User talk:JCW-CleanerBot/Archive 1

Archive 1

There's no reason to abbreviate names of journals cited in Wikipedia articles

You seem to be going about fastidiously making small corrections in the ways in which names of journals are abbreviated. But the only reason for abbreviating at all does not apply to Wikipedia. It's a practice introduced for journals printed on paper. There's no reason for not spelling out the name of a journal completely. Nobody will fail to understand which journal it is as a result of its being spelled out completely rather than being abbreviated. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

PS: I don't think "paleontology" is a misspelling. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

JCW-CleanerBot is standardizing abbreviations, I'm pretty sure JCW-CleanerBot never changed a fully spelled out name to an abbreviation, but if you have a diff showing me otherwise, I'll go back an fix things. As for paleontology, that depends on the journals. Sometimes it's a misspelling, sometimes it's not (much like Animal Behaviour vs Animal Behavior, it depends on what the actual title of the publication actually is). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I never thought it was changing full titles to abbreviations; I just thought it seems like a waste to spend effort on correcting abbreviations rather than on getting rid of them. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

One of the main benefits is that it helps with searches / redirects creation, and also makes things like WP:JCW/TAR more useful/easier to deal with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I consider abbreviated journal names a major annoyance and essentially a thing of the past - per "Wikipedia is not paper", we should try to get rid of them (but still create redirects for them to ease searching and reverse lookup).

Whenever I run into an abbreviated journal name in a citation, I try to identify the fully spelled out form (which is not always possible for some crude abbreviations) and replace the abbreviation by the actual name, and if we have an article or redirect for it, I link to it. When I see an abbreviation actually used in printed sources or Google, I create a redirect for it (if we have a related article).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Get consensus for that, and I'll happily implement it. It's my personal preference as well, but some people really insist on having abbreviations, and WP:CITEVAR applies. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I always use the ISO 4 in a piped link: [[Journal of Polymer Science Part A|J. Polym. Sci. A]] I consider this the best compromise for brevity, readability (those familiar know the short forms) and yet clarity without having to navigate off the page. I would be most unhappy to see a 'bot removing either half of this, or converting full names to abbreviations alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Page numbering error

In this edit your bot changed a hyphen in a page number to a dash. The hyphen was correct because the publication used hyphenated page numbers (specifically, the chapter number, a hyphen, and the page within the chapter). Another editor reverted the change and I added a nobot template to prevent your bot from editing the page in the future. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The solution is [1], per cite web documentation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Article blanking

What happened here: [2]?

I can't see any other cases, but if this is ever likely, a 'bot ought to check that it isn't saving an empty page. Can you re-bot that page, and see if it was random or if something on that page triggers it repeatedly? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Microchips for you!

DoctorWho42 has given you microchips! Microchips promote WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day more efficient. It is the food best preferred by bots. 🤖 Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else microchips, whether it be someone you have had robot wars with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of microchips by adding {{subst:Microchips for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 03:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC) 🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 03:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Bad edit outside of a citation

In Special:Diff/807549337, the bot altered a direct quote containing the name of a journal (not part of any citation) to use a cleaned-up version of the journal name. It should not ever do that. If the bot cannot distinguish between journal names in citations and journal names in other parts of article text, it should not be running in automated mode. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

That's my bad. I was running it in semi-automated mode and didn't notice the quotes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

PLOS One

I've just noticed the bot changing "Plos One" to "PLoS ONE". But the journal itself no longer uses the "PLoS ONE" styling (in favour of "PLOS ONE") and, moreover, we shouldn't be obligated to follow the publisher's typographical branding here on Wikipedia. Following a recent move, our article is titled PLOS One and I think, if anything, that should be the preferred version. – Joe (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Really what should be done is use the title as it appeared on the cover at the time. No real way of doing that with my bot, so I went for the next best thing and get rid of "PloS" and "Plos" variants as best I could. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. I'm not sure I agree though. Capitalisation isn't part of a journal's title, it's a typographical style, and per MOS:TM we should prefer standard English forms over an "official" style. I mean, if it said, "Public Library of SCIENCE — one" on the cover, we wouldn't dream of copying that. – Joe (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

What on Earth is this bot programmed to do?

What on Earth is this bot programmed to do? Apart from make invisible changes to articles on my Watchlist? Graham Beards (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Do you have an example of where the bot did nothing/invisible changes? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot mistake

What happened with this edit? --.ResonantWin. (talk) 20:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No idea. Can't reproduce the bug either. I'll check other edits made around that date and see if I can't find a pattern/if it happened elsewhere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:19, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

French journal titles

One of the recent trawls by this bot appears to have been to capitalize all principal words in French journal titles, so that e.g. Annales scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure becomes Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure. This is wrong (and smacks of cultural imperialism). French practice, followed by Wikipedia (WP:FRENCHNAMES), is to capitalize only the first word and proper nouns, and to leave other words in lower case. Similarly in other languages: Annali di Matematica pura ed applicata NOT Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata. GrindtXX (talk) 12:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this GrindtXX, but it seems like the bot is continuing Milkerjane to make such changes such as Annales de la Société entomologique de France → Annales de la Société Entomologique de France Umimmak (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The article is located at Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, and is also how the publication refers to itself in French. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

From the official website [3]: The Annales de la Société entomologique de France, existing since 1832, is an international, peer-reviewed journal publishing high-quality, [...]. That page also has a cover with a lowercase "e" from 2017. See also the title on Taylor & Francis Online [4], and the Biodiversity Heritage library [5]. Umimmak (talk) 08:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Journal titles

Thanks much for having this fix [English-language] journal titles to title case, per MOS:TITLES. The comment way up top is correct that journal titles should not be abbreviated here. It's a "reader-hateful" practice. It's done in citation in journals because the people reading them already know what they mean, and the journal publisher is trying to save paper. Doing it on WP is against MOS:ABBR and MOS:JARGON. PLOS One should definitely be rendered PLOS One, per MOS:ABBR as to both parts of that name. We'd permit the minor stylization variance "PLoS" if the publisher insisted on it (since lower-casing minor words in acronyms is a recognized though decreasingly common style), but they no longer use that style and others who were mimicking it have dropped it. We would never permit "ONE" because it's not an acronym; that's just "marketing caps", exactly like "SONY ONE" for Sony One; see also MOS:TM on this. And the thread immediately above this is correct that French titles should not be capitalized to English norms (same goes for many other languages); also covered at MOS:TITLES. If it's not English, and it's not been mis-copypasted in ALL-CAPS, just leave it as-is; if there's something wrong with any of those, it'll take clueful human interact to fix it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed SMcCandlish, it’s really frustrating to see foreign titles get recapitalized it a way not in accordance with any style guide just cause the bot forces English capitalization practices on everything. Umimmak (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

That said, the bot may not always be in a position to "do the right thing" in this regard, if there's no indication of the language (i.e., no |lang= or |language= in the citation template). Given that 99.9+ percent of our citations are to English-language sources, it is better for the bot to "guess English"; we can manually patch up any French or whatever titles that the bot "Anglo-capped" and add the missing lang markup. That's far less manual e-labor (orders of magnitude less) than having to fix all the miscapitalized English-language titles if this bot stops auto-fixing those. Also, if the bot is going to look for |lang= and |language=, it can auto-remove any instances with a value of "en" or "en-SOMETHING", since English is the default presumption at en.wiki.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW, you're all replying to a discussion that's over a year old, and has very little to do with the current operation of the bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

You say it has little to do with current operations of the bot but I'm still seeing the bot "correct" foreign titles. Though the most recent one I saw was on 8 Feb when it made naturforschender lowercase in Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin when that should be capitalized. Umimmak (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Diff? If it did that, then it's related to cleanup of #2215 in [6]. There's a lot of variation/misspellings, so I normalized those either capitalization. But it didn't change 'Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin' to 'Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin' or vice-versa. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Well to pick one [7] but it did this on a few articles. Umimmak (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

See above. I try to be careful, but I guess I either picked the 'wrong' variant, or had conflicting find/replace logic. Certainly feel free to put the lowercase again if that's what you prefer, the bot won't edit war with you there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Adding spaces between sections

@Headbomb: is it necessary for this bot to add a space between the end of the content in one section and the beginning of the next? The spaces that were added in this edit affected how these sections rendered in the 3 articles where those sections are transcluded. A full line of vertical white space was added to the end of the sections in the articles that receive transclusions of those sections.

Please let me know if you intend to keep this functionality for the bot; I'll need to add {{bots|deny=JCW-CleanerBot}} in this article if so. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's part of AWB WP:GENFIXES, pretty much all AWB based edits will do that. I suggest taking this to the AWB dev team so they can tweak the behavior when comments all involved. But really those comments shouldn't be there in the first place. They do nothing, even for someone who sees the edit window.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

The comments don't actually serve any purpose besides adding some visual padding between the text and the next section; i.e., removing those comments and simply juxtaposing the text at the end of the section with the heading of the next section would have the same intended effect. The only important thing is that there's no space between the end of the text in those sections and the following section. The reason for that is that if there is an empty line between the text and the next section, the selective transclusion function {{#Section-h:Amphetamine|Section name}} will cause that section to render with an added line break at the end of the section on the page that receives that transclusion. That's an issue caused by how that parser function was coded; the only way to circumvent that problem is to ensure that the source page has no additional empty lines in its markup at the end of "Section name". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, what's happening on the source and target pages of a selective transclusion with that syntax is as follows:

Example of the problem

If the source page's section is marked up as: ===Section heading=== Text space ===Next section=== And the target page is marked up as: ===1st section heading=== {{#Section-h:Source page|Section heading}} space ===2nd section heading=== Then what is actually being rendered on the target page is: ===1st section heading=== Text space (from source page) space (from target page) ===2nd section heading=== As I'm sure you already know, placing 2 empty lines (i.e., the "space" from above) back-to-back in the source generates an empty line in the rendered page.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... that seems like a transclusion-specific thing since you're doing very unusual things with this article. I'd take the issue to WP:AWB, since they are the ones that can do something about this and any AWB-based bot will apply the genfixes that way. Or you could add AWB to the list of denied bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: I found the solution. Put the {{#section-h}} inside a {{trim}}, and it'll remove both leading and trailing whitespace, and Adderall will render as intended. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Thanks. That's a pretty novel solution to the problem. I'll go ahead and add {{trim}} template wrappers around the selective transclusions in the other 2 articles where amphetamine transcludes as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I covered your fix at WP:SELTRANS under the first section, although it technically fixes the line breaks generated by any form of labeled section transclusion, not just the section header-based transclusion method. Hopefully other editors will start nesting selective transclusion templates inside a trim template in the future.

That said, I went through a number of the highest-trafficked pages that receive transclusions from {{transcluded section}} and added the trim template around the selective transclusion template(s) on those pages; almost all of the pages I edited had a line break after the transclusion which was removed by the trim template. {{Events by year for decade}} and {{Events by year for decade BC}}, which are templates that loop over the set of years in a decade and selectively transclude a section of the articles on each corresponding year into a section of another article (e.g., 10 BC→10s BC. 11 BC→10s BC, 12 BC→10s BC, etc.), displayed 8 line breaks between each selective transclusion in the loop; adding the trim template to those 2 loop templates removed all of those line breaks in all 100+ articles where those 2 templates are transcluded (e.g., the 10s BC and 1200s (decade) articles – prior to fixing this, there was a line break at the end of every level 3 section for a year in those articles).

Anyway, I just figured you might want to know that your solution to my seemingly trivial problem ended up removing a lot of line breaks from a lot of articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

See also section transclusion. It might be a good idea to get a bot to wrap the #section thing in a {{trim}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Better yet, get someone to fix phab:T144762. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Bot edit broke DOIs

See here, I'm concerned this could happen repeatedly if the bot logic applies to the whole citation/whole text rather than being specific to the journal/work/periodical parameters? Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

The only way this can happen is if I forgot to cleanup some of the code from a manual run, where I run a more relaxed find/replace logic. The normal automated run has a regex of journal(\s*)=(\s*)[insert whatever here] so it only touches the journal parameter. Judging from what happened, forgetting some manual code is likely what occurred. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks for explanation, I'll see if I come across any other instances. Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Journal title shortened

Hi, why was the journal title shortened as it happened here? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@AFBorchert:, I was simply standardizing the various reference to Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/P47 for a list). That's either

• (short) Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C
• (long) Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature

I chose the short version, since that's how most people would cite it and the section lettering usually remains fixed over time, while the subtitle will change. But if you prefer the long version, you could use that too. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature however, mixes two styles, and was never the title of that publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: thanks for the quick response. The original title page names Section C along with Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature. I simply converted one of the citations of JSTOR, i.e. “De Valera, R. (1959). The Court Cairns of Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature, 60, 9-140. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25505085” to {{cite journal}}. How shall we proceed? I would like to keep both, Section C and the corresponding subtitle Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose there's nothing super extremely wrong with the full Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C: Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature, but that is a very, very wordy reference, much longer than required to identify the source (especially when you provide the JSTOR 25505085 link). I just don't really see what the reader gains with the extra long version. The bot won't edit war over you, at least on the short term. If you want to use that long title and prevent JCW-CleanerBot from changing it down the road, use something like |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Section C:<!--Intentionally long title--> Archaeology, Celtic Studies, History, Linguistics, Literature. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again for the quick reply, Headbomb. You are right that this is usually abbreviated on paper. Usually you will get something like “PRIA 60 C“ without author, title of the work, or the pages. With some luck, you will find a table of abbreviations. I see it as an advantage that we can cite here in full without any concern regarding space. I am always grateful for full references without any abbreviations and try to provide the same service to other readers. The point is that Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy does not point itself to the covered topics, neither does Section C for anyone not familiar with the journals of the RIA. This is the reason why I would like to add the subtitle. The link to JSTOR does not always help. Recently, JSTOR appeared quite often overloaded with long delays until the page loaded. Does your bot look for exactly the comment <!--Intentionally long title--> or will it simply preserve any journal title with a comment in it? Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Any comment will do. You could also wikilink Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C, where the information can be found.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again, Headbomb, I have now re-inserted the long titles with a link to the article and inserted comments for your bot. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

17 March malfunction

The following 3 edits should have been made under my personal account or User:CitationCleanerBot

• [8]
• [9] (which should not have been made per WP:COSMETICBOT / WP:AWBRULES)
• [10]

The malfunction has been solved, so no need to report it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving short description to below hatnotes

Please disable the moving of short description templates to below hatnotes. There are good reasons for having short description as the first item in an article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Short description for more information and the rationale. If you disagree, please discuss on Wikipedia talk:Short description before continuing the change. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That's an AWB thing. If you want this to be disabled, take it to WP:AWB, since those are the only people that can do something about it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will do that. Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Mathematische Annalen

Hi, thanks (mostly) for the fixes ([11]). Hyphenation of page numbers: good. "Matematische" to "Mathematische": good. "Annalen" to "Annalenn": however, seems to be a mistake. (Changing "Annale" to "Annalen", as the edit comment indicates, would of course be good, but only if "Annale" is not already part of "Annalen".) I'll fix this one article, but I also wanted to let you know what happened. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. It made two edits with the bad logic, I thought I fixed both, but apparently I only fixed one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Tagging stubs with Underlinked template

@Headbomb: JCW-CleanerBot has been tagging all the thousands of stubs created by Qbugbot with {{Underlinked}}, for example, Zornella armata. If you look at that stub, it has a dozen links to other articles, including two in the body (which only consists of two sentences). I don't really think it's useful to tag that as "underlinked" (and if it is underlinked, the problem should be addressed by Qbugbot, not by mass tagging). Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kaldari: That's an WP:AWB thing. I'm cleaning up after Qbugbot's crappy citations. I'm currentl working on the Qbugbot citation database, so once I send the new file to @Edibobb:, that should significantly cut down on the underlinking tagging. But yes, Qbugbot should likely address the core issue. Or AWB updated to not tag stubs as underlinked. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! I'll follow up with the AWB folks. Kaldari (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

On of the problems is that AWB didn't consider any of the links inside an automatic taxobox when counting for an underlinked tag. I made a bug report, and I think they changed it so it counts an automatic taxobox as a single link. I believe it counts all the links in a regular taxobox. Bob Webster (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Error editing Levocetirizine

Dropped a } editing an infobox on Levocetirizine

Tyler Szabo 05:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.szabo (talk • contribs)

@Tyler.szabo: probably best if you report this at WP:AWB, since that's what caused the error. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:08, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Headbomb: Aha! Thanks, reported here. Tyler Szabo 09:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute

Headbomb. I think the bot may be making a minor error with the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. It is currently doing this but according to the Royal Anthropological Institute the name is JRAI Incorporating MAN or Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (formerly MAN) or probably more commonly Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Causes date/year conflict

Hi, in this edit the BOT moved a year from the |journal= field into a |year= field when there is already a populated |date= field. In this case the moved year causes a conflict with the date field. Keith D (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

The error was already there, the bot just made it obvious so it could be found and fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Error editing Orcinus citoniensis

You changed “Pseudorca crassidens,” the scientific name of the false killer whale, to “Pseudorca Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciencessidens”   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. I had some leftover code that wasn't meant to be there. It's fixed now. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible error about International Defense Review

Hi, in this edit the bot replaced "International Defense Review" with "International Defence Review". WorldCat has an entry International defense review from Jane's Information Group with dates from 1968 - 1995. WorldCat has another entry for IHS Jane's international defence review with dates from 2012 on. For SAGE, the citation in question may be found at page 316 of Schaffel:

39 R. D. M. Furlong, "NORAD—A Study in Evolution," International Defense Review, 7 no. 3 (Jun 1974), 317—19

Is there a chance that the periodical's name was spelled as Defense until some time when it was changed to Defence? Searching Google Scholar for "International Defense Review" shows about 6000 hits from the 80's and 90's. Searching for ""International Defence Review" returns 1820 hits, mostly more modern than the 80's. No big deal on this, I'm just curious about how to handle the names of publications that have possibly changed. Cxbrx (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it's always due to Americans making a mistake about the British publication. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, as the publication is a British publication, one would expect it to be spelt "Defence" as opposed to "Defense". Ideally, we would find a physical copy of the cited publication and use whatever it is called. I have not been able to find a copy as of yet, but searching Amazon for "International Defense Review" brings up the images of a number of publications from Jane's where it is spelt "Defense" as opposed to "Defence" (Perhaps these were printed for the American market?) I agree that me searching Amazon is original research and not to be trusted, but I feel there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the publication was "Defense" or "Defence". In light of this reasonable doubt, I'm not sure if the name of the citation should be updated. My interest in this is two fold. As a Canadian living in the US, I tend to use British spelling which causes no end of trouble. In the past, I reviewed the bibliographies for research papers and projects where I sometimes came upon incorrect citations that were copied and it was clear that the author had not reviewed the cited material. I agree that this is a minor issue and mainly I'm curious if there is a policy. 21:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to reply to my own reply here, but searching Abe Books for "International Defense Review 1974" yields a number of issues (but not number 3). The site says "Published by Interavia, S.A., Geneva, Switzerland (1974)" and "This publication appears to now by published by Janes but at this time was published by Interavia, S. A. Fair." So, it would seem that the name did change? Cxbrx (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for reverting the bot changes concerning this journal. It certainly is a subtle issue determining when the journal name changed. I strongly support using the proper journal name. I appreciate the bot's efforts in cleaning up citations. Thanks again! Cxbrx (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem

Hi, in this edit the BOT appears to have added an unnecessary "SEL" to the Journal name. Keith D (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll scan and fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Wheels replacement

@Headbomb: I don't know if your change is semi-auto or full auto, but [12] et al are leaving behind "date and year" maintenance messages. If it's semi-auto, can you take a look around the relevant citation for those? --Izno (talk) 14:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Depends on the exact changes, but those were semi-automatted. AFAIK, having both date/year in the same citation is allowed/legal. If that's an issue, I suggest filing an WP:AWB bug so that this gets incorporated in WP:GENFIXES and gets fixed across the board. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Headbomb: On that point, see my latest comments at Help talk:CS1#Moving some items from maintenance to error. --Izno (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Izno: Either way, not something that's really worth coding into the bot (too complex). I'll keep an eye out on Category:CS1 maint: Date and year after bot runs though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, yeah, just wanted you to keep an eye out. --Izno (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Jesus College, Oxford

@Headbomb:, I have corrected the bot's edit of Junior Common Room (Jesus College Record) back to Junior Common Room (JCR). I think this shows that a human review of the bot's corrections is useful.TSventon (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Diff? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, that one. Yeah I missed that. Entirely my fault, since I do review the bot's edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Title change

What is the justification for the change of journal title you made here? The journal name was as displayed at the time the article was published as shown by the relevant IEEE database entry. SpinningSpark 22:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I had bad regex that wasn't designed to handle that case ([[IEEE Foobar|Barfoo, IEEE]]). I assumed a leading IEEE would cancel the ending IEEE, but didn't do a full string check. Now fixed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Cool. SpinningSpark 17:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Mangling clade diagrams

I have reverted your mangling of the clade diagram. You _can not_ replace )) with }} inside a template! 76.127.20.109 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what caused that. This is very likely an AWB thing. I suggest going over at WT:AWB and filing a bug report there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Bot merged two distinct citations

See line 2581 of Special:Diff/896386180. One citation used a citation template correctly, and the other used a idiosyncratic no-template form. It seems that the bot moved everything after the comma into the beginning of the nearest "journal" field, even though that field was in a different ref tag.

I found this error perusing through WP:JCW/Invalid. It might be useful to borrow some logic from User:JL-Bot to guard against introducing something like this in the future. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Yup, my bad. I was operating the bot in semi-automated mode and was reviewing every single edit for that one, but it seems I missed that line. No further action is needed except fixing the article directly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft

I would like the bot to edit this draft. QuackGuru (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: This is not the bot you want, try User:Citation bot instead. You can run it yourself with the Wikipedia:Citation expander. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It messed up the citations. I want JCW-CleanerBot! QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you won't get it, because there's nothing in there that's in the scope of JCW-CleanerBot as far as I can tell. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't manually do all that. QuackGuru (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Get WP:AWB then. Or if you give me a few hours, I'll run AWB from my own account. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

There is no rush. It is a long way before I am done. QuackGuru (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ran AWB, there's no suggested changes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The other bot made a human error. Acts like human. QuackGuru (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific, and if it's some other bot that has an issue, then you should raise the issue on that bot's take page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. QuackGuru (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

ArtLies

ArtLies was the name of an art periodical published in Houston Texas during the early 2000s. The journal was not named Art Lies (Art_Lies), but: ArtLies. Please reprogram not to keep changing this name to a proper grammatical form — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camo1955 (talk • contribs)

@Camo1955: do you have diffs? Because if you're talking about this publication, it looks spaced to me. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Blanked article

Hey Bot! :) This article appeared on the dead-end list which I keep en eye on, and when I went to take a look, turns out you had blanked it. Am I missing something? DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

bot added duplicate |page=

This edit.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Bot eating parts of citations

This edit at Angioplasty was weird; I undid it. Cheers! Jessicapierce (talk) 03:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jessicapierce: So that's where that edit went. I noticed it in AWB and wanted to fix it, but everywhere I checked I just couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing it out, the bot will edit things as it meant shortly. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation in journal title

This bot just changed "Earth, Moon and Planets" to "Earth, Moon, and Planets" (adding a comma) in a reference in the Tholin article. I believe either punctuation is accpeted. But, more to the point, the referenced article and journal do not use the extra comma. I don't think a bot should make punctuation changes which differ from the source's usage. Fcrary (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fcrary: see https://link.springer.com/journal/11038, and you'll see this is the official spelling of the journal. The missing comma is a typo. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange Hiccough (misattribution and repeat)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AMurfee&type=revision&diff=966259930&oldid=963739978

Changed display title of People (Magazine) to NBC and then repeated that sentence/citation (minus "NBC"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antialiased (talk • contribs) 11:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

ordering

The short description is supposed to be first WP:ORDER. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

That's an WP:AWB feature. If you've got an issue with it, make an AWB feature request/bug report. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot blanked an entire page

Namely, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lascar&diff=979276629&oldid=978499551. I'm guessing the bot isn't supposed to do that? Thegreatluigi (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That's weird. Database lag issue I'm guessing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Has the bot (and awb) been running for a long time without a reboot? I've had this same thing happen with monkbot (T241614) when I left it running for too long.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Short description below hatnotes redux

The bot's use of AWB is still moving SD below hats, in violation of MOS:ORDER (a few cases in the past few hours). I see this comment was made in 2018 and again recently. Yes, it's an AWB bug and yes, I've been banging on the maintainers recently. They fixed it in source last November, shortly after releasing 6.1.0.1, but haven't seen fit to make a new binary. See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser for rationale (topic started 23 Aug). Is it possible for you to build from the latest source and use that? If not, I have a build you can download if you trust it. David Brooks (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't update AWB if there's no update out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

OK: I don't have insight into the black box of bot infrastructure, so didn't know if that was an option. I've done what I could at the AWB talk page (and a couple of people have reported satisfaction with the "$2$1" find/replace). David Brooks (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Odd insertion of nbsp's

This bot added some errant nbps's after protein names here. Not quite sure how it did that. Maneesh (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This is likely AWB thinking those are page numbers. Not much I can do about it, but putting a comment like p.<!--AWB, this is not a page-->V281L will prevent all AWB-bots (and low-attention span AWB editors) from making that mistake again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a very unfortunate kludge. To me, such tags make things unacceptably harder to edit. Can this issue be raised somewhere more appropriate? I shudder at the thought of WP peppered with these things any time someone mentions a protein in a standard way. Maneesh (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

You could always ask for a refinement to AWB logic at WT:AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war between User:JCW-CleanerBot and User:Citation Bot over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous

There has been an edit war between User:JCW-CleanerBot and User:Citation Bot over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous:

• JCW-CleanerBot prefers one name for a journal
• But Citation Bot prefers another name
• So an edit war begins
• Which I have hopefully stopped

I have added a comment to the journal name asking Citation Bot to please stop changing the name so this edit war stops. This is the second Citation Bot bug I have had to deal with over at Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous SkylabField (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Addressed at User talk:Citation bot. The issue lies in Citation bot, not this bot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Added unnecessary "</ref>" tag

The bot added a second, unnecessary "</ref>" tag the Donanemab article on 14:23, 22 June 2021. Wikipedialuva (talk) 02:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikipedialuva: the bot didn't add that, the tag was already there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Deduplication?

This bot seems to also do de-duplication as part of its task 2 (I got curious why it removed 751 bytes): [13]. I think that ought to be noted on its user page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:58, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: that's standard WP:GENFIXES, already noted in the userpage. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Creating date problems

Hello, the BOT keeps moving date information from the journal name and placing it in a |year= field even when there is already a |date= field present. Keith D (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Keith D: without a diff, this is hard for me to diagnostic. But I suspect that it's because there's two dates somewhere, so the bot is just making an existing problem more apparent. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry - diff. I have removed year in this case as conflicts with date field. Keith D (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Keith D:, except you didn't really fix things, you kept the wrong date. Volume 41 Issue 3 was published in 1998, not 1996. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Correcting Irish English to American English Comment

The page Suzanne Crowe is in Irish English/Hiberno-English but the bot changed paediatric anaesthesia (Irish spelling) to pediatric anesthesia (American spelling). See diff: [14] --GeneralBelly (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GeneralBelly: My bad, this was supposed to only touch the names of journals like here, I didn't think this would appear elsewhere but there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Possible error

I think this edit makes an error. As you can see from the Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences wiki page, there are a confusing number of different titles for the journal at different periods of time, and I believe the version before your diff was the correct one for the article/time in question. It is the same as the journal title on the linked gallica website, and also matches the name on indexing website mathscinet. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gumshoe2: Nope, intentional. Databases have tons of alternative names for the Comptes Rendus, the bot normalizes them to what was on the masthead. In this case, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris (see the actual journal page, not the BNF page) stands for 'Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences'. The long Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences was an old title that was never used when Série A/B/C etc... were published. You can find a list of the actual masthead titles at Comptes rendus de l'Académie des Sciences. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris is a valid abbreviation of either title. For the full name, you can see the literal masthead of the relevant issue of the journal here and here; I think this is unambiguous. As for the wiki page, it seems not entirely clearly written, but even taken at face value it says that the 1835-1965 title Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences "was split into five sections", one of which being Series A, for 1966-1980 (which is the relevant time span here). So as far as I can see, the only place that suggests the validity of your diff is the abbreviation on the journal article's page, but the full title as given at the beginning of that very journal issue matches the previous version of the diff instead. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@Gumshoe2: Hmmm... that's weird. I had verified this a while back, and AFAICT it's all normalized this way at (WP:JCW/Target1). Maybe it was for Série I/II/III... I'll look into this more, and see if it covered specific years only. If Série A/B/C are all like this (CR Hedbo des Scéances...) , I'll have the bot normalize to that title instead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:45, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

It'd be really great if you could figure out the situation, I get confused about it every time that I have to look for a Comptes Rendus article. Gumshoe2 (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you get a chance to look into it? Gumshoe2 (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

România Liberă

Hey, your bot changed Romania Libera to România Literară, when it should in actuality be România Liberă. Please check and revert any other such edits, thanks.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I must have mixed the two entries in WP:JCW/DIACRITICS#216/WP:JCW/DIACRITICS#218/WP:JCW/DIACRITICS#219 by accident. It was only that one article, so if you've fixed it, there's nothing else to worry about. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect magazine titles

The bot is changing from one incorrect title to another - see [15] "m (→‎Further reading: task, replaced: Flying magazine → Flying Magazine)" - the magazine is actually called Flying - not Flying Magazine - and the associated article is at Flying (magazine). Similarly here - "m (→‎Passengers and crew: task, replaced: Flight magazine → Flight Magazine)" - the magazine was called Flight - not Flight Magazine at the time. Please stop giving false titles for references. This only interferes with verifiability.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The title was already there. The bot didn't give it anything new. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Perplexing edit

See Special:Diff/1100635266. What made it insert "atw" at the top? Ovinus (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

No idea. My best guess is I accidentally typed something in AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote problem

In this edit, the hanote was broken due to an AWB problem. AWB does not know about {{hatnote group}}. There is a phab ticket open on this, but until that is resolved, users have to watch for this an undo the fix. MB 15:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Also did the same thing in the Peach article (diff) Bumm13 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Blanking Institute of Contemporary Art San Francisco

Your edit to Institute of Contemporary Art San Francisco blanked the page. —Ost (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Weird edit to Hydroxyapatite

In Special:Diff/1166940873, there was a situation where someone had somehow put almost the whole content of the section inside the |date= parameter of a maintenance tag. This bot strangely lowercased everything in that content and removed all the commas. WTF? Anomie⚔ 11:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Très WTF indeed. I got no explanation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)