NCBIEdit

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53329/

And I got it all the time in the past few days that "HTTP error:

One or more of the web resources required to create this citation are not accessible at this moment." --It's gonna be awesome (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems that www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov is not accessible from Toolforge:
$ hostname
tools-sgebastion-08

$ nslookup www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
;; Got SERVFAIL reply from 208.80.154.143, trying next server
Server:         208.80.154.24
Address:        208.80.154.24#53

** server can't find www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov: SERVFAIL
The same command works fine on my PC. My guess is that the issue resides in the Toolforge's DNS or is a configuration problem on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. In either case I don't think there is much that I can do to resolve it.
P.S: Also tried Citoid. It fails with "We couldn't make a citation for you" error.
Dalba 09:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dalba: I tried Citoid and it did fail with "We couldn't make a citation for you" error. --It's gonna be awesome (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

More citer bugsEdit

Mostly citer has been pretty reliable. However, I thought I'd let you know of a few more DOIs that citer returns only an error. The same DOIs work on DOI Wikipedia Reference Generator, so I think we can conclude that these are citer bugs and not crossref problems.

  • 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)157
  • 10.1088/0004-637X/705/1/978
  • 10.1126/science.1169101

Maybe these are not too difficult to troubleshoot? Sorry I don't have the programming knowledge to be more specific here. Forbes72 (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Forbes72:, I just fixed and updated citer. Thanks for reporting the issue. Dalba 05:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks great! Thanks. Forbes72 (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

dead-url -> url statusEdit

Hi, thanks for the great tool, I love how it expands archive.org URLs (any chance for archive.is?); I just wanted to alert you that 'dead-url=yes' parameter has changed to 'url-status=dead'. Quuux (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Quuux, I've update the parameter name. Thanks for bringing my attention to it. Regarding http://archive.is/, it should be possible, but I'm busy these days and I don't know when I'll be able to take a close look. Dalba 13:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Citer bugEdit

huffington post links like this one https://www.huffpost.com/entry/france-bans-spanking-kids-with-new-law_n_5873ccc1e4b02b5f858a39ff return a generic title with no authors etc. eg ref name="HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media" cite web | title=HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media | website=HuffPost is now a part of Verizon Media | url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/france-bans-spanking-kids-with-new-law_n_5873ccc1e4b02b5f858a39ff | access-date=Feb 2, 2020 . I don't know if it's fixable on your end or the websites fault. Hydromania (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hydromania, unfortunately I don't think I can fix this in a general way. The website requires Citer to accept a data agreement, but obviously Citer is not smart enough to do that. What Citer actually receives is a page with the following text:
Your data, your experience
HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. Click 'I agree' to allow Verizon Media and our partners to use cookies and similar technologies to access your device and use your data (including location) to understand your interests, and provide and measure personalised ads. We will also provide you with personalised ads on partner products. Learn more about how we use your data in our Privacy Centre. Once you confirm your privacy choices here, you can make changes at any time by visiting your Privacy Dashboard.
Click 'Learn More' to learn and customise how Verizon Media and our partners collect and use data.
[I agree] [Learn more]
Dalba 10:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

doi 10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U245351 updating only citeEdit

it is not creating cite web or cite journal or other. it is just creating cite. Leela52452 (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The CrossRef server describes this DOI as a "reference-entry". I'm not sure what kind of citation template is appropriate for this type. I checked Citoid's result and it creates a general citation, too. Dalba 00:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

enwiki ending need for |ref=harv for Module:Citation/CS1Edit

Hi, Dalba. FYI, I just saw at wikipedia:en:User talk:Citation bot#remove ref=harv that |ref=harv will be generated by default from wikipedia:en:Module:Citation/CS1. Peaceray (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for letting me know. I've updated citer accordingly. Dalba 08:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

citerEdit

Thanks for the tool. It simplifies my life. It would be even more useful if I could easily use it for other Wikipedias than the English one. Maybe one day you could make it output templates for other wikis, have a project/language switch in the UI, ..?--Cartoffel (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that it's been useful to you. Your suggestion totally makes sense, thanks, but unfortunately I'm very busy these days with several other projects. Implementing it requires some major refactoring in code . . . can't make any promises, but I'll keep it mind. Dalba 04:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Citer queryEdit

I too want to thank you for creating such a fabulous time-saving tool. Just one thing, which may be down to the site rather than the tool, I've noticed that it never picks up the author on the newer style of ABC News articles, for example this one. I usually add the authors manually afterwards, and overwrite with "website =ABC News |publisher =Australian Broadcasting Corporation", no biggie, but thought I'd mention it just in case there's a possible programming solution. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've updated author detection algorithm of Citer. It should work now. Regarding the publisher, in short, the site does not introduce itself like that and I don't want to rely on domain/url-specific settings... Dalba 16:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dalba, sorry for the late response but I didn't get notified and have only just spotted your response now, when I came looking for another reason... I did notice that the ABC citations had improved, so thanks very much for that, mostly 100% now, which is great. (I mostly only add the publisher if it seems necessary to avoid confusion with the American ABC.) Another thing I've noticed on and off (I don't think it happens all the time, but I don't always check), which may be something to do with time zones(?), is that the date sometimes shows the previous day's date, for example with this Guardian article, the date comes out as 14 June. Not a big worry, but just passing on FYI in case you want to tinker some more. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
p.s. I forgot to add that I'm very impressed with its citing of scientific journal articles - does a great job in seconds, compared with much longer time needed for manual construction! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)