User talk:JL-Bot/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
DOI search box
See [1]. This could be templatified or hardcoded in the bot, up to you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done. I updated the bot to add it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:27, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not quite right though... [2] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no difference in what is displayed? [3] vs [4] -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well at the very least, two open inputbox tags is bad html/code. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- I missed that. I focused on the extra line break that was added. I will fix. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- I missed that. I focused on the extra line break that was added. I will fix. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well at the very least, two open inputbox tags is bad html/code. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no difference in what is displayed? [3] vs [4] -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not quite right though... [2] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Legit DOIs go up to the 60000s now. So the limit should likely be bumped to 70000. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
- The maximum DOI is automatically calculated from the last Crossref pull. Currently, the Crossref pull is done after the dump file is processed. Unfortunately, that means if a new reference in the latest dump includes a DOI above the last limit, it will get flagged as bad. Instead of basing the Crossref pull on the existance of a new dump, I probably should just have it always execute on the 1st and 20th so it will be done before the dump is available. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah probably. Could update all the JL-Bot/DOI stuff on those dates too, which would let me create the newest DOI redirects ahead of the full dump processing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- The DOI registrant pull will now run on the 1st and 20th of the month. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah probably. Could update all the JL-Bot/DOI stuff on those dates too, which would let me create the newest DOI redirects ahead of the full dump processing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Doi prefix
The bot didn't do it's DOI prefix run on the 1st btw. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- crossref.org errored out. I re-ran the job & crossref.org is responding this time. Results should be up in awhile. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
How to remove orphan tag
How to remove Orphan tag from Blouse (Short Film) ? Rajmama (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like you already figured it out. But, yes, you edit the article and remove the orphan template. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Dec 20 bot run?
I think the bot choked or something? Normally bot runs for WP:JCW have occurred by now... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, there was a hiccup on Friday. I fixed it yesterday and it has been processing since. Results are loading now. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome. Hope you had a great festivus! And other upcoming soltice-adjacent holidays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- You too. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome. Hope you had a great festivus! And other upcoming soltice-adjacent holidays. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Possible new task
Could this bot be used to remove old {{ITN note}} transclusions? I found some from 2022 and one from 2021. Schierbecker (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Probably not. The {{under construction}} removal task is based on number of days alone. For removing {{ITN note}}, it should probably be based on whether there is an open nomination vs. a strict number of days. You would be better off asking at Wikipedia:Bot requests. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
JCW dump?
I notice the bot hasn't processed the dump yet? Normally it's done within the first 3-4 days of the month, but we're on day 6 now... 142.169.80.39 (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
- There was an error while running. I have kicked off processing again, but it will take awhile to complete. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Featured sounds no longer active
Hi, I think that "featured sounds" went the way of "featured videos", and is no longer being tracked. See: Wikipedia:Featured sounds and Category:Historical featured content. Maybe it should be removed from the code and the documentation, next time that you're updating it? Thanks in advance! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the notice. I will update it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- Type content-featured-sounds has been removed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
ITN
Shouldn’t JL-bot, when updating ITN, put the ITN icon 
next to the article? 48JCL (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have added that one. It can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Recognized content. It will show up on other relevant pages with the next run this weekend. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Citations May 20 Output
@Headbomb : The output for the May 20 dump is producing significant less citations than normal. For example, the A's end on page 100 this time when they typically go to 111. I am investigating to see what is going on. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the enwiki-20240520-pages-articles.xml.bz2 dump file is missing content. It is only 18G where the last one (20240501) was 20G. It usually increases each month so that is an unexpected (and pretty big) decrease. There are no processing errors and no changes in the expected citation templates. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would 'enwiki-20240520-pages-meta-current.xml.bz2' in https://dumps.wikimedia.org/enwiki/20240520/ be of use? Or would it be similarly crippled? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- The 20240601 dump is still not complete. It is typically done by this time of the month so seems like there are issues. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm, I did find this announcement. It doesn't explain why the dumps have not been completed, but sounds like there might be a format change which could impact parsing once it arrives. I use a library for the parsing so not sure if it will impacted or not. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Well at least it's in progress. I checked earlier this month around the 3rd and it hadn't started.
- See also https://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.10.xsd vs https://www.mediawiki.org/xml/export-0.11.xsd Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- The 20240601 dump is now available. The bot is processing it & we will see how it goes... -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Processing done. Looks good so far. Let me know if you see anything odd. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- The 20240601 dump is now available. The bot is processing it & we will see how it goes... -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Cite tech report gone from Statistics?
This seems weird. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Short answer: The template was remamed.
- Long answer: {{Cite techreport}} was moved to {{Cite tech report}} back in June. Everything managed to still work okay until Citation bot updated the template usage in the articles. The parsing is based on the "real" template name. It is smart enough to also look for redirects to the template name, but it expects the primary name to be a non-redirect.
- For a short-term fix, I can update the template name being checked. For a longer-term fix, I can update it to check that a template has not been renamed before parsing. However, instead of a hard-coded list (the current ones can be found highlighted in yellow here), can it be based on catagories? Maybe use Category:Citation Style 1 templates, Category:Citation Style 2 templates, and Category:Citation Style Vancouver templates? -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- A dynamic list could work. In Category:Citation Style 1 templates, there's a sandbox and Template:Cs1 function which aren't really templates. Maybe a membership in that category + name starts with Template:Cite_...? Same for Category:Citation Style Vancouver templates. CS2 is just {{Citation}}.
- Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- For Bluebook style, there would be {{Bluebook journal}}, {{Bluebook website}}, and {{Cite court}}.
|reporter=in {{Cite court}} is equivalent to|journal=in {{Bluebook journal}}. {{Bluebook website}} is likely useless since it doesn't seem to support|journal=. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- For Bluebook style, there would be {{Bluebook journal}}, {{Bluebook website}}, and {{Cite court}}.
Level 4 obliterated
As a heads up, the bot converted all Level 4 vitals to Level 3 in this report yesterday. I manually reverted but wanted to give a heads up in case it keeps happening. czar 14:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like it's a Cewbot issue: Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#VA4 articles no longer being recognised as such czar 18:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- If it's been fixed, I can rerun the bot manually. Otherwise, it will get resolved in next weekend's run (assuming it has been fixed by then). -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
FM issue?
File:מכתש רמון - גלישת עננים (cropped).jpg has been dropped from WP:PHYS/RECOG here. I can't figure out why. Bot issue? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- See this edit. It is no longer marked as Template:Picture of the day so was dropped from the "Picture of the day pictures" section. It is still showing in the "Featured pictures" section (last picture). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Could it be possible to add these lines? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- So "total DOIs" being the total number of times
{{cite xxx|doi=}}or{{doi}}appears? The total number of{{doi}}templates is already on the page. Since it looks like both templates support|doi-access=free, I assume so, but wanted to check. And would the|doi-access=freecount be all or distinct DOIs (since the other sub measurement would be distinct)? -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)- My idea is the total
|doi=+ {{doi}} + {{doi-inline}} etc... found, and the total|doi-access=freefound. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:33, 13 August 2024 (UTC)- Got it. The first should be easy. The
|doi-access=freewill require updating the dump parsing. I will try to get that in before the 20th dump. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. The first should be easy. The
- My idea is the total
- Done, see here. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome. And before the next dump too. We'll get to see just how many more we got from the recent CS1 update (Aug 17) that flagged more free DOIs. We've got about 27% of all such citations that have been idenfitied as free to read. Not bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Upon thinking a bit, the distinct doi prefixes should be the third sub-bullet, like so [5]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done. No visible change as output matched your edit. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Upon thinking a bit, the distinct doi prefixes should be the third sub-bullet, like so [5]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Awesome. And before the next dump too. We'll get to see just how many more we got from the recent CS1 update (Aug 17) that flagged more free DOIs. We've got about 27% of all such citations that have been idenfitied as free to read. Not bad. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Bot seems to have chocked there... Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Resolved. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Could the bot compile a list of redlinks (with at least one dot) that only differ by dots from a bluelink? Regrouped by redirect target? Like...
| Rank | Target | Entries (Citations, Articles) | Total Citations | Distinct Articles | Citations/article
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Journal of Physics A | 6 | 4 | 1.500 |
Hosted at probably Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Maintenance/Dots1, with shortcut WP:JCW/DOTS1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be doable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- You state "redlinks (with at least one dot)". However, if there was a [[One. Two]] blue link, you would not want a [[One Two]] redlink? -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Upon further reflection, I don't know why I wanted at least one dot. I thought it would cut down on a certain class of common cases, but I can't think of them at the moment. So yeah, forgot that part for now. All redlinks that differ only by dots from a bluelink. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:JCW/DOTS has been created. I ended up going with a single page as the maintenance processing was implemented with single page output. If the DOTS output grows and needs to be broken into multiple pages, I can do that. But I wasn't sure if DOTS was going to be used to clean citations up - I didn't want to do extra work if the actual result was the DOTS output would get smaller over time. DOTS will need to be added to the {{JCW-Main}} template and a description to the Maintenance page. Please let me know if you see any issues with the output. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks great. DOTS should shrink pretty fast. I don't know if I'll have time to make a dent in it before the next time, but by September it'll probably be under 100 entries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the only thing I'd change is make it case insensitive. And treat , and . as equivalent to each other (i.e. if redlinks differ only by commas or dots). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Easy enough. Change made. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the only thing I'd change is make it case insensitive. And treat , and . as equivalent to each other (i.e. if redlinks differ only by commas or dots). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks great. DOTS should shrink pretty fast. I don't know if I'll have time to make a dent in it before the next time, but by September it'll probably be under 100 entries. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)