Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SportsStatsBot 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Denied.

SportsStatsBot 2

[edit]

Operator: DatGuy (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:49, Thursday, April 4, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://github.com/DatGuy1/footy/blob/master/playerstats.py

Function overview: Automatically update football (soccer) players' career statistics

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Every 15 minutes

Estimated number of pages affected: Unsure

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: I've been holding a few tests over at the testwiki. Runs a check every 15 minutes. Uses data from soccerway.com (provided from Opta Sports)

Discussion

[edit]
  • Unless the plan is for a subset of footballers, there are more than 100,000 football biographies, so I think you'd want to think about how often the statistics need to be updated (even once a month would be in the range of tens of thousands of edits a month, depending on whether it is offseason of course) and discuss at WT:FOOTBALL. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably some Championship players. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}

What length/type of trial would you prefer, DatGuy? I am open to suggestions in this case. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Most of the major leagues are ending soon. There's three Serie A matchdays remaining, so maybe a trial for a player on a team in that league? Dat GuyTalkContribs 12:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. @DatGuy: As per usual, take all the time that you need to complete this trial and post the results here when done (preferably diffs or perma link to contribs section). --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be away for a few days soon. I'll start the trial ~ the 9th. Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TheSandDoctor The bot will run on Gabriel Barbosa and Luan Garcia. Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy: would you mind using big-endian / or an ISO 8601 like date format in your edit summaries, just to head of any future complaints? — xaosflux Talk 02:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, Dat GuyTalkContribs 11:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So about the citations... In edits such as this it looks like you are updating a table that is already cited, to a source that is older than your 'as of' new date stamp. So, it looks like the citation no longer matches the article text but is being left there. How can this be improved? — xaosflux Talk 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} can you comment on the question above? — xaosflux Talk 18:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Very sorry about the delayed response/hiatus in editing. Before adding a page I'd check if there's a Soccerway.com reference, and if not add it. I've also fixed a bug. Can the trial be restarted and for ~6 edits? Thanks. Dat GuyTalkContribs 05:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy: so in the edit I mentioned above, you changed content, but that content was already cited. Your changed content is newer than the existing citation - so it should no longer be supported by the citation that you are leaving there. — xaosflux Talk 11:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, I don't think I understand. {{Soccerway}} would be used as a reference on pages the bot runs on, as is in Gabriel Barbosa. The website automatically updates after every match. Does that make sense? Dat GuyTalkContribs 05:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy: OK, in this edit there is a table, it is already cited, wtih a citation from 2019-03-25. You changed the data in the table to be about an event on 2019-04-04 - how is your new content still supported by that citation? — xaosflux Talk 11:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xaosflux, do you mean the BBC Sport reference? The other {{NFT player}} template is dynamic. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the www.bbc.co.uk reference that is current referencing that chart. — xaosflux Talk 11:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, the BBC Sport reference isn't necessary. It's nice to have since the player had only played one international game and the article is more detailed, but it could work only with the National-Football-Teams.com reference, since that one automatically updates on the same page. Dat GuyTalkContribs 20:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DatGuy: what's the status of this request? Any updates? --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Well, the bot still works hypothetically. I'm not too sure where this request is currently sitting in the RFA process though. Dat GuyTalkContribs 08:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a reference WP:HIJACK. The existence of {{Soccerway}} somewhere else on the page doesn't negate the hijack, it would have to come directly after the modified content. IMO sports statistics are like weather and other frequently changing data that is high volume and rapid frequency. This creates problems with watchlist churn and diffs. The right way is a single data file that a template reads from. The bot's job is to keep the data file updated. The template's job is to display the data in the page. It requires a single edit to the pate (add the template). Also the template can display a citation, which can be updated in a single location as the date changes ("last accessed on"). -- GreenC 02:39, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in agreement with GreenC on this one; it would be much better to have a central database of statistics that can be updated all at once, saving potentially thousands of edits. I'm not sure what the best layout would be fore this data module, but at the moment this task seems potentially contentious so I'm going to mark this as Denied. Primefac (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SportsStatsBot_2&oldid=929841750"