Wikipedia talk:User scripts/Most imported scripts

Active users

Active users are defined as users who have made an action in the last 30 days.

No way of identifying those that have been commented out then, I presume. Guarapiranga (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guarapiranga: Like it says on the page, "Commented-out installations also get counted, but the over-counting because of this should be negligible." Chlod (say hi!) 22:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not if other users are anything like me 😅

Might I suggest calling them New instead of Active then? Guarapiranga (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's "active users", not "active uses". "New users" wouldn't make sense as it would imply recently registered users. Nardog (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would imply new users of the script. Or new installations even. Active users implies users who have it installed and don't have it disabled (hence the need to override that implication with the aforementioned redefinition). Guarapiranga (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that at least clarifies where you're coming from, and I disagree. "Active users" here means "users who are active", not "people who use the script actively". Even if it were taken to mean "installations", "new" would imply recent installations, which is not what it is. Nardog (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! My mistake. Upon rereading the definition, that makes perfect sense now.

Having said that, it'd be desirable to know how many users have each script enabled, wouldn't it? I guess that's more complicated than simply filtering for //. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and suggested note for header

Thanks for this great set of stats, and details embedded in the list page!

I suggest adding a line to the Wikipedia:User scripts/Most imported scripts/header on this page (and perhaps also in the list page), noting that many more users might install a script via their global.js (examples of 133 more installs of Lupin popups) and cross-wiki elsewhere.

Cheers, Quiddity (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New script not included

Wondered why RefRenamer, which has ~30 users, doesn't show up here, and it looks like it's because it doesn't show up in the search SDZeroBot makes to get the initial list of .js pages, which "should cover every script that has at least 2 backlinks, and many others". I don't care whether my script is included per se, but I'm worried the report might not be accurate or up-to-date. Is incoming_links_desc simply lagging and it will catch up eventually, or is something broken? (cc SD0001) Nardog (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nardog/RefRenamer.js not listed in WP:TOPSCRIPTS

Moved from User talk:SDZeroBot § User:Nardog/RefRenamer.js not listed in WP:TOPSCRIPTS

Any reason for why it's not reporting this one? bug? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb @Nardog This could be because of a bug at some level in MediaWiki's search stack, as the script doesn't show up in the search result (which SDZeroBot uses as the base for this report) as well. I'd suggest filing a phab ticket. – SD0001 (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it's not an issue with how the bot makes the search? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=contentmodel%3Ajavascript+RefRenamer.js&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns2=1&ns118=1 seems to find it just fine. So does https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2FRefRenamer%5C.js%2F&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns2=1&ns118=1 or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Nardog/RefRenamer.js Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot needs to make the search with srsort=incoming_links_desc to get the 5000 candidates for top scripts, to avoid having to analyse all the 88343 pages. The page doesn't show up with that parameter set, even though pages with significantly less links (like some users' monobook.js pages) do. – SD0001 (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about, as a tentative measure, including all local .js pages linked from WP:USL? Nardog (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog Can you try making a dummy (but non-null) edit to the page? Should cause it to be reindexed. – SD0001 (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Which page? You mean RefRenamer.js? Nardog (talk) 01:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. – SD0001 (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but it doesn't seem to have worked so far. Nardog (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the search query should probably be updated to include vector-2022.js. Nardog (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – SD0001 (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001 did you ever uncover anything else about this? There seem to be quite a few scripts on WP:USL that this applies to... ~ Eejit43 (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eejit43 such as? I need to look into querying the CirrusSearch relicas directly to see if that helps. – SD0001 (talk) 05:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give a couple examples, but it likely applies to much more. It still applies to Nardog's RefRenamer script, and I only noticed this issue because it affected my rmtr-helper script. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: Again, how about including all local .js pages linked from WP:USL while this issue remains? Nardog (talk) 10:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – SD0001 (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! ~ Eejit43 (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]