User talk:RetractionBot

Dead?

The bot hasn't edited in over a week. Is there no work to be done, or did it accidentally crash/died? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Headbomb: nope - just got a crontab wrong so it never ran after finishing it's previous run. I've manually kicked it off again. Mdann52 (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Needs another kick in the bucket? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah given a good kick and retractions updated. Been ticking along but none found yet. Mdann52 (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Retraction or erratum?

I don't know if this is the right place to ask this question. This bot has added the {{Retracted}} tag to Lisa Gennetian. The relevant article is , which seems to have "retracted and replaced" in 2016. My two questions are:

1. Should this instead use the {{Erratum}} template?
2. If I replaced {{Retracted}} with {{Erratum}}, would this bot revert that change?

Thanks for any assistance, Mgp28 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mgp28: - I think that {{retracted}} is the correct template here, given the paper have formally retracted it due to the error. The fact they have republished it under the same DOI is annoying but not unusual. Erratum are for minor errors, and the notice attached to this paper isn't an erratum (but I agree it has the same effect as one). You can change it, the bot might change it back (it shouldn't, but no ones tried edit warring with it recently so I haven't tested it's protections against that!).

I do want to seek User:Headbomb's opinion as they have better knowledge than me - I'm wondering if it would be beneficial adding a flag to the {{retracted}} to cover the "retracted and republished" scenario? Mdann52 (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I suppose my follow-up question is whether there needs to be an option in the template to specify that you're citing the updated version? Mgp28 (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

References