs into unique identifiers for over a decade. With the advent of the S2 URLs people have decided they do not want those convetered or at least dropped after conversion. For a historical note, almost all the URLs getting converted were added by citation bot, before the copyright enforcers realized that a substantial majority of them are copyright infringments. A lot of the title links people have complaimed about being removed (not all) fall into the infringement catagory. There is a discussion above about having the bot add in licenses S2 ID, but there quite a few people that believe that S2 should almost never be linked. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
Boghog, your impression is incomplete ... the bot was removing my carefully selected free text URLs from Featured artcles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS:, I would say the village pump proposal didn't get enough attention from users of Citation Bot. I never heard about it until now.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 20:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS:, Will you at least agree that (1) titles should not be linked to sites that are behind paywalls and (2) no links should be included that infringe copyrights. Most of the URLs that citation bot has removed fall into one or the other of those categories. Boghog (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Chris Capoccia: I'm sorry that you were unaware of the RfC at the Village Pump. It is generally regarded as the most central location to discuss proposals and to involve the broadest possible participation. I understand that it is difficult to ensure that everybody becomes aware of central discussions, but if you skim through the contributors, you'll find other users of Citation bot participated. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
@Boghog: (1) I'm agnostic about links to sites that are paywalled, but my concern is the free-to-read source links that the bot removes. (2) We should not be linking to sites that infringe copyrights, but my concern is the legitimate source links that the bot removes. (3) I disagree that most of the links that the bot removed fell into either of those two categories, my sampling indicates the opposite to be true. In any case, it should not be unlinking any titles that point to legitimate free-to-read sources. Do you contend that it has approval to do so? If so, a diff would be useful. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
i see citations where some user finds a pdf and blocks the pmc title linking by adding a URL where the article already had correctly listed pmid, doi & pmc. and goobers are objecting saying "what's a pmc? why are you deleting my url?" or someone uses the pnas or lancet link to full article for something that already has pmc. it's pointless putting these urls in when there are persistent identifiers like pmc. are you trying to have a title link for every citation?  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
That is not my situation. I provide a free full text URL when there is not a PMC. Those were being removed. AMWNP explained I can prevent that by putting a comment In the URL field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm one of those goobers who doesn't understand what a PMC is or how it's different from a PMID or a DOI or a JSTOR link. When I see a citation that has multiple identifier links but not a title link, I get confused and I don't know what to click on. What I want is to click on the title and be brought to a free copy of the source, if available, or if not, to the "official" or otherwise best copy of the source. I'm pretty sure most readers are with me on this. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 18:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
See PMID vs PMCID. The first is a link to PubMed, the second to PubMed Central. PubMed Central is a repository of freely-accessible articles. PMID is a general database that contains metadata and other things, but doesn't itself contain articles. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Headbomb, thanks for responding, but I think you've missed my point completely. I don't know which link to click on because I don't know the difference between PMID and PMC, etc. The answer to that is not to educate me about the difference. Let me rephrase: as a reader, I don't know, I don't want to know, I don't care, and I don't want to spend the time/effort to learn, the difference between different identifiers like PMID and PMC. I want to read the source article. I just want to know which link I should click on to read the source article. Presenting me with a series of links with acronyms doesn't tell me that. Don't get me wrong, the options should be there for those who know what they are and want to access the different versions. But there should be, for every citation, one link, one "main" link, that the reader clicks on, and that link should be under the title of the work. And, again, I'm pretty sure most readers are with me about wanting one link, and not wanting to learn the difference between PMC and PMID. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 21:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
PMC has a green lock next to it indicating it's free. It also automatically generates a link on the title. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, something I don't know and don't want to learn. The solution to "I don't know which of multiple identifiers is the free one" is not to expect more learning from the reader about our citation formatting. That's what "user friendly" and "intuitive UI" is all about. Everyone already knows to click the title to get to the source. It's not reasonable, or desirable, to expect every reader to learn that PMID is a repository and PMC is a database and if it's a green lock it means it's free, if it's a red lock it means it's not free, etc. The solution to "the user doesn't know how to use it" is not to educate the user. It's to make the function simpler. In this case, we're moving from something everybody already knows how to work (click the title), to something very few people know how to work (wikilinked acronyms and lock symbols). Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 21:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
I have been following this discussion for a few days since it came up on my watchlist. I must say that I agree totally with Levivich here and I feel that the approach used by the bot and supported by Headbomb is completely wrong headed. Our focus should be on making things as easy and intuitive as possible for our readers and it is totally unreasonable to expect those readers to understand or even be remotely interested in the finer points of some obscure, arcane system of referencing sources. Where a free use version of a source is available, anything but a direct link to that source through a single click on the title is simply unacceptable. - Nick Thorne talk 01:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t want to say anything, but since this account has been blocked for related issues: There were two issues with this edit:

  • It removed the URL to an open access version of a currently paywalled journal entry. It’s important this article, which discusses a very contentious issue (the Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous), uses as much as possible open access publicans in its footnotes so other editors can read the footnotes and correct any errors or biases I make in my edits.
  • It incorrectly called The Atlantic a “Journal” (it’s a magazine)

While I have repaired the damage, these changes did reduce the quality of the article. SkylabField (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

SkylabField, The Cite web that got changed to Cite journal by the bot was an improvement. You completed the improvements. See the conversation for details on why it may be correct to remove an open access link to copyrighted paywalled content. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I think that I disagree. This url links to a pdf copy of the abstract and plain-language summary sections of the full report; it is not the full report, just two sections of it:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012880.pub2/pdf/abstract
cs1|2 converts the doi to this url:
https://doi.org/10.1002%2F14651858.CD012880.pub2
which in turn gets redirected via this url to an html version of the abstract and plain-language summary sections of the full report:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD012880.pub2/full
In the html version you can see that there are seven additional sections plus appendices (right column in the grey box).
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m only seeing the abstract and plain language summary in the HTML file linked to; I am not seeing additional sections. There is nothing over here in the HTML version not available in the linked PDF version. SkylabField (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Column on the right side of this page, grey box has this list of article sections
Abstract
Plain language summary
Authors' conclusions
Summary of findings
Background
Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Appendices
Everything except the abstract and plain-language summary sections is behind the paywall. All are linked and when clicked offers institutional-user-sign-in or purchase options for everyone else.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary breakEdit

  • When can we expect the unblock of Citation Bot? Grimes2 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I have been waiting for the big OAuth changeover to be done before asking, which now done. Also, I have been busy doing a conversion from PHP 5.6 to 7.2, which is now done. The bot has been changed so that the S2 title-link will only be removed if one of these two is true
  1. There is an active auto-link (Currently PMC, but soon will be more I have heard via |doi-access=free and such).
  2. The S2 page is not licensed by S2, and was just a web-scrape.

It is worth noting that the bot currently does not work since the OAuth tokens have not yet been updated by the bot operator (he has been asked). Similarly, the URL expansion part is completely down, and many tools will not work because of the DNS changes. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you please translate this for us lesser mortals who have no idea what the hey S2 and PMC actually are? Oh, and I don't like the sound of your first condition, but that may be because you choose to use cryptic descriptors. - Nick Thorne talk 13:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
S2 is Semantic Scholar. PMC is PubMed Central. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Citation bot (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

bot changed to only remove URL if a PMC link will take its place or if Semantic Scholar link is unlicensed. If other auto-linking flags such as doi-access=free create a link, we will recognize that in the future too. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Despite several requests, there has been no evidence shown of bot approval for the removal of links from citation titles. If such approval does actually exist, or it is sought and granted, please show the evidence in a new unblock request. If the bot is changed to remove these link removals, please make a new unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Seeing as you blocked, your thoughts? The issue appears to have been dealt with. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: The issue I blocked for was the removal of links from citation titles, a task for which the bot is not authorised, nor is there any consensus for it. Has that issue now been resolved unambiguously? and will the bot be editing only within its authorisation in future? --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot will only delink S2 from the title during conversion to |S2CID= if one of these is true: the PMC is linked in the title (there was a general liking if this idea) OR the S2 url is not a publisher approved copy (this will catch people off guard at times, but those links do violate WP policy). If other things like doi-access=free start auto-linking works and is available, I assume that removing the URL during S2 conversion makes sense just like PMC auto linking does now. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, AManWithNoPlan. Three questions then:
  1. One of the bot edits I complained about removing citation title links was this one, which removed the link from the citation title, and was not related to s2cid. Are we now certain that it won't remove any more links from citation titles, with the possible exception of links pointing to copyvios at Semantic Scholar?
  2. You state that it will remove the link from a citation title when it points to a copyvio at Semantic Scholar. Where is the bot approval for that task?
  3. If the answer to 1 is in the negative, where is the bot approval for that task?
I think that satisfactory answers to those questions should be essential prerequisites to any unblocking. --RexxS (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The JSTOR link does not link to a full free copy, so it would be removed. We have had consensus for converting URLs to IDs for a long time. As for removal of copyvio links, since we have consensus to convert links that do not link to full and open copies, the copyvio S2 links fall into the "not full and open" pile of URLs. Copyvio is a bid deal on wikipedia, a much bigger deal than linking non-free copies. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Removing copyvio S2 links seems like a big win to me. I don't see why the bot should be blocked for doing this. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@AManWithNoPlan: No, that's untrue. You have no consensus to remove links from citation titles, and the bot has no authorisation to do so. If you believe you have authorisation, then please quote and link the text of it. Without consensus and bot approval, I strongly oppose any unblocking.
Copyright is indeed a big deal on Wikipedia, and is far too important to leave to a bot's judgement. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It actually S2 that provides the judgement on the copyvio status of their pages. There is no judgement, just clear facts straight from the horses mouth. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 01:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There is consensus to remove non-free links redudant with identifiers, yes, and it is authorized to do so as well as many other bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
So there's no authorisation for Citation bot to remove any links and you cannot supply text or link to its authorisation. There's no consensus for it either, and you are unable to present a link for where any consensus was reached. This bot has been used irresponsibly by a small self-selected group to impose their view of how citations should be presented. --RexxS (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DOI_bot_2, from 2008 [see also [2]]. And template documentation, since pretty much time immemorial: Use parameters, not URLs when specific parameters are available, because URLs should be used for freely accessible versions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
You see, this a perfect example of the FUD produced when the bot's approval is questioned. From Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DOI_bot_2, we read

Function Summary: Add missing parameters to citations from CrossRef database, and tidy citations

Function Details: ... Consensus appears to be that specifying a URL parameter is also useful; the bot can specify the URL that the DOI redirects to and in some cases make an intelligent guess as to its nature (abstract, fulltext etc) which can be recorded in the "format" parameter.

There have also been requests for the bot to correct common mistakes, such as replacing "id = PMID 123" with "pmid=123", percent-encoding parameters within dois so they link correctly, and replacing erroneously capitalised parameters (example: "Journal=Science" with "journal=Science"). Since these seemed uncontroversial I implemented these as I went, but my sense is that an official approval would placate some of Wikipedia's adminsitrators.

In cases where there is more than one instance of a parameter, the bot will remove: If one or more are empty, the empty one; Any identical duplicates ...

Adding URLs to nonfree articles? One question: the usual style in articles I edit is that url= is reserved for articles where the entire text is freely readable, and that url= is not used for articles where just the abstract is readable (for that, you can just live with the DOI or PMID or whatever). Will the bot support this convention? That is, on such articles will it refuse to add URLs to articles that aren't entirely readable? ... I envision this being a possible bone of contention. I envision the bot providing a link where only an abstract is visible, but marking the URL as "abstract" or "subscription required" (using the "format" parameter). The rationale for this is that casual readers may not understand that a DOI or PMID provides a link to the article, and that a title link is intuitive to follow. The bot can't really tell whether editors have only chosen to provide URLs to free texts, you see.

In the majority of articles I edit (which tend to be scientific rather than medical), the convention seeems to be to provide a link, whatever - but then I guess that DOIs are rarely specified. I guess the crux of the matter is whether the title being linked is a genuine help to users, which was the sense I got from discussions on my talk page - I guess each of us has our own entrenched opinion that we're unlikely to change, so it would be helpful to get some views from the wider community!

That's what we were promised by Smith609, and that's what was authorised: absolutely nothing about removing links from titles; a request to remove more than one instance of a parameter (not to remove one parameter when it points to the same place as different parameter); a clear recognition that opinions differ about what the title link may point to; and a suggestion that wider community input would be helpful. All of that has gone out of the window.
The next part of that BRFA is really instructive:

Proposal from Wikipedia:AN

2. The bot must not remove or alter an existing URL.

The second limitation was discussed at length on Wikipedia:AN. The third, fourth, and fifth items are the only things the bot should be doing.

So we had an AN complaint brought by MCB at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive143 #DOI bot blocked for policy reconsideration for "implementing a major policy change in the way Wikipedia makes web references, without large-scale community consensus and buy-in". Read it. there's nothing in there that indicates any consensus for your use of the bot to systematically strip links from citation titles, and plenty of evidence of just the opposite. The bot should respect the judgement of the editor who links the title and not impose your vision as a fait accompli. You can certainly make a case for removing links that point to copyvios, and there would be support for that, but it would require approval, because there is no approval whatsoever for the bot to remove links from citation titles. --RexxS (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
From that same BRFA The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#". Also from the bot description in May 2008 at the time of approval. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Emphasis mine: The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#" - I think this was the one URL manipulation deemed okay. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because back then, the bot was touching other non-identifier-based URLs like this. That's the context for that RFC. The DOI function has since been expanded to other identifiers. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
The DOI function has since been expanded to other identifiers without approval, which is why the bot is blocked right now. Let's just move on to the next part where the code that removes |url= is commented out, the bot is unblocked, and approval for removing |url= is sought. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 22:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It's been expanded in line with consensus. Bots do not need re-approval for the same tasks with minor changes in scope. There is nothing different about removing a PMID url to a PMID parameter, or a JSTOR url to a JSTOR parameter than from a DOI url to a DOI parameter. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If it's been expanded in line with consensus, then it'll be a quick and easy BRFA. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 22:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There's no need for a BRFA when there already is a valid one and that the expansion is in line with consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a need when multiple editors are challenging whether or not the expansion is in line with consensus. The extreme hesitancy to seek explicit community approval is how I know, that you know, that the community will not approve. Anyone confident that consensus already exists would have started the discussion weeks ago. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 22:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
There's one editor with an axe to grind. This does not undo 12+ years of smooth operation concerning this exact function, nor does it warrant holding the entire community hostage to the whims of that person. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's true, it'll be a quick BRFA, and you'll get to say "I told you so". (But of course it's not just one editor.) Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
"is how I know" spoken by an arrogant mind-reading jerk AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Mind WP:CIVIL. There's no need for this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I apologize, there was no need for Levivich to claim to read minds and no need for me to strike back. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Eh, I thought that was fair, my comment was jerk-ish, but we are simply past the point where anyone can credibly claim to hold a good faith belief that the bot is operating with clear consensus. This is not one user with an axe to grind; consensus for removing the url parameter is, at best, murky. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 06:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I think I lot of people just surprised that the bot went from first mention of the problem this page to being blocked in under 7 hours. People have been actively discussion this instead of just jumping straight to request the unblock. Plus, I personally was using the time to upgrade the bot to PHP 7.3.  AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there a list somewhere of the specific circumstances under which the bot deletes |url= from a citation template, currently? I see two such circumstances in the unblock request (and a third potential future circumstance), is that list complete? Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 03:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Levivich: I believe currently it basically it replaces/removes |url= with specific identifier (e.g. |url=https://www.jstor.org/ with |jstor=...) when specific identifiers are available (this goes back to 2008 or so, and is in line with template documentation/standard usage). With S2CID urls currently remaining untouched when there are free full versions for now, but which will be removed once the CS1/CS2 templates are updated to support autolinking when |S2CID-access=free is set. AManWithNoPlan or Martin609 would know more though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
That is correct about replacing |url= with specific identifier. S2CID is a fairly unique case in that it often includes a full copy. So, those |url= will only be removed during the conversion IF some thing else will turn the title into a blue link (Such as PMC and hopefully soon things like |S2CID-access=free. One other exception in the current code are the copyright violating pages on S2, which the |url= will be removed (but the |S2CID= will stay) in accordance with wikipedia's "don't link to copyright violations" policy. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Where's the link and text of the approval for removing "|url= [and replacing] with specific identifier"? Where's the consensus for doing that? The clear answer is that neither of those exist. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: "Despite several requests, there has been no evidence shown of bot approval for the removal of links from citation titles." That's patently untrue. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DOI bot 2 where conversions of |url= to |doi= is explicitly approved (search for The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#" at the bottom of the BRFA). This was explicitly trialled (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hubble_Space_Telescope&diff=prev&oldid=211876538). Also from the bot description in May 2008 at the time of approval. This is a function that's never been controversial since it's BRFA in 2008, which also has been approved in multiple other bots, such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CitationCleanerBot, and which is fully inline with template documentation (e.g. Template:Cite_journal#Identifiers): use identifiers parameters instead of parameter URLs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

What an unbelievable piece of selective quoting! This is what was actually written: "The bot replaces "url=http://dx.doi.org/#" with "doi=#" - I think this was the one URL manipulation deemed okay.
"I think this was the one url manipulation deemed okay". No other url 'manipulation' has ever been approved. We already have recent overwhelming consensus that the citation title should be linked when a free |doi= is present at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 167 #Auto-linking titles in citations of works with free-to-read DOIs, so replacing url with doi is an irrelevance, a settled issue, because it won't delink the citation title. You don't have the right to unilaterally and arbitrarily extend the bot's approval from "the one url manipulation deemed okay" to unlinking the citation title when any one of a dozen or more unspecified parameters are present. Fix that first. --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, the context of that was the RFC where Citation bot was utterly mangling citations with non-identifier-based URLs like this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Sorry if you disagree, but I have read all of this carefully and it's the only conclusion I can come to. The Village Pump consensus also influenced my unblock review (and I forgot to include it in my review comments, apologies - but I'm saying it here now). I do not see authorisation for what the bot is currently doing, and I see a consensus against what it is doing. I suggest the best thing to do at this point might be to make another WP:BAG request to clarify/confirm what the bot is authorised to do and what it is not - though it might be better to clarify the consensus as to how citation titles should be treated first. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The thing that concerns me most in this whole sorry mess is that both AMWNP and Headbomb seem unable or unwilling to operate/maintain this bot within its authorisation. This is not acceptable, and how it has not ended up at AN/I is beyond me. - Nick Thorne talk 05:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
It ended up there already. Levivich[dubiousdiscuss] 06:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
1) That is perfectly within the terms of it's approval, and explicitly so. 2) I'm neither maintainer, nor operator of this bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The bot did not go to AN/I. It was the blocking of users of the bot instead of the bot itself that went there. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • This is one of the most important and widely used bots on the Wiki. This needs to be back up and running soon. I propose that AMWNP and Headbomb remove the disputed functionality, restore the bot to operational status, and then we can argue about its DOI and URL functions while the old version of the bot works. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a new WP:BRFA is needed here, though I still support unblocking an old version of the bot while the months long BRFA goes through. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Again, I neither code, nor operate Citation bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Oh gosh, I'm sorry Headbomb, I didn't read my post carefully enough. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Well to be fair, there was a weird typo/word salad here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Why is this blocked? Yes, I see there's a dispute about some minor details of urls. But guys, please keep scope in mind. Url links within the title are pretty rare and while you argue many citations are languishing as just a doi. :( I don't care whether the controversal code is removed and the bot is unblocked or the bot is unblocked as is while a consensus is reached, I just wish you wouldn't drag every wikipedian who wants to fill a citation into this dispute. Iamnotabunny (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
it's because the regular editors using citation bot don't see title URLs as any big deal but the people who actually pushed the block button are like OMG THE SKY IS FALLING!!111 NEED TITLE URLS BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO CLICK!!  — Chris Capoccia 💬 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I look forward to the unblocking of this tool. I hope soon.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • looks like CS1 has started title linking |doi-access=free… hopefully |S2CID-access=free and all the other similar ones. are things ready to revisit this blocking and reactivate?  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
    • I hope so, but Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation_bot was not withdrawn yet. I think incremental fixes are better but maybe the proposers still prefer a full-scale review of everything under the sun. Nemo 15:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I have been busy with other things. I have been busy teaching a college seminar and preparing the bot for PHP 7.4 which has found a few bugs (all the ones so far have no effect on output or crash the bot) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
        • OK well it looks like |S2CID-access=free is not making title links, so we're probably not ready to go anyway. Maybe by August :(   — Chris Capoccia 💬 23:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Restart?Edit

really i was only joking up above when i suggested the bot might be out through august.... are we any closer to a restart?  — Chris Capoccia 💬 20:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Since this appears to be down for a while, is there a way to remove the "Expand citations" tool (from the left side of each page) until it is available again? DougHill (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Please restart this useful tool, or make something that does the same thing, but better. A bunch of pointless bickering about relatively small issues has completely stalled what could have improved thousands of articles in the downtime. Shameful. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to see a return of Citation bot needs to add their comments under Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Issues_raised_by_Citation_bot. But right now it doesn't look too promising.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 15:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
@Chris Capoccia: I expect everybody wants to see Citation Bot restarted, myself included. But, as far as I'm aware, there has not been a single statement from the bot operator indicating any intention to address the many concerns raised over the bot's editing. I'm pessimistic about the chances of seeing the bot restarted if it's just going to cause the same concerns again. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. For ages the bot has deleted URLs that were duplicated by parameters. This is part of core functionality. There are some very different ideas of what the bot is supposed to be doing and I don't see the sides getting any closer. So the bot is going to stay blocked forever and not come back.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 16:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, perhaps the community will conclude that all of the concerns that folks like myself have expressed are without value, and issues like the removal of links from citation titles are part of its remit with approval and broad consensus. Then it can be restarted as it is. However, if the community agrees that valid concerns exist, then either the operator will bring the functionality into line, or it will sadly stay blocked. I'm just disappointed that there has not been a shred of compromise on the part of the bot operator that might have met the concerns half-way and made possible a restart under mutually acceptable conditions months ago. --RexxS (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

OAuth will not work for much longerEdit

Status
new bug
Reported by
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 06:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
What happens
Not sure whether any action is required regarding OAuth_not_working_at_new_domain
Relevant diffs/links
Once action taken or determined as not required, mark off as 'done' at Here
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


Things to do

  1. New Oauth tokens (NOT DONE YET — hacked to use old tokens)
  2. All URLs must be updated in GitHub (done)
  3. Gadget and sidebar button code updated on Wikipedia (done)
  4. Dev code, if anyone has it (done - that's their problem, and that bot is down anyway)
  5. other people with their own scripts (done - that's their problem, and the ones I know about told)
  6. DNS moved (done)
  7. Update Bot wiki pages (done)
  8. Update https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Automated_tools (done)

AManWithNoPlan (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Do we already have a permissive CORS rule as suggested in https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/News/Toolforge.org#Cross-Origin_Resource_Sharing_(CORS)_requests_broken ? I'm currently getting errors on that front. Nemo 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
I now know that is not relevant here. But, thanks for the link, that was a good idea to check out. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

URL expander down - anyone have any idea why??Edit

Ever since the DNS change. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

https://translation-server.toolforge.org/ gives 503 error code AManWithNoPlan (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/NoticeboardEdit

Persuant to WP:BOTAPPEAL, I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Citation_bot regarding this bot's continued approval. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge italics/boldEdit

Status
new bug
Reported by
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
What should happen
[3]
We can't proceed until
Feedback from maintainers


With care to ensure that something like '''Bold''' ''italics'' is handled properly and not converted to say '''Bold' italics''. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)