User talk:GiantSnowman: Difference between revisions

Archives

2006 • 2007 • 2008 • 2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024 •

Hi hi 👋

You said to let you know as I found sources, I’ve found a site which is an independent data visualisation site for every team, season, and game of the Japanese professional leagues, including J3 from 2014 season on.

https://www.football-lab.jp/naga/match?year=2014

Seems to me to be a significant, reliable, independent secondary source which handles all the data stuff internally and has editorial policies in place… and was wondering if you considered this sufficient. You have to click around the site a bit to see different tabs, and unfortunately (at least for me on my iPad) google auto-translate translates the data, but not the tabs that help you get around the site, but I also linked to the first match’s individual data visualisation on the article, if you want to check what individual game citations will look like.

Also not sure from the timing whether you saw the section / sources I added re the season’s stadium revamp.

thanks a lot, hope you’re having a great weekend,

michael Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is pure data - where is the WP:SIGCOV? GiantSnowman 17:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your reply.

as far as I can tell, it meets all the criteria for significance - “

Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.”

The match and season pages address the topic directly, do not require original research to understand, and is not a trivial mention - they are the main topic of the source material.

Also, while the pages are statistic based, they are not taken from anywhere else, the company collects and processes the data from direct observation of the games - there isn’t anyone else out there producing say data for the number of times a player enters the 30meter line, or dribbling stats for this game vs the season average. They then further process the basic data to produce a visual timeline of the match broken down into 15 minute phases, synthesising possession, shots on goal, and goals scored into a single graphic. Finally, the company produces what I *think* is a proprietary statistic (I can’t find it anywhere in google, except pointing to this company’s pages) - CBP, “Chance Building Point”, in a transformative use of the underlying data, built using all the other statistics.

All this seems to me to be clear evidence that the company producing the site are undertaking independent research, with a clear authorial and editorial intent. Given that, I can’t see how this doesn’t count as significant?

I feel like if some random cub reporter had watched the game and written even a fraction of this out in words - ie “AC Nagano Parceiro played Fukushima United FC in their first match of the season on March 9, 2014 at Ajinomoto Field, Nishigaoka. Attendance was 4,312. Nagano Parceiro won the match 1-0, with Forward Shunta Takahashi scoring in the 17th minute of the first half. While Fukushima United had higher possession throughout the match, they only had five shots on goal compared to 12 for Nagano Parceiro” - then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because THAT would definitely be significant coverage, but because it’s presented in numbers rather than words it’s somehow easier to overlook?

Anyway, sorry to take your time again.

have a great day, Michael. Absurdum4242 (talk) 04:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Club reports are not enough - it needs to be independent third-party sources. GiantSnowman 10:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, this IS an independent third party source though? As per their company about page (via google translate)

“ "Football LAB" provides not only J.League match results and basic stats (number of shots, number of passes, etc.), but also "one step further data" such as play data such as passes and tackles in the match, and "Football LAB's original player evaluation index score "Chance Building Points (CBP)" derived from statistical analysis based on a huge amount of data of over 1 million.

Through "Football LAB", we hope that supporters of each J.League club, soccer fans, and many people involved in soccer will use this site to learn more about soccer and enjoy it more.

"Football LAB" is a "laboratory" as the name of the site suggests. We aim to provide valuable data, and we plan to review the content from time to time so that we can contribute even a little to the strengthening, spread, and development of Japanese soccer from the perspective of data.

"Football LAB" uses data from "J STATS: J STATS" *1, the official J.League stats, but the number of shots and the number of last passes are numbers obtained independently by Data Stadium.”

They are an external data visualisation organisation outside of both the central J-league organisation and and of the individual teams. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:58, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is their (Data Stadium, the company that produces “Football Lab”) company ownership etc details, if that helps

https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/156167-92#overview Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you have said "we aim to provide" (my emphasis) shows you have a WP:COI here. GiantSnowman 13:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, no… as I wrote, that is a google translate of their company “about” page, which I quoted to show they are an independent third party. I am nothing at all to do with them, being a NZ based souvenir shop owner without even that much interest in soccer 😹

I am absolutely not accusing you of arguing in bad faith, but suggesting WP:COI honestly sounds like a reach? If you’re determined that the sources I sent through aren’t kosher then I’m not really sure what else I can do to convince you, so I’ll not bother you here, and just make a note that I’ve added those sources, and that they’re independent on the main deletion discussion thread.

you have a lovely evening. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kumusta/Hello,

Thanks for your message but actually, I disagree. I am sorry, but I have to disagree with you. You see, I’m not being disruptive or non-constructive in any way, shape or form. I simply add a goal to the goal count because Armstrong score last week against the San Jose Earthquakes. Here’s the proof: [1].

He did score a goal, and that is why I added it. If you believe he did not score this goal, you are more than welcome to contact the Vancouver Whitecaps FC, the MLS, or Google Sports records or all three to say why you believe there was no goal by him. You are even more welcome to take them to court and dispute this goal, although even with best lawyer in the world you will not win the case since Armstrong clearly scored it, as seen like here. My father is very professional lawyer in the Philippines but he is retired, even if not he would not be able win this case for you because the facts are there and you are in the wrong. I believe in God the Almighty Father and He know that the facts are there and the goal was indeed scored. He sees all things from heaven above.

So, please carefully consider yourself before sending any messages of the sort. I just wanted to help add new information, and you are directly accusing me of non-constructioness and misinformation and indirectly accusing of heresy, vandalism and identity theft. I do not mean to be impolite, but my only intentions was to add the goal and nothing else. Do not undo it next time.

Salamat/Thanks. 66.23.117.53 (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit said he had 0 appearances but 1 goal - an impossibility and clearly a nonsense. GiantSnowman 11:07, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]