Talk:Turning off outdated skins/stats
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Xiong Chiamiov in topic Polishing
Polishing edit
- [[link|the discussion]]
- "bucket" sounds jargonish
- Thanks; now both fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Noo you'll edit conflict me. :( --Nemo 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; now both fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- MediaWiki database?
- Sorry? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- 63 % of "power users" use Monobook, seriously? I do too, but I didn't imagine Vector was so hated. --Nemo 18:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
- See the point about underrepresentation of Vector. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Granted, but there's still a non-insignificant number of people who seem to prefer monobook ;-) ^demon (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, most definitely; I'm one of them :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- What «point about underrepresentation of Vector»? I didn't see any. Do you mean that those 11,116,612/4,201 users don't include the accounts with a null/empty value in skin preferences? This is not stated clearly anywhere, there's only a general remark on how defaults erase our knowledge of the history of the individual user's choices. --Nemo 12:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes, which is stated as "One limitation of the data is that we could only retrieve users who had actively set a preference for their skin; users who had not done this displayed with a null value in the relevant table....Users who have not explicitly set their skin are automatically exposed to the default skin which, for almost all projects, is Vector. In other words, while this lack of data does throw the numbers off, they throw it off in a direction we don't care about: the results of the analysis are biased towards, rather than away from, the skins we're considering removing.". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it's not like copying it here will make it any clearer. :) Fixed myself... --Nemo 05:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Well, yes, which is stated as "One limitation of the data is that we could only retrieve users who had actively set a preference for their skin; users who had not done this displayed with a null value in the relevant table....Users who have not explicitly set their skin are automatically exposed to the default skin which, for almost all projects, is Vector. In other words, while this lack of data does throw the numbers off, they throw it off in a direction we don't care about: the results of the analysis are biased towards, rather than away from, the skins we're considering removing.". Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- What «point about underrepresentation of Vector»? I didn't see any. Do you mean that those 11,116,612/4,201 users don't include the accounts with a null/empty value in skin preferences? This is not stated clearly anywhere, there's only a general remark on how defaults erase our knowledge of the history of the individual user's choices. --Nemo 12:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, most definitely; I'm one of them :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- Granted, but there's still a non-insignificant number of people who seem to prefer monobook ;-) ^demon (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- See the point about underrepresentation of Vector. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm one of 19 power users using Chick? Well... damn. It's just so nice and non-sidebarry. Xiong Chiamiov (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Getting rid of the sidebar in one of the other skins should be fairly trivial using user-specific CSS. Ask at tech if you need help. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- As a note to anyone else who comes across this, take a look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turning_off_outdated_skins#Using_the_full_screen_width for some options. Xiong Chiamiov (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Getting rid of the sidebar in one of the other skins should be fairly trivial using user-specific CSS. Ask at tech if you need help. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I normally use a Classic skin. But I don't see it in the statistics. I did notice however, when trying out the several skins on Meta-Wiki that I already automatically had been registered as Monobook user. Could all those powerusers (I'm certainly one of them) supposedly using Monobook in reality be using the Classic skin? That would make sense in view of the much superior readability of such fonts.--MWAK (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Classic is, I believe, an alternate name for Standard. And, no; so, preferences for skins are set on a per-wiki basis. You got the message because you're presumably using classic somewhere. Everyone registered as 'monobook' is using monobook. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. File:Power users by skin.png seems to have a funky Y axis currently. Perhaps just the labeling? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Missing an option in ggplot2, I suspect; I'll fiddle about and rerun the code. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Should now be fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- The label of the Y axis still seems wrong (it now maxes out at "20%" instead of "30%"), but the bars themselves seem accurate, so it's not really a big deal. Thanks for poking at this. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Should now be fixed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Classic edit
Nobody (apart from me) uses Classic? If it is Standard then something the main page should say so. It would also be interesting to see how the statement on how many users are affected "About 0.53% of active Wikimedia users, and about 0.39% of active users with more than 1,000 edits" is consistent with the table, as the power users figure looks as if it is over 2%. Rumping (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)