Wikipedia talk:Scripts++/Next

Newsletter length

@Sam Sailor and Aaron Liu: The next issue seems excessively long for posting to user talk pages. It's already about 3.5 times longer than the last issue and will probably be 4 times longer by the time some missing sections are added. Perhaps the newsletter should require documentation before we list a script (especially when adding scripts on behalf of authors)? Perhaps some scripts with very few users could be moved to a supplement or something? These are rough numbers (some scripts are mentioned for the sake of comparison, I didn't check global.js pages on meta, and I generated these numbers with a quick script), but 73 out of 156 scripts have 5 or fewer users, and 24 out of 156 scripts lack documentation pages. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I did intend to trim it when I have time. I haven't had the time... I put my criteria down in this diff's edit summary. I doubt much people would see this reply, but anyone is welcome to do this! Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu and Daniel Quinlan: Ideally, we should aim at having a release schedule that reflects the number of new scripts that are being released. If the desired max size of the newsletter is, say, around 10k, then that may be monthly or bi-monthly (six issues/year). I don't think the idea of "roughly-quarterly" is viable, and the practice in recent years with an issue every five to six months clearly is not.

We can deal with Issue 28 in a few different ways, the most obviously is to split the section "More scripts, which we missed" to an Addendum (11k) that we put at e.g. Wikipedia:Scripts++/Issue 28 addendum. That leaves us with Issue 28 (23k). I tried to trim the descriptions and ended with 17k, so that's insufficient. Based on which scripts where in the /Next page on Oct. 28, I split that 17k page into Issue 28 (12k) and Issue 29 (7k for now). We have occasionally had issues at 15k, e.g. Wikipedia:Scripts++/Issue 24. Should we move on and prepare issue 28 for release this week? Best, Sam Sailor 14:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think we should just curate the scripts; install and test them and decide if we want to include them. IMO it should be a curated newsletter, not a list of (nearly) all the new scripts.

I'm fine with making "more scripts we missed" a separate issue, though. That's a great idea. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:30, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I finished a more thorough pass at cleaning up the draft. Even if we move the entire "More scripts" section to a separate page (which we absolutely should do) and make no further additions (please, no more), it will likely be the largest issue ever.

Going forward, I think we should consider some minimum requirements to be listed in the newsletter to avoid this kind of overwhelming list of every new script that can be found (e.g., a documentation page, at least five active users, not being mentioned in a recent newsletter, and perhaps a review step before additions are made on behalf of authors).

Moved to #Featured script

 – Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not like these suggested requirements. For previous issues, including the one where we covered two years' worth of scripts, this criteria for removal has been working:

remove scripts that either seem to duplicate other functionality (such as doing what another script already does poorly), are way too old, don't work, or would drastically increase the amount of api requests

while also leaning towards not removing scripts that their author added here zemself. So yeah, I think we are supposed to test the scripts we link to. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Those criteria are a reasonable starting point, but they haven't prevented the newsletter from ballooning in size and becoming too unwieldy to manage and edit.

Requiring documentation is a very low bar, it's a clear signal that a script is ready for broader use, and readers benefit from documentation that covers more than fits into a blurb: features, installation, usage, status, and compatibility information. Without that, the newsletter is just advertising unknown quantities.

I don't think we necessarily need a user-count minimum if the author themselves added a script, but we otherwise need a stronger indication that a script is functional, doesn't interfere with other scripts, and is ready for broader use. It's not enough that a script simply exists. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

It hasn't prevented them here only because the criteria hasn't been applied here yet, and as I mentioned it did keep the issue with two years' scripts under size, so I wouldn't think it wouldn't work on an issue with just one year. When I last replied here I pretty soon spotted a script that didn't meet the criteria even without testing it. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Also, currently most of the blurbs are just the ledes copied from the docs. I would rewrite/shorten those. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the current newsletter seems to include a number of scripts that aren't documented, scripts where the author hasn't publicized the script (and it may not be ready for broader use), and scripts with very few users. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Featured script

Moved from #Newsletter length

 – Try to restart this conversation. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

As to featured script(s), the clearest candidates are probably User:Anne drew/Veracity, and User:Daniel Quinlan/Scripts/Unfiltered, and User:LuniZunie/scripts/WikiShield based on recent usage growth. I'll note the obvious conflict of interest in suggesting one of my own scripts so take that recommendation with a grain of salt, but the other two seem strong regardless. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@Andrybak: I moved your addition to "New scripts" since I don't think it should be the featured script, especially without some discussion. It also has relatively few users compared to other candidates. Curious what others think. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 22:11, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about which script gets featured. If it's Veracity, I'd be pleased, but any of these seem like worthy features. I do think it would be useful to have an objective standard to decide this going forward. One could even imagine having a tool to pull all the new scripts into Scripts++/Next and select the featured one based on those criteria (but maybe that's getting a bit meta!) Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:55, 31 May 2026 (UTC)