User talk:Bibcode Bot/Archives/2012
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bibcode Bot. 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. |
Bug report
The Bibcode bot caused a paragraph and a half of text to be removed from the article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_detection, leaving only a partial word. I'm going to repair the article so please check the history to see what happened. Galaxiana (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Theta Orionis C
Please, could you check: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Theta%C2%B9_Orionis_C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.231.54 (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Good bot!
|
I saw Bibcode Bot adding arxiv links across a few articles on my watchlist. Nicely done. Amble (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC) |
Duplicate DOIs
Bibcode Bot mangled a couple citations in this diff, both of which were produced using Magnus' reference generator. I'm not entirely sure why that tool is currently inserting {{doi}} into the id param, but you'd best accommodate it to prevent causing a major headache. — C M B J 10:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. I reverted here two bot additions to the references. The doi references contain the abstracts of the works, whereas bibcode does not. Am I missing something here? If there is no added value there is no need to add another reference, much less list it first, in front of the doi which has the abstract to the article. Kablammo (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well usually, the bibcode entries are much more complete than that (e.g. Bibcode:2010ApJ...709L..95B), and they have the abstracts, the full article in PDF or GIF, a full list of authors, with author affiliation, citation history, cross-references to other databases, a list of articles that cite the article, and many more. I've submitted corrections to the bibcode database and they should kick in at some point in the near/mid future.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. Unless it has greater utility, and is a more common source or has other advantages, I am dubious about its value in articles which already have an adequate way to access article information. Perhaps one size does not fit all here. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hello. I leave it to the bot owner to decide how to procede, but -- The articles removed by Kablammo DO indeed have abstracts in ADS, and also additional information, such as links to citing articles, which the doi link does not have. The ADS links in general are not static, they are maintained for this type of information, and regularly updated. MJKurtz —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. Unless it has greater utility, and is a more common source or has other advantages, I am dubious about its value in articles which already have an adequate way to access article information. Perhaps one size does not fit all here. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)