Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DyceBot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

[edit] DyceBot

tasks • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: Dycedarg

Automatic or Manually Assisted:Automatic and unsupervised

Programming Language(s):Python using PyWikipediaBot framework

Function Summary:Addition of Gini coefficient information to country infoboxes.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):One time run

Edit rate requested: 2 or 3 edits per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):Y

Function Details: This is a one time run to fulfill a bot request. See the request for the all the relevant information. Basically some fields were added to Template:Infobox Country relating to the Gini coefficient, after some discussion on the associated talk page. This bot would retrieve the relevant information from the chart on List of countries by income equality and add it to the infobox for every country that it has current information for and that don't already have the information filled in. I wasn't completely sure what standard to use to define "current information", but I thought anything since 2000 would probably be recent enough for inclusion. It would fill in the Gini index, the year it was obtained, and the category (low, medium, or high and colored similarly to how the HDI category field is colored.)

[edit] Discussion

This looks well thought out. As long as it is made clear in the info box from which year the data comes, and as long as no ranks are included, I see no problem with going ahead. It way be wise to make a mental note to, if you can, re-run the bot some time in the future, before the data goes too far out of date (if, of course, the community doesn't decide to correct such errors itself). On these grounds:

Approved for trial. Go ahead for about 15-20 edits, and report back here when completed, so we can get an idea of what's going on, and check for any bugs. Also make sure to put a link to this page on the bot's user page, along with a description of the task (even if one a one time run). Thanks, Martinp23 21:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. I think I've gotten all the bugs out of it at this point, and the edits it made all look good to me.--Dycedarg ж 06:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks good, but seeing it in action makes me slightly unsure about the colour gradient system, as I feel it could easily confuse the reader due to clashes like this, where the value "medium" is the same betweeen HDI and Gini, but where Gini has a completely different colour. The KISS principle comes to mind here :) - althout the gradient certainly looks good to those who know it's there, it look clumsy to others (eg the slight colour difference here). An nice idea, however, would be to have your bot colour the cells of the table at Gini coefficient, if the people over there would be happy with it doing so, and a gradient system would make sense in that case. Martinp23 10:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right about that. The gradient doesn't really help a lot in practice. So how about I just have the bot add the same colors that the HDI field uses for the fields in the infobox, and then when I'm done I'll approach the people at the List of countries by income equality talk page about coloring the fields of the table? I can also have it fix the infoboxes it has already data to. (Except Armenia, which apparently got protected two minutes after my bot edited it because of a troll fest.)--Dycedarg ж 18:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep - that sounds great. Feel free to do another trial if you need to, but if you're happy that the bot will work without the gradients, just say and I'll be happy to approve. Martinp23 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty easy fix, and I'm sure I can do it without screwing anything else up. So I would like to just go ahead and start it.--Dycedarg ж 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Approved.. Martinp23 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.