Idle thought (and probably bad idea) I'll put here
This is probably dumb and wouldn't work, but I bet it'd be possible to write something in Quarry that found new userscripts that were large enough to do something, like:
SELECT page_title, page_len, page_latest
FROM page
WHERE page_title LIKE '%.js'
AND page_title NOT like '%/common.js'
AND page_is_redirect = 0
AND page_len > 500
AND page_namespace = 2
ORDER BY page_latest;
You'd need to JOIN it with revision and do some stuff like this to get the first revision timestamp for each page and then sort by that. I dunno if this would give us anything good, but maybe there'd be a bunch of good stuff, and then we could go to people's talk pages and say "this script looks cool, can we put it in the newsletter?" jp×g01:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, interesting idea, though we should keep in mind that many scripts weren't written for any wider audience, they could be things that only work well for the author. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my estimate is that probably 80% of these will be someone copy-pasting an existing script into a fork, 15% goofy things that someone wrote for their own extremely narrow use case (like User:JPxG/Monthcounter.js, which... counts the occurrences of each month name in the edit box... and then outputs them as a tab-separated list to the edit summary box). But maybe there will be a few bangers, in which case it'd still require going to their talk page to ask first (I certainly don't want my most dogshit code being shown to the world without my knowledge lol). jp×g00:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I don't like it. I certainly didn't intend my scripts end up in that category. Make it optional, or at the very least provide an opt-out. If you want to know which pages use the infobox, why can't you just search with hastemplate:? Nardog (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nardog, opt-out added. Just out of curiosity, any particular reason you don't want your scripts categorized? If they're just for personal use or a specific task only you perform I'd imagine you wouldn't use the infobox to begin with. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 06:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm realizing I didn't want my scripts in that category precisely because it was voluntary and scarcely populated. It seemed pointless. Now that it's automatic I don't really mind it, admittedly. Nardog (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Script installer
Hi, would it be worth listing entries like * {{userscript | code= User:Example/example.js |name= example |doc= User:Example/example |noref=yes}} – Description.
producing
Late by a lot, but I don't think so. I think users should be reviewing scripts in a bit more detail before installing them, unlike the approach at US/L. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the shell so that pages only get put into that category if the title isn't "Wikipedia:Scripts++/Next" and removed the category from the archive. Hopefully this'll take effect soon. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I blanked Wikipedia:Scripts++/Improve since the contents were sent out in Issue 25. However, it could be argued that this page should be kept as it was before blankinguntil the advertised improvements are implemented.
Thanks for the post-publishing! My idea for /Improve was to have anyone who wanted someone to do something to add that something there and only remove it when done or something new needs to replace it, since my interpretation of the section was just soliciting work from the community. Basically your second paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
