Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/BorkedBot 2
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Approved --Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BorkedBot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: BrokenSegue (talk • contribs • logs)
Task/s: Populate meta-data/qualifiers for entities with X username (P2002) and YouTube channel ID (P2397). Qualifiers I will populate include: number of subscribers (P3744), X numeric user ID (P6552), start time (P580), number of viewers/listeners (P5436) and subject named as (P1810).
Code: see User:BorkedBot for the repo link
Function details: Pretty straightforward. Gonna hit the respective APIs and then write/update the relevant metadata.
My previous task is nearly done and is very similar to this task. There were no complaints after 80k edits. Coverage of the goodreads identifiers is way up. I'll set it up to run periodically to catch new data as it arrives but the volume should be low.
--BrokenSegue (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
[edit]Can we see some test edits for X username (P2002) and YouTube channel ID (P2397)? Also the repo does not include code for those IDs as far as I can tell. --Haansn08 (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- you are correct it does not. I can do/add that. I'll ping you when it's done. BrokenSegue (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Haansn08: there are now test edits for YouTube channel ID (P2397). See recent history or for some examples: [1], [2], and [3]. I can produce examples for X username (P2002) but it will look much the same. BrokenSegue (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Test edits look good to me. --Haansn08 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I will approve the request in a couple of days, unless objections will be made. Lymantria (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lymantria: it's been quite a while. Do you consider the below conversation to be "objections"? I think it's mostly been sorted. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, some discussion followed and apparently I lost track. I will approve. Lymantria (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lymantria: it's been quite a while. Do you consider the below conversation to be "objections"? I think it's mostly been sorted. BrokenSegue (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we see a few test edits for Twitter that already have qualifiers? --- Jura 08:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: I don't currently have the full Twitter integration coded and the YT portion of this request will probably take a while to run anyways. Would you be ok seeing the youtube edits for entries with existing qualifiers (it will use the same editing code)? If not I can maybe remove the twitter from this request or see if I can find the time to code that bit up in the next day or so. BrokenSegue (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. For either, I'd still prefer to see Wikidata:Property proposal/social media followers implemented. --- Jura 13:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: I would be open to swapping to that if it were adopted as I think it's unfortunate we cannot track things over time here. Also here is an example of adding data to items with existing qualifiers. For some more take a look at the last few edits by the bot. Sorry for the delay I had some life stuff / code issues. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The new property would allow tracking over time and avoid problems with correct (or incorrect) overwrites. I think it should eventually be available. The conclusion of a previous discussion was that one should add several statements with the identifier and qualify each with a date. Despite the apparent consensus, it seems to have remained merely a theoretical idea. --- Jura 08:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: I would be open to swapping to that if it were adopted as I think it's unfortunate we cannot track things over time here. Also here is an example of adding data to items with existing qualifiers. For some more take a look at the last few edits by the bot. Sorry for the delay I had some life stuff / code issues. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The order of qualifiers on your YouTube test edits makes little sense. Would you be open to change it in the future? --Trade (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trade: yeah so the current order is arbitrary. I was under the impression order didn't matter in wikidata. Changing that is trivial. What would you prefer? BrokenSegue (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but the inconstency between identifiers looks a bit messy. Anyways, named as > number of subscribers > number of works > number of viewers/listeners > start time > point in time. --Trade (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll move to that by default. Though if there are already some qualifiers I won't reorder the existing ones. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Twitter: named as > Twitter user numeric ID > number of subscribers > start time > has quality > point in time. Support for doing a fantastic work! --Trade (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll move to that by default. Though if there are already some qualifiers I won't reorder the existing ones. BrokenSegue (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you planning to use number of works on Twitter?--Trade (talk) 14:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but the inconstency between identifiers looks a bit messy. Anyways, named as > number of subscribers > number of works > number of viewers/listeners > start time > point in time. --Trade (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @BrokenSegue: Now that there is P8687, would you update it to use that? It should simplify edits (only additions are needed and the external id statements should remain stable). --- Jura 13:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: my plan was to keep the editing the same as currently written and add code to also add entries for social media followers (P8687). I don't see how else to encode data like number of viewers/listeners (P5436). Thoughts? BrokenSegue (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The subscriber qualifier should be discontinued (otherwise the new property wouldn't be of much use). I noticed that the question about viewers today (not sure if we really want them) .. maybe as qualifier on followers? --- Jura 19:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean I imagine the discontinuation will take time. I can stop populating number of subscribers (P3744) but I see no reason to stop populating/updating number of viewers/listeners (P5436) and such until we have a better solution (putting it on number of followers seems odd). I don't imagine anyone would update those fields more than yearly anyways. Honestly the most important bit is populating fairly static names/identifiers. The rest I'm doing just because it's easy. BrokenSegue (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The subscriber qualifier should be discontinued (otherwise the new property wouldn't be of much use). I noticed that the question about viewers today (not sure if we really want them) .. maybe as qualifier on followers? --- Jura 19:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1: my plan was to keep the editing the same as currently written and add code to also add entries for social media followers (P8687). I don't see how else to encode data like number of viewers/listeners (P5436). Thoughts? BrokenSegue (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could any of you two explain to me why social media followers (P8687) is needed a--Trade (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- without it there is no way to record the history of these values over time. BrokenSegue (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are planning to use your bot to discontinue the use of number of subscribers as a qualifier you might as well reorder the existing ones while you are at it. I think that would be more efficient --Trade (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trade: not sure what you mean by "reorder the existing ones". BrokenSegue (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You said earlier that you weren't planning on reorderering the existing qualifiers. --Trade (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm reluctant to do that given the rate-limiting on bots being imposed. It will increase my number of edits per item for aesthetics. BrokenSegue (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You said earlier that you weren't planning on reorderering the existing qualifiers. --Trade (talk) 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trade: not sure what you mean by "reorder the existing ones". BrokenSegue (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are planning to use your bot to discontinue the use of number of subscribers as a qualifier you might as well reorder the existing ones while you are at it. I think that would be more efficient --Trade (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]