Template talk:TotalHumanSpaceFlightByNation

Outdated list

I would like to know that why Crew-4 is still on the list(it has already landed). Someone has tried to fix it, but his/her edit was reverted by the SpaceFactsBot. Can someone else help fix it? Timothytyy (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is automated and pulls the information from the spacefacts.de database. They don't always get around to updating their database right away, especially on the weekends. So occasionally there are delays. The actual hours in space are corrected once spacefacts.de has updated the landing information. So there are no worries about anyone getting permanent bonus flight time - but for a couple days, those astronauts could be showing some extra space flight time. Andrewpullin (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted with thanks! Timothytyy (talk) 23:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crew 5 / Soyuz MS-23 Errors

SpaceFactsBot was failing to update the records since Jan 12, 2023. It appears that spacefacts.de changed the structure of their new web pages, which broke the scraping script for the new flights. Pretty sure I have it working now. However, this bot is having to accommodate more and more "exceptions" to the structure of the spacefacts.de data. Though they generally stick to their templates, there are definitely cases of manual modifications to the structure of the pages, and these in turn break the script. Eventually a more reliable / consistent data source may be required as maintaining all these "exceptions" is bloating the Bot. Andrewpullin (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages

Whatever happened to the numerical percentages that were listed alongside the bars for "% of total person days"? Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppress Boe-CFT

Hey @Andrewpullin is there a way to get the bot to stop pulling down "CST-100 Boe-CFT" and adding it to the list of Crew Vehicles currently in space for, well, obvious reasons? Thanks in advance! RickyCourtney (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RickyCourtney, this is because the source data for spacefactsbot (spacefacts.de) has not been updated to reflect them coming home on the Crew-9 mission. So even though the vehicle has left, they are still shown in the data as belonging to that vehicle.

We have these two options:

We can just wait until Crew-9 launches and see if the folks at spacefacts.de update their info promptly, but we continue to have that incorrect information recurring for a while longer
I disable spacefactsbot for a few days until it gets sorted out.

Do you have a preference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewpullin (talk • contribs) 13:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please either disable the bot, or modify it so that it doesn't fill in that section of the template. There's a bigger question about relying on an external website without doing sanity-checks of the data, but that's beyond the scope of what's needed now. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 14:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sdsds, I have disabled the bot as requested and updated the template, removing the Boe-CFT record from the vehicles currently in orbit.

Ultimately, I am just the person who volunteered to build the bot. The community that maintained these spaceflight records were the ones that chose to use the spacefact.de website data as the source. All of that was made clear when I applied for the Bot approval.

If the community wants a different data source, that's fine by me, and if they want to go back to manually updating that table, as they did before, that is also fine by me, I can disable the bot permanently.

However, I'm not interested in modifying the bot to handle one-off hacks of the source data, just because the source has not updated their records yet. That will become too tedious to manage and it will never be possible to satisfy everyone.

I am fine with our "policy" being the disabling of the bot if there is an inconsistency and then enabling it again when the source data has been corrected to the satisfaction of this community.

So, does that sound reasonable going forward? Andrewpullin (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's reasonable, and thanks for your work on the bot and your prompt attention to this (hopefully unique) incident. Can you please provide a link to the source for the bot? (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 18:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the source on a public git repo, but I can look into doing that sometimes soon. The source is currently just on a private git repo on my internal network. It is an ancient chunk of perl code hacked from an old CS assignment I wrote probably 20 years ago or more, so I am not sure it is worth digging into much, LOL. I think I adapted it in 2011 or 2012 after I first saw people on this community talking about the desire to automate the process. I had assumed it was just a quick and dirty solution until the community could purpose build something for the task using modern processes :) Who knew it would still be kicking around over a decade later. Andrewpullin (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]