Bah. "likely to be".

On 25 May 2014 03:24, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:

Context for this?

The answer, for some of those questions, is like to be "none of them". Those that look problematic: *We don't track self-reported language skills, because, well, userboxen are incredibly inconsistent between projects, and building up an accurate index would be a monumental effort. Wikidata would reduce the difficulty of this, but not to the point where it's either easy enough that it's no problem for someone to do in their spare time, or important enough that we've dedicated time to it. *Tracking users between projects is something we're beard-stroking over at the moment because the CentralAuth infrastructure and db structure is the anti-pattern for "designing for researchers". *We don't track contributions to mailing lists, and it would be very difficult to accurately and automatically line up mailing list contributions with users in a public tool unless we exposed email addresses as registered by MediaWiki - which we don't do, because that's personal information. *We don't do any work around login time. We don't track it directly, and we can't approximate it indirectly (we can approximate edit session length, but that's a different thing entirely, and something done on an ad-hoc rather than regular basis).

On 25 May 2014 00:16, ENWP Pine deyntestiss@hotmail.com wrote:

...

Hi Analytics,

I'm looking for a way to do a cohort analysis for a presentation that I'm drafting.

I want a report that shows:

• A list of languages showing the users who speak each language as

identified on their user pages

• A list of projects where users have made at least 5 edits in the past

12 months

• A list of group members that have administrator rights and which wikis

are involved

• A list of public mailing lists where members have contributed in the

past 12 months

• Number of public emails on those mailing lists in the past 12 months
• Total edits made by the cohort
• Total bytes changed by the cohort
• Total logged-in time for the cohort, if log-in time aggregation is

being done

What automated tools could I use to create this report?

Are there any significant editor productivity metrics that are missing from this list?

Thanks,

Pine

---

Analytics mailing list Analytics@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/analytics

-- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation

John Mark Vandenberg, 25/05/2014 14:51:

How many wikis have the Babel extension implemented?

All, since 2011. (But usage practices vary.) https://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/09/21/babel-extension-live-on-the-wmf-projec...

Nemo

John Mark Vandenberg, 26/05/2014 02:32:

Can we see how many wikis have 'fully' implemented it? i.e. all non-deprecated templates use it, and most user-pages have been migrated if necessary.

Probably not. But why would someone care about English Wikipedia?

Nemo

John Mark Vandenberg, 26/05/2014 09:20:

;-)

This type of implementation (template changes; userboxes) change tends to, if done on en.wp, trickle from English Wikipedia to most of the Wikipedias outside the top ~20. Copying templates from en.wp is [[Claytons]] scary transclusion.

Why would someone import {{babel}} when {{#babel}} works out of the box with same syntax? Not that any wikis are being created anyway.

Nemo

On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com wrote:

Federico Leva (Nemo), 26/05/2014 10:38:

...

Why would someone import {{babel}} when {{#babel}} works out of the box with same syntax? Not that any wikis are being created anyway.

I did some silly bzgrep -c and the usage of {{#babel}} is significant on most wikis; to have the total you should count how many {{babel}} are just (correct) wrappers of {{#babel}}. Not only on several huge wikis #babel is more used, but even where it's less used it usually grows more than the old template from one dump to the next (even on en.wiki new usages are comparable). http://koti.kapsi.fi/~federico/babel.csv

Thank you!

So, the wikis with the largest non-#babel usage are enwiki, dewiki, plwiki and itwiki. Upgrading the usage on them to #babel should establish a good dataset to work with.

Since you have the dumps there, any chance you could find which templates use #babel on enwiki, dewiki, plwiki and itwiki. The search interface doesnt report them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=adva...

Here is the status of {{Babel}} on the wikis with the largest usage of {{#babel}}.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Babel - deprecated https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Babel - deprecated https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Babel - deprecated

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Template:Babel - 'do not use'

https://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Babel - deleted https://is.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Babel - deleted https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:Babel - deleted

{{Babel}} is a wrapper for #babel: eswiki and cswiki