< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

m
(19 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 449: Line 449:
 
Updates are:
 
Updates are:
 
# {{t|Pen Blocks}} to {{t|Pen Extension}}
 
# {{t|Pen Blocks}} to {{t|Pen Extension}}
# [[:Category:Pen Blocks]] to [[:Category:Pen Extension]]
 
 
# Change {{t|block}} for 3.0 blocks (it's  larger than 2.0!)
 
# Change {{t|block}} for 3.0 blocks (it's  larger than 2.0!)
 
# Music Extension, LEGO WeDo Extension categorize and put a new template
 
# Music Extension, LEGO WeDo Extension categorize and put a new template
Line 567: Line 566:
 
:::I would ask the question of whether we want to build a skilled community or a community with vision. @customhacker Experience certainly builds the kind of vision which you reference, and therefore I just don't believe that it is as important for a first-time wiki applicant. <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 
:::I would ask the question of whether we want to build a skilled community or a community with vision. @customhacker Experience certainly builds the kind of vision which you reference, and therefore I just don't believe that it is as important for a first-time wiki applicant. <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 
:::As A user who used the request notes recently, I agree with Customhacker. There isn't so much to do for New Wikians so I think we might as well make sure the people who are doing something useful stay there, while the people who doing anything useful (like me) stay out of the way. <scratchsig>Dude613</scratchsig> 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 
:::As A user who used the request notes recently, I agree with Customhacker. There isn't so much to do for New Wikians so I think we might as well make sure the people who are doing something useful stay there, while the people who doing anything useful (like me) stay out of the way. <scratchsig>Dude613</scratchsig> 19:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::(Reviving) I think that after the current request notes, requesters could mention one or two edits they would like to do to the wiki. If what they put there is too broad (such as "I would like to edit pages") or breaks Wiki Guidelines (such as "I would like to make a page about my best project"), their request notes should be rejected. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 08:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 1,294: Line 1,294:
 
:Could you elaborate? I don't really understand, it is probably as I am new here.<scratchsig>ContourLines</scratchsig> 15:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 
:Could you elaborate? I don't really understand, it is probably as I am new here.<scratchsig>ContourLines</scratchsig> 15:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 
::I think it is, but I'm not entirely sure. Can you explain a bit more about it? <scratchsig>Filmlover12</scratchsig> 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 
::I think it is, but I'm not entirely sure. Can you explain a bit more about it? <scratchsig>Filmlover12</scratchsig> 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: Reviving this topic as this was moved to the Not Done page, but I replaced the contents of two user signatures with a use of the template they are from, and as far as I know, they have not been reverted. I think this discusion might now be finished, but I am unsure {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 1,326: Line 1,327:
 
:Changing all names to truth names is a hard job as Ken said before. Yes, the capitalizations might looks like terrible, but also I think ''manually'' create redirects or move some articles are better than ''manually'' move all of them. For example, change "creepy" titles, but don't edit others so much. Maybe should use a Wiki extension - I'm not sure about that is possible, however.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 20:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 
:Changing all names to truth names is a hard job as Ken said before. Yes, the capitalizations might looks like terrible, but also I think ''manually'' create redirects or move some articles are better than ''manually'' move all of them. For example, change "creepy" titles, but don't edit others so much. Maybe should use a Wiki extension - I'm not sure about that is possible, however.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 20:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 
::I think that we should change the articles that replace the bolded words with scratchblocks, ex. [[Set Video Transparency to () (block)]] because it looks a bit messy and unprofessional. I also think we should capitalise the name of the block the same way it has been done in the title, it keeps things neat.<scratchsig>Bananaandchoc1</scratchsig> 13:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 
::I think that we should change the articles that replace the bolded words with scratchblocks, ex. [[Set Video Transparency to () (block)]] because it looks a bit messy and unprofessional. I also think we should capitalise the name of the block the same way it has been done in the title, it keeps things neat.<scratchsig>Bananaandchoc1</scratchsig> 13:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Misdirected Request error ==
 +
{{not done|Moved to [[Scratch Wiki:Bugs]]}}<br/>
 +
Sometimes, when I go to the Test Wikis and back on an iPad, I sometimes get a '412 Misdirected Request' error. However, this does not happen on a desktop computer.  {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 17:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:I guess it's happening because of MediaWiki version. Test Wiki is using old version when compared to English Wiki. Also, there can be another reason: Test Wiki has a backdoor for FTP transfer but it has low probability.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 16:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::Also, it's '421' error, not '412'.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 20:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::I have this problem too, also on an iPad. I might have gotten it on my computer before, but I don't remember.{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 11:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::It happened on my Windows desktop just today. I think the Wifi disconnected when the screen turned off, maybe something similar happened to the iPads? <scratchsig>Jettypumpkin07</scratchsig> 11:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 1,385: Line 1,396:
 
::::::I disagree with your logic on why it should be done on Scratch, though. The account request system is a product of the Wiki, so it should be done on the Wiki. It's also a good chance for them to have a "first experience" with how things like talk pages work.
 
::::::I disagree with your logic on why it should be done on Scratch, though. The account request system is a product of the Wiki, so it should be done on the Wiki. It's also a good chance for them to have a "first experience" with how things like talk pages work.
 
::::::However, this is just my opinion. Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful to rejected users. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 
::::::However, this is just my opinion. Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful to rejected users. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== [[How to Connect to the Physical World]] Is really outdated ==
 +
 +
[[How to Connect to the Physical World]] is really outdated. <scratchsig>GrahamSH</scratchsig> 19:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:Please use internal links for links to other Scratch Wiki pages. As for this, maybe you could try to update part of it yourself? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::@Jammum Thank you for pointing out the usage of an external link. I've corrected the formatting so that @GrahamSH can see how it is done correctly (@Jammum please wait for an EW/administrator to correct if you see this elseware). @GrahamSH I would ask that you be more specific in the types of changes that we should collaborate in order to accomplish. Thanks <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 17:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 1,497: Line 1,516:
 
Hope this helps! <scratchsig>Acebsa</scratchsig> 20:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Hope this helps! <scratchsig>Acebsa</scratchsig> 20:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 
:Really awesome project! I didn't realize that we were planning this kind of thing. Would you like me to post the tip of the day on our twitter account @ScratchWiki? <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 
:Really awesome project! I didn't realize that we were planning this kind of thing. Would you like me to post the tip of the day on our twitter account @ScratchWiki? <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 17:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Would it possible to prevent users from using external links to wiki pages in the AbuseFilter? ==
 +
 +
Question is in title. If this were to be implemented (if it even is possible), would it apply to all non-userspace or just mainspace? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 10:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:It's possible but I would never do this because sometimes there's a legitimate use for external links. Possibly an AbuseFilter warning, rather than disallow?{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 09:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::I am asking about disallowing external links to other Scratch Wiki pages, not all external links.  {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 09:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::There is sometimes a legitimate use for external links to the Scratch Wiki, e.g.: [{{fullurl:Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal|action=purge}}]
 +
:::Unless you're just talking about content pages. Still, though, there are probably some special cases where disallowing it would be inconvenient. A warning might be good, though. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::: The fullurl template can be used for some of those links that cannot be linked normally, so does that solve the problem? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 07:38, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::: (Reviving this) I think if a user uses an external link to Scratch Wiki pages, the proper way to do a link to another Wiki page could be shown. The edit could either be warned or prevented. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 13:21, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Allowing borders in custom sigs ==
 +
 +
I think we should allow borders in custom signatures. [[S:CSIG]] states that there shouldn't be borders in custom sigs, but so many people already have it in their signatures (kenny2scratch, 12944qwerty, EIephant_Lover, Dominic305, ahmetlii, ContourLines, ajsya, etc.) As long as the border isn't needlessly large or flashy, I believe it's fine. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:I don't recall whether the rule disallows all borders. In either case, though, this is a conflict of interest because I see you have borders in your signature too...
 +
:I agree, but then again I have borders already as well. I'd prefer if some people without borders contributed an opinion.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 09:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::I think it's fine as long as it's not too large or draws any extra attention to the signature. I'm not sure how large "too large" would be though. {{User:Groko13/Signature}} 15:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::I agree too; I think also as long as it doesn't break lines (like text shadows) it should be allowed. But I'm biased too because I use them :P{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 16:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== RfC about the usage of fixed with in ScratchWikiSkin2 ==
 +
 +
Hello all. As you may have noticed, ScratchWikiSkin2 seems to used a fixed width (similar to Fandom's Oasis skin), as a holdover from previous skins designed to look similar to scratch.mit.edu -- however, I and several other users have noticed an increasing number of problems using fixed width. Fixed widths generally leave a large amount of the screen entirely unused, and show a small amount of the page content. It also introduces design problems that rely on fixed width and break for some users. The current, fixed width style, looks a bit like [https://i.imgur.com/xavOxGN.png this]. I am proposing to use free-styled width based on the screen resolution (a mockup something like [ https://i.imgur.com/UEd14yX.png this], ignore the blue line, that is accidental and will not be shown in the final version). This allows for a larger content space, as well as making the view more consistent across skins. Please let me know if you support or oppose this proposal. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 00:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
: Addendum: I would also appreciate if all could specify what skin they use when commenting? (The information is helpful, most are likely either using ScratchWikiSkin2 or Vector, but others like me primarily use Monobook). <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 01:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:I support. Fixed width looks <i>terrible</i>. (Reply to the addendum: I use SWS2) {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 01:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:(SWS2 user) Consistency across skins is completely irrelevant - consistency with the Scratch website is more important. We use fixed width to emulate the mainsite, which does the same. If you want free width, you can make a user CSS file for it.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 09:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: I personally am of the belief that consistency with the Scratch website is "completely irrelevant" -- this is a third party site with different needs and goals. This is where a lot of the design has been poured into as well, such as by changing the header to a different color. There does indeed appear to be support for increasing the width apart from Kenny2scratch's comment. However, custom CSS files are not relevant here as what is being discussed is not personal views (I use Monobook) but what would actually improve the skin, primarily to those logged out and browsing the wiki. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 17:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: I agree with the above statement. I have an <s>ebic gamer</s> HD monitor, and SWS2 is tiny on my monitor. There are at least 500 pixels of free space. It almost looks like it was designed for a tablet (it fits perfectly on iPadOS). This is the reason why I use Vector because it takes up almost all of my monitor space. You technically ''could'' make a CSS script for it, but the majority of users here (not everyone) don't know any other programming languages and/or markup languages than Scratch. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 15:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::If you like Vector, use Vector. If you like SWS2 enough to keep using it but also want non-fixed width, then use user CSS. For those not logged in, fixed width is what they get, because that's what they'll be used to from the Scratch website. I don't consider fill width an improvement, only a matter of preference. Find me examples of people (who have no relation to you) actually asking for fill width SWS on, say, the forums, and then it'll be more worth considering.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 15:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::I support. While garnetluvcookie said it looks like it's designed for a tablet, personally I prefer setting zoom to 75% or 85% on most pages. However setting the zoom on the Wiki causes content to get squished and lots of tables (including on File: pages) to overflow into the empty space. And on my 1080p display, it looks like a site designed for computers from 2009.{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 17:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Centralized Cross-Wiki Discussion ==
 +
 +
Hi everyone,
 +
 +
Since all of the various Scratch Wikis are hosted on the same server and part of a common community, they have a number of things in common, including outreach efforts (such as Wiki Wednesday) and technical aspects. This means that some changes (especially technical ones) will affect ''all'' wikis, not just the Wiki for one language. We usually like to seek community feedback before implementing major changes, but currently there is no centralized place to do that between all languages. As a result, changes either do not get community input at all or just get input from the community for one language (usually English, i.e. this one). We do have the [[:tw:Test Scratch Wiki Home|Test Wiki]] for both new language-specific Wikis off the ground and coordinating cross-wiki stuff.
 +
 +
Therefore, I propose making it so anyone who has an account on ''any'' language-specific Wiki may have an account on the Test Wiki (you would still need to request it, but you can just say "I have an account on [language] Wiki") and that we host all cross-Wiki discussions there. Announcements for any major discussions would still be posted on the English Community Portal so everybody remains aware of any active discussions without having to check the Test Wiki Recent Changes.
 +
 +
Thoughts, everyone?<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 01:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
: I think this is a great idea. Probably because I helped with writing the proposal, but good! <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 01:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::I also think this is a great idea! It's important that we have a place for conveniently discussing matters that involve all the wikis, and this would provide that place. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 01:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::I agree with this as well! {{User:Groko13/Signature}} 01:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:Handy links to the discussions on the other wikis about this:
 +
:* German: [[de:Scratch-Wiki Diskussion:Gemeinschafts-Portal#Zentralisierte Cross-Wiki-Diskussion]]
 +
:* Indonesian: [[id:Pembicaraan Scratch-Indo-Wiki:Portal Komunitas#Diskusi Lintas-Wiki Terpusat]]
 +
:* Russian: [[ru:Обсуждение Скретч Вики:Портал сообщества#Централизованное кросс-вики-обсуждение]]
 +
:* Japanese: [[ja:Japanese Scratch-Wiki:議論の場#一元化されたクロスWikiディスカッション]]
 +
:* Dutch: [[nl:Dutch Scratch-Wiki:Gebruikersportaal#Gecentraliseerde cross-wiki-discussie]]
 +
:* French: ''(no discussion as of posting)''
 +
:* Hungarian: ''(no discussion as of posting)''
 +
:* Test: ''(no discussion as of posting)''
 +
:The discussions on the other wikis link back here (since jvvg used Google Translate to translate this version into each language). I wanted to post these here so that the users reading this topic can see what the users on other wikis think about this idea. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 02:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: This idea would benefit a lot. Also, I have a question about this: would the cross-wiki discussion be separate from the Test Wiki community portal, or would they be on the same page.
 +
:: I also wrote earlier in a probably now archived topic that I was not planning to join the test wiki, but if this gets implemented, I might join to take part in those discussions. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::The French Scratch Wiki now has a discussion about this here: [[fr:Discussion Scratch Wiki en Français:Accueil de la Communauté#Centralized Scratch Wiki Discussions]] {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 16:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::Also, the discussion on the Japanese Scratch Wiki was moved to this page: [[ja:Japanese Scratch-Wiki:議論の場/一元化されたクロスWikiディスカッション]] {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::: I have another question about this idea: if this were to happen, would any language be used (I myself do not speak any language other than English fluently) or will only English be used in cross-wiki discussions? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 17:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::I support, even though I already have a test wiki account {{e|:P}}. Also, we should consider modifying common.js so it shows "Test" rather than "Twi" in the left sidebar, but I'll add that as a proposal to the new Test Wiki CP when it's set up. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 19:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|::::::}} (Level of indentation is to reply to OP) Question about the Request on Test Wiki thing; I have moved since I requested, do I have to request an account for this account, or can I use my new account? <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 15:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:I support, maybe we should make a single sign on so when you have a wiki account you automatically get a test wiki account.<scratchsig>Acebsa</scratchsig> 20:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== An idea ==
 +
 +
Hi everyone,
 +
I had an idea recently to make a way for non-wiki editors to suggest changes if they don't want to go through the hassle of making a wiki account. Maybe a google form or something that editors can look at and, if needed, make the change.
 +
<scratchsig>Acebsa</scratchsig> 04:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:: Scratchers are allowed to suggest changes through the Scratch Wiki's forum topic. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 04:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: For reference, the Scratch Wiki forum topic is located [[topic:294197|here]]. It is also used to ask questions about the wiki as well. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::The issue with that, I found, is that few actually know about it and the non-wikian posts are just random questions about scratch in general.{{User:ContourLines/Signature}} 16:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::: The Scratch Wiki forum topic can be used to do actions requested by the user who started this discussion, so this is now {{done}}. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 14:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== [[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 107#Tell users on Wiki Wednesday topics not to spam in replies]] continuation ==
 +
 +
I am just reviving the discussion  mentioned in the title above because it was archived and it did not seem to be completed. Also, on the latest Wiki Wednesday topic, no notice in the first post telling Scratchers not to spam in the topic was put in.
 +
 +
In the discussion linked above, I mentioned some examples of what the notice would mention as being spam. I also think posts only saying 'Hi', 'Hello' or something similar could also be mentioned as being spam. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 15:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
: Isn't it just common sense ''not'' to spam?  It's already against the CGs, so I don't see a use for it or it's because I stalk the Announcements forum, get a first-page post, and move on. It could be useful to the 5 year-olds here that need a notice saying "Don't spam, it's sUpEr AnNoYiNg!11!!1" <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 15:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== RfC about User:Gdpr000001, User talk:Gdpr000001 and <s>S:B</s> redirects ==
 +
 +
As explained in the title, these are discussed on their related talk pages and [[User talk:Ahmetlii]], but I'd like to an RfC for solving the question.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 06:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
: The first two have already been discussed at [[Talk:Gdpr0000001#Removing_several_redirects_to_this_page]] to delete, neutral on where S:B is targetted. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 06:29, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::But also, the discussion about gdpr has a few users and only 2 active users(me and Naleksuh), this doesn't mean a consensus because it goes to a discussion between two users.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 06:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Suggestion: Resolved and Unresolved Templates ==
 +
 +
{{not done}}
 +
 +
There are many discussions on talk pages on the wiki that get abandoned until someone discovers them again. Wouldn't it be helpful if we had a list of all the pages with unresolved discussions that have yet to be finished? Here are some advantages to a list like this:
 +
 +
* In many cases, discussions won't get abandoned without being documented as unresolved discussions somewhere.
 +
* Users who want discussions to contribute to can just look at the list for some unresolved discussions.
 +
* It would improve the wiki's organization.
 +
 +
I think one way we could implement a system like this would be with two templates: {{t|unresolved}} and {{t|resolved}}.
 +
 +
The {{t|unresolved}} template would mark the discussion with "unresolved." It would also add the page to the hidden category [[:Category:Pages With Unresolved Discussions]], and provide a link to the category. If the page was in the "User talk" namespace, it would not be added to the category. This is so that if users want to use the templates on their own talk pages, they can, but users looking for discussions to participate in won't have to dig through user talk pages. There would also be a <code>cat=no</code> option to manually prevent the page from being added to the category. I've created a draft of this template at [[User:Bigpuppy/Unresolved]]. Note that the category part is commented out right now, so that pages don't get added to a nonexistent category. If this suggestion gets accepted, it will be un-commented.
 +
 +
The {{t|resolved}} template would mark the discussion with "resolved." It would have a <code>date</code> parameter that would show when the discussion was resolved. Resolved discussions would not be added to any category (unless that is something we want). I've created a draft of this template at [[User:Bigpuppy/Resolved]].
 +
 +
Here are answers to some questions you may have:
 +
;Don't we already have the {{done}} and {{not done}} templates?
 +
:Yes. However, those templates don't have all of the functionality that the {{t|resolved}} and {{t|unresolved}} templates would provide. If we added this functionality to the {{done}} and {{not done}} templates, all of the discussions that were not actually marked {{done}} but still have the template on them (e.g. if the template was used in casual conversation) would be added to the category.
 +
 +
;Would these templates replace the {{done}} and {{not done}} templates?
 +
:No. Those templates would still be used in casual conversation and in tandem with the {{t|resolved}} and {{t|unresolved}} templates (e.g. "is this conversation {{done}}?"). The {{t|resolved}} and {{t|unresolved}} templates would be used more formally at the top of discussions.
 +
 +
;Would use of these templates be required?
 +
:No. However, it would be recommended, so that the page gets added to the category of pages with unresolved discussions.
 +
 +
;Would anyone be allowed to add these templates to any discussion, even ones they didn't create?
 +
:Yes. Similar to how the {{done}} and {{not done}} templates are used now, anyone would be able to mark a discussion as resolved or unresolved, even if they didn't create it.
 +
 +
;The drafts you created look curiously similar to the {{t|shortcut}} template.
 +
:That's because I based part of their code on the {{t|shortcut}} template. {{e|:P}}
 +
 +
{{user|Kenny2scratch|name}} implemented semi-similar templates at [[User talk:Kenny2scratch/Permalinks]]. They are similar in that they are templates located in the top-right of a discussion and show whether the discussion is done or not.
 +
 +
So, thoughts? Do you like the idea? Do you think it could use some improvement? Do you think we shouldn't create these templates at all? Please share your thoughts below. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 19:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:We already have S:CPND as a "unresolved" placeholder archive. I didn't see any usage of it unless marking "resolved" and "unresolved", and this gets another question: Will it be done or will not? (like 1 and 0, not includes 2 or 4). I don't think it's not important enough and @Kenny2scratch is using his permalinks to "never done" topics. I can support never done but not resolved-unresolved. Any opinions?{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 19:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::[[S:CPND]] isn't really relevant here because this wouldn't necessarily be used on the CP (but it could); the main purpose is for things like article talk pages. Could you clarify what you mean in the rest of your comment? Also, [[User talk:Kenny2scratch/Permalinks]] includes done topics; look at the statuses on the right of each discussion. However, that was just an example. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::I don't think it's necessary for article talk pages, because they don't need an archive or a job queue. It's not necessary as I think and said before.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 06:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::Thank you for your opinion. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::You're welcome. {{e|:)}} {{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 20:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::Couldn't we just add the functionality to {{t|done}} and {{t|not done}}? <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 20:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|6}}Please see the answer to "Don't we already have the {{done}} and {{not done}} templates?" in my original post. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 21:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:True, but you also stated that we could use <code>cat=no</code> as the default cat option. That way, all you'd need to do for casual conversation is add {{t|not done}} on the section. But on an "official" conversation, we would add <code>cat=yes</code>.
 +
:2 questions though: Would only {{t|unresolved}} add to a category? And, doesn't adding to a category add the entire page? <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::Oops, first question has been answered as soon as i posted lol <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== GitHub interwiki links ==
 +
 +
There seem to be a lot of GitHub links (including references) to the Scratch Wiki. Although the URL is not very long, maybe LLK github links (and maybe other github links) could have an interwiki link made for them (such as gh-llk, not 'gh' due to the presence of non-LLK github links as well). {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:I don't think so. Github is an external link, even its links host Scratch repos. They may cause confusion. Plain links are a better solution.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 06:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::To make things less confusing, interwiki links to Scratch's GitHub content could have the github: prefix instead. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 08:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Megathread: MediaWiki Version Bump ==
 +
 +
TL;DR: We're upgrading to MediaWiki Version 1.35. Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2020
 +
 +
=== Why upgrade? ===
 +
Currently we're using MediaWiki 1.28, which is unsupported. This caused some problems and MW 1.28 is also incompatible with some extensions. This is why we upgrade to MediaWiki 1.35, a LTS version soon to be stable.
 +
 +
=== Timeline ===
 +
Time not set, but this is a big project which can take weeks.
 +
 +
=== Checklist ===
 +
Extensions and Skins:
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} ScratchWikiSkin2
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} ScratchLogin (patch applied to fix warning)
 +
* {{done|Replaced}} ConfirmAccount (new version built)
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} Report (patch needs review)
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} ScratchSig
 +
* {{done|Replaced}} EditAccount (new version built)
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} ScratchBlocks4
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} RecentChangesWebhooks
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} VisualEditor (but sb blocks will be only seen as string)
 +
 +
Bots:
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} InterwikiBot
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} TemplatesFTW
 +
* {{doing|Internal errors}} WikiMonitor (has problems about dependencies)
 +
 +
Misc:
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} Special:BlockList patch - new version created
 +
* {{done|Compatible}} Common.css
 +
* {{doing|Incompatible}} Common.js (sigwarn is problematic)
 +
 +
{{collapse top|List of all extensions and skins installed on all wikis}}
 +
Status: C - Compatible, I - Incompatible
 +
* C: Cologne Blue (en)
 +
* C: Modern (en)
 +
* C: MonoBook (en)
 +
* C: ScratchWikiSkin2 (en)
 +
* C: Vector (en)
 +
* C: CategoryTree (en)
 +
* C: CheckUser (en)
 +
* I: ConfirmAccount (en)
 +
* I: EditAccount (en)
 +
* C: Interwiki (en)
 +
* C: Random In Category (en)
 +
* C: Report (en)
 +
* C: ScratchLogin (en)
 +
* C: CharInsert (en)
 +
* C: Cite (en)
 +
* C: CodeMirror (en)
 +
* C: InputBox (en)
 +
* C: ParserFunctions (en)
 +
* C: RandomSelection (en)
 +
* C: mw-ScratchBlocks4 (en)
 +
* C: SyntaxHighlight (en)
 +
* C: NativeSvgHandler (en)
 +
* C: AbuseFilter (en)
 +
* C: RecentChangesWebhooks (en)
 +
* C: WikiEditor (en)
 +
* C: DismissableSiteNotice (en)
 +
* C: EventLogging (en)
 +
* C: Google Analytics Integration (en)
 +
* C: GuidedTour (en)
 +
* C: DynamicPageList3 (de)
 +
* C: EmbedScratch (de)
 +
* C: EmbedPhosphorus (de)
 +
* C: EmbedVideo (de)
 +
* C: Labeled Section Transclusion (de)
 +
* C: Lockdown (de)
 +
* C: Admin Links (ja)
 +
* I: Contribution Scores (ja)
 +
* C: MassMessage (ja)
 +
* C: Newest Pages (ja)
 +
* I: ImagePagePrintLink (ja)
 +
* C: ImageMap (ja)
 +
* C: OpenGraphMeta (ja)
 +
* C: YouTube (ja)
 +
* C: RelatedArticles (ja)
 +
* C: AutoSitemap (ja)
 +
* C: BetaFeatures (ja)
 +
* C: Description2 (ja)
 +
* C: Disambiguator (ja)
 +
* C: GuguruSearch (ja)
 +
* C: InterwikiSorting (ja)
 +
* C: RevisionSlider (ja)
 +
* I: SearchStats (ja)
 +
* C: TextExtracts (ja)
 +
* C: Loops (fr)
 +
* C: WikiSEO (fr)
 +
* I: HeadScript (fr)
 +
* C: HitCounters (test)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
=== Discussion ===
 +
This is gonna be big. {{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 08:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
: Question: Is Vector going to be compatible with it? I sometimes use SWS2 but I mostly use Vector on my laptop. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 13:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: @garnetluvcookie: Definitely because MediaWiki uses Vector as default.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 13:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: Thanks! <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 13:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::While we are doing this, can we add the VisualEditor? I have used it at snapwiki.miraheze.org, and it works great! I'm so excited for this update! <scratchsig>GrahamSH</scratchsig> 22:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::We are planning on adding the Visual Editor, however a bit of adaptation is necessary. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 01:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::Why is the VisualEditor incompatible with ScratchWikiSkin2? As far as I know, (and I've been exploring this) the skin has all of the necessary hooks. Has anyone tried it? <scratchsig>GrahamSH</scratchsig> 16:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::@GrahamSH: I tried and tested. I know it has all necessary hooks, but also it cannot simulate the editing visually(because our skin is restrictive). We (as all developers in the Wikis) are looking for compatibility.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 16:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::::Update: VisualEditor is working currently with a few unimportant things like sb is not seen as block.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 18:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|7}}(Remember to outdent at 6) What changes are there between 1.28 and 1.35? I know there's visual editor but I'm not sure what else.{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 00:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:If Scratchblocks are to be added to the VisualEditor here, how will they be inputted? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::@Jammum: We're working on it for editing blocks visually. Probably we will use text, but also the blocks will be seen instantly on VisualEditor when someone did an edit on the Scratchblocks text.
 +
::@Dominic305: There are a lot changes, I suggest you to read all changelogs between 1.28 and 1.35.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 07:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::Will the extension Popups be enabled instead of the current thing in the common.js? Popups, (the extension) is much better. <scratchsig>GrahamSH</scratchsig> 12:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::: Also, since Special:BlockList patch is broken, you could try using https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Lockdown <scratchsig>GrahamSH</scratchsig> 14:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::: Thanks for the helping, but the developers is thinking that manually editing MediaWiki is better than use an extension for it. Anyway, thanks again! {{e|:)}}{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 14:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::: I am not sure where Ahmetlii got the idea above-- nobody has even ''suggested'' that, in addition to it being a bad idea for a number of technical reasons that I am sure ISW understands. There have not been any suggestions for a way of implementing Special:BlockList privacy, but I will see about some solutions. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 18:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|6}}
 +
For VisualEditor, couldn't you do something similar to the way it's done in scratch forums?<br/>
 +
<small><small><s>I wish I could help but I don't know a single thing about PHP</s></small></small> <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 18:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:I don't think so. BBS systems and wikis are two different things. <small>btw, I'm not also good at PHP (my specialty is Python on backend)</small>{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 18:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::They are, but I wasn't saying that you use the systems. I was just saying to use the concepts of how the scratchblocks are entered into the visual space.
 +
::<small><small>SAME, but I actually don't know a single thing of PHP</small></small> <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 19:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: Actually, it could look for typeof="mw:Extension/scratchblocks"<scratchsig>GrahamSH</scratchsig> 19:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::<s>What do you mean by the tags are found? We use <code><nowiki><scratchblocks></nowiki></code> tags to make scratchblocks on the wiki...</s>
 +
::::<s>In the visualeditor, we could just make a button, that will make something similar to the templates popup in the visualeditor. Then edit and it makes the block!</s>
 +
::::Edit conflict lol, but I wouldn't recommend deleting your entire post and replacing it with something else. It doesn't tell others what your previous thoughts were, (they could support you, or not) And is that <code>typof=</code> supposed to link anywhere? <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 20:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::In the visualeditor, elements with scratchblock have <code>typeof="mw:Extension/scratchblocks"</code> in their html. But, there is no text (shown) that says <nowiki><scratchblocks></nowiki><scratchsig>GrahamSH</scratchsig> 01:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::That's because <nowiki><scratchblocks></nowiki> get's replaced with <code><nowiki><pre class="block"></nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki><code class="block"></nowiki></code> to make scratch blocks...
 +
::::::I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 18:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|::::::}}
 +
I looked at the MediaWiki website and it said that the EditAccount extension is archived, which might be why it does not work on the latest MediaWiki version. Is it going to be forked or replaced?
 +
{{User:Jammum/Signature}} 10:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:We're working on it. The only thing is we will not use EditUser (because it's so restrictive). Please check the GitHub repos of the International Scratch Wiki for public changelogs of the Scratch Wiki systems.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 11:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::apple502j has created an alternative to EditAccount that can be used on MediaWiki 1.35: [https://github.com/InternationalScratchWiki/PassEdit PassEdit]. The original reason we needed EditAccount was for the case when users forgot their passwords and emails were set incorrectly (or they entered their email incorrectly when requesting an account and couldn't get their password sent to them when their account was created). However, now that we have ScratchLogin, that is no longer an issue, since users can reset their password by using their Scratch account. We have tested the extension and it does work, but we are not sure if we will enable it or not.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 23:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Increase the file size thingy (read this to get it) ==
 +
{{not done}}<br />
 +
<small>i can't explain anything so here goes...</small>
 +
I've seen many people getting the "compress every file you upload if it's not under 2 KB" message. Why? These users uploaded files that are like 6 KB. 6 KB!!! That's incredibly small, at least for file sizes. I believe that the minimum file size for compression should be raised to 20 KB because that's a size that's small, but large enough that it's too big. Thoughts? <br /><span style="color:red"><span style="background:#2f3136;height:22px;display:inline-block;padding:0px">[[File:Glc.jpg|18px|link=users:garnetluvcookie]] [[User:garnetluvcookie|<b><span style="color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial;font-family:Arial">''♥ garnetluvcookie ♥''</span></b>]] [[User talk:Garnetluvcookie|<b><span style=color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial;font-family:Arial">| ''♥ talk ♥''</span></b>]] <span style="color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial">'''|'''</span> [[Special:Contributions/Garnetluvcookie|<b><span style="color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial">''♥ contribs ♥''</span></b>]]''</span></span> 00:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:I think the title of this topic should actually be "'''Increase''' the file size thingy (read this to get it)" (or am I misunderstanding what you're saying?) {{e|:)}}
 +
 +
:Also, could you please clarify which message you're talking about?
 +
:* [[Special:Upload]] states "Is the image's filesize over '''300KB'''? If it is, please compress it. [https://tinypng.com TinyPNG] is recommended for PNGs and JPEGs (contrary to the name, it does support JPEG)."
 +
:* The [[MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-huge-file|abuse filter warning]] that appears when you upload a file that's too large also uses the 300KB number, stating "If your file is over 300KB, please compress it. [https://tinypng.com/ TinyPNG] is recommended for PNGs and JPGs."
 +
:* The [[User:TemplatesFTW/Config/CompressMsg|message]] that {{user|TemplatesFTW|name}} posts on users' talk pages after it compresses their files does not state any number, but rather states that "... the image size was kinda big ...".
 +
:None of the above messages mention that you should "compress every file you upload if it's not under 2 KB," so could you please clarify which message you are talking about? If I'm missing something obvious, please point it out. Thank you! {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 01:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: Ahh, yes I meant increase, it's just pretty late where I am and I'm a bit sleepy. Also, the compress if it's over 2 KB thing was a joke to show how low the compressing thing is :P.  I'll fix the post <s>before I fall asleep in my chair</s>. <br /><span style="color:red"><span style="background:#2f3136;height:22px;display:inline-block;padding:0px">[[File:Glc.jpg|18px|link=users:garnetluvcookie]] [[User:garnetluvcookie|<b><span style="color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial;font-family:Arial">''♥ garnetluvcookie ♥''</span></b>]] [[User talk:Garnetluvcookie|<b><span style=color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial;font-family:Arial">| ''♥ talk ♥''</span></b>]] <span style="color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial">'''|'''</span> [[Special:Contributions/Garnetluvcookie|<b><span style="color:#ff0000;font-family:Arial">''♥ contribs ♥''</span></b>]]''</span></span> 02:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: Yeah people take compression way too seriously. ''Maybe'' at 30mb losslessly you should ''consider'' compressing, but there's no reason to compress something already only 20 kb (which is incredibly small in 2020, a lot of JavaScript files are bigger). Some images have been compressed so aggressively that the text becomes difficult to read and have needed to be reverted. The file dimensions were recently increased to 1080p a couple weeks ago, but there hasn't been much comment on file size. I personally think that an increase on file size limit would be very helpful as compression has been taken way too seriously (in most cases it has almost no benefit, although there are always exceptions). In addition, admins for some reason can upload files up to 218 times larger than non-admins, which again I think is another unnecessary line. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 02:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::: Exactly. All it does is decreases file size by like 4 KB. Personally I think that compression is taken wayy too seriously here. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 02:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== Tone down the rejected messages on [[S:BR]] archives ==
 +
 +
{{Note|None of this was made to offend the people who reject bot requests. Please take no offense.}}
 +
 +
Some of the rejected summaries at [[S:BR]] rejected requests are very unwelcoming. For example, my rejected message had "User has no programming experience" which comes off extremely rude, and when I do have programming experience (if you count Scratch as a programming language... *awkward smile*). The only reason that I don't is because I'm incredibly young, not even in middle school. If I was 5 years older, I would've created a bot already. (Please don't argue this point against me, I don't want the summary bored into my head)<br />
 +
 +
Also, a user may not have much experience in the language, but that doesn't mean that they are incapable of creating a bot. I know many people online (haha don't ask about IRL) that are new to the language that they chose, but they've created amazing stuff. It's enforcing the stereotype of "young children are dumb and can't do complex stuff". No matter how minor, it's still showing bad behavior as a role-model.<br />
 +
 +
This doesn't mean that the admins need to rewrite every single rejected summary, they just need to be more considerate about how others will feel. <small>extreme nostalgia and/or cringe side affects may occur in 3... 2... 1...</small> It's like that concept that everyone was taught in early grade school, fill others buckets, don't dump them. <br />
 +
 +
<small>now my fingers hurt :P</small> <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 21:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:<small>As mysteriously as he arrived, NYCDOT was gone again.</small> Hi. I checked out your BR, and it appears that Ken wrote "Proposer has no programming experience and VoxBot is the only approved typography bot." He said it like it is, you have no experience. What is he supposed to say? We aren't going to give out gold stars to people who propose that they create their own bots without any idea how to do so. Try out a some programming languages ''before'' proposing a a new Wiki Bot, and I'm sure the next time you have a BR the admins will be more than happy to review your request. As for the bot idea itself, VoxBot is an approved bot that we know works well and does its job. If you have problems with it, I'm sure KrIsMa will listen to your suggestions. {{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 18:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: I do have programming experience, I just only knew Scratch at the time I suggested it. Also, even though I apparently am dumb, I do know a good bit of Python. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 18:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: Two things. One, no one ever said you were dumb. Not knowing how to do a certain thing doesn't make you dumb. Two, at the time of the bot request, you pretty much had no experience. While you may have some now, that doesn't change the past. If you think of a new, useful bot, you can propose one again. {{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 18:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::<small>Welcome back NYCDOT, I came back recently too {{e|:P}}, also, remember about your indents :P</small>
 +
::::Scratch is not counted as programming knowledge. Although you could use scratch knowledge to code with other languages, knowing scratch only isn't enough. Can you make a bot with scratch coding? No, you cannot. Ken writing that you have no programming experience is completely fine. You agreed you have no programming experience outside of Scratch.
 +
::::Although it may be rude for you, it is in no way meant to be rude. Ken wrote all details in his rejected message so that everyone understands why this bot got rejected and so that users don't make a bot for the same reason. There's always a reason for writing things the way it's written. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::I really don't see how any of the messages are rude?{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 15:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== make templates like [[wikipedia:Template:Trout|trout]] ==
 +
 +
(yes, i am aware of [[S:NOTWP]]. i am suggesting because it's funny.)
 +
Self-explanatory. There would also be self-trout, minnow, and whale.<br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 14:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:<nowiki>{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Trout notification}}</nowiki> exists, if it is something multiple people want it could be moved out of my userspace. Until then you can use it with that link. I have not heard of whale or minnow but I'm sure those could also be made if everyone wants them.{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 14:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::<s>shameless plug</s> but not many people know about it unless you plug it everywhere :/ <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 14:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::We do not allow mainspace templates that aren't intended for use in articles or on talk pages. You may make a template like that in your userspace if you want.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::Edit: Trout notification is now Trout Selector, I've added whale, and 2 different barnstars (use <nowiki>{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Barnstar/Selector}}</nowiki>){{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 15:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::I think this discussion can be finished. A trout template and other userspace-only templates can only be made in userspace per Jvvg's comment. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 +
== RfC for Interface admins group ==
 +
 +
With the recent update to MediaWiki 1.35, a new group has been created: [[Special:ListGroupRights#interface-admin]]. Currently, nobody has this group-- however this is the only group that is able to edit pages like [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]. While we have policies for how to request Experienced Wikian (through annual elections) and sysop (through requests on Community portal); there is no policy as to how to request Interface admin as it is a new group to Scratch Wiki. There are several possible ideas for how users might request this group.
 +
 +
Below there are three proposals. Keep in mind that these are not necessarily contradictory, multiple or all of them could coexist. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
=== Proposal 1: Allow interface admin to be requested permanently through the community portal ===
 +
 +
==== Support ====
 +
 +
==== Oppose ====
 +
: I think the group is too specific for this to be useful-- I also think granting permanent access puts importance and does not allow specific tasks to be vetted as they should be. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:Oppose, as Naleksuh stated. <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 04:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
==== Comments ====
 +
 +
=== Proposal 2: Allow interface admin to be requested temporarily (for a specific purpose) through [[/Admin Requests]] ===
 +
 +
==== Support ====
 +
: Allows users to edit the interface as needed. Seems like the best path for requesting and allows specific tasks as well as not granting permanent access as needed. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
: As per Naleksuh. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:Support, but admin will probably only allow certain pages and they can only get certain permissions. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 22:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
==== Oppose ====
 +
: "Hey can I have permissions to edit common.js? I want to [do something innocent]. - User1" "Sure, I'll grant you perms. - Admin1" "Thanks! - User1" ''User1 then proceeds to add a script that steals passwords. Admin1 quickly undos and bans User1, but the damage has been done. User1 can now login as User2 and User3.'' The exploitation possibility is too large here. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: True, but this could also easily happen through permanent requests on the community portal. I see you chose not to vote on proposal 1 at all, neither support nor oppose. Is that mistake or intentional? <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 21:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::Intentional, I would've just been repeating your message. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 02:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::Naleksuh, saying one of the other proposals would do the same thing isn't really an argument against VFDan's point (I'm not sure if your intention was to argue against the point, though); because of this, I am interested to know if you do have an argument against it? {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:I agree with VFDan's statement, and I also think that the ambiguity in this proposal is a very big issue that needs to be addressed. Who would be able to request the permissions? Anyone? [[Scratch Wiki:Wikians|Wikians]]? Users who have been here for 30 days? You might argue that this could be decided afterwards if this proposal is chosen, but that doesn't really make sense to me. Who can request permissions is a very important thing to consider about this proposal ''before'' it is chosen, simply because of the sheer trust someone with this usergroup needs to receive from the community. Even if you argue that, for example, time on the wiki is not an effective measure of trustworthiness and/or experience (which is certainly a valid argument to make), there are other issues with ambiguities in this proposal. If anyone can request the permissions, how will "trustworthiness" by measured? For example, say it is a simple vote by the community. How many votes in support of granting the user the permissions will be required to actually grant the user the permissions? Even disregarding all of the ambiguities I've mentioned so far, I'm not sure really think this is a good idea under any circumstances (unless something was put in place where only bureaucrats{{-}}for example{{-}}would be able to request the permissions). The reason this discussion is happening in the first place is because the permissions granted by the <code>interface-admin</code> usergroup can be used dangerously and maliciously. Instead of taking a shot in the dark and giving users who haven't been trusted with many other permissions a usergroup that can be used dangerously{{-}}even temporarily{{-}}why don't we grant the permissions to users that are already trusted by the community (for example, bureaucrats with server access)? I really don't see many pros that outweigh the cons of granting any users this permission if they find a use for it and a haphazard look at the user by the community determines that the user is "trustworthy." <u>I want to make it very clear that this is ''not'' to say that I don't trust users who aren't EWs, admins, bureaucrats, etc. (I trust very many users who do not have these usergroups!), but rather to say that I don't really see a point in granting the usergroup (again, even temporarily) to users that haven't already been trusted with other permissions by the community when there are readily available users who ''are'' trusted with other permissions by the community.</u> Please keep in mind I do not mean to offend anyone with this comment; I just disagree with this proposal. If you have any questions about my statements above, please feel free to ask. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: I do not think any groups would be required to request it. However, as a guideline, I would say that anyone who was not a [[Project:Wikians]] would be unlikely to get it, as it would be difficult to level trust to someone that new. However, I think that people put too much comparison to groups and trust. I would not tie usergroups and trust together here, and would not require Experienced Wikian or administrator. I do not like the implication that anyone who does not have Experienced Wikian is clearly untrustworthy. I would say trust is not something that can be measured or defined, but is done on a user-by-user basis. The three things I think about when granting usergroups are trust, need, and experience. I think it very much works here. Trust is certainly an issue, but I think that most people on Scratch Wiki ''only'' think about trust. The other two parts, need and experience, also apply. Need is actually much ''more'' easy to do with a temporary group. As one explains what the purpose of it is for, then it is granted for that one purposes then expires once it is done. Experience is also another thing that is commonly considered. If I was a crat, I would be likely to decline the group to anyone who I thought did not have experience with JavaScript/or the type of person who uses weak passwords/no antivirus/etc or something that is likely to get their account compromised. So I think the entirety of this "how would you define who is trustworthy" is kind of a question that it isn't really possible to answer, but trustworthiness can be found for users individually. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 04:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::* ''"I do not think any groups would be required to request it. However, as a guideline, I would say that anyone who was not a [[Project:Wikians]] would be unlikely to get it, as it would be difficult to level trust to someone that new."''
 +
:::** Thanks for clarifying.
 +
:::* ''"However, I think that people put too much comparison to groups and trust. I would not tie usergroups and trust together here, and would not require Experienced Wikian or administrator. I do not like the implication that anyone who does not have Experienced Wikian is clearly untrustworthy."''
 +
:::** When did I imply this? I think I made it very clear in my post that my point was not that I don't trust people who aren't Experienced Wikians, admins, bureaucrats, etc., but rather that those people are ''already'' trusted with extra permissions by the community and thus it is less of a risk to grant them the usergroup than others who are simply given a haphazard review by the community. EWs go through a whole election process, and you are suggesting that ''anyone'' would be able to easily get this usergroup if they are seen as trusted by the community. By comparison, EWs have proven that they are trustworthy by having access to permissions such as <code>delete</code>, and using them responsibly. I think that you and I both know that there are very many other users in the community who could be trusted with <code>delete</code>, and yet we don't grant them Experienced Wikian, right? Right, because there's not a need. In this case, there is not a need for users who have not been trusted with any extra permissions by the community to be granted this usergroup when there are users readily available who are already trusted with many dangerous permissions. By the way, I am not necessarily saying that I would support EWs, admins, or even bureaucrats without server access having this usergroup; I'm just trying to use those usergroups as a starting point to explain my opinion.
 +
:::* ''"I would say trust is not something that can be measured or defined, but is done on a user-by-user basis."''
 +
:::** Yes. However, some users have been trusted with more dangerous rights than other users, and those users have proven that they can use these rights responsibly. This needs to be taken into account; it can't just be ignored.
 +
:::* ''"The three things I think about when granting usergroups are trust, need, and experience. I think it very much works here."''
 +
:::** Well, yes, those things are good to take into account.
 +
:::* ''"Trust is certainly an issue, but I think that most people on Scratch Wiki ''only'' think about trust. The other two parts, need and experience, also apply. Need is actually much ''more'' easy to do with a temporary group. As one explains what the purpose of it is for, then it is granted for that one purposes then expires once it is done."''
 +
:::** While I definitely see your point here, I think I should refer to my comment in the "Support" section of Proposal 3 here: "If we don't trust users with server access to only make controversial/major changes after there is consensus, then I feel we have a much larger problem on our hands. {{e|:)}}" The point is that Proposal 3 can still go hand-in-hand with consensus; users with server access{{-}}who are already extremely trusted by the community{{-}}can get consensus from the community before making a major or controversial change. If the community sees a user making major changes without first getting consensus, then perhaps the community should revoke their privileges.
 +
:::* ''"Experience is also another thing that is commonly considered. If I was a crat, I would be likely to decline the group to anyone who I thought did not have experience with JavaScript/or the type of person who uses weak passwords/no antivirus/etc or something that is likely to get their account compromised."''
 +
:::** (I think you meant "''not'' commonly considered" here? Unless I am misunderstanding you?) Anyhow, the fact is, we already ''have'' users who have this experience and are bureaucrats with server access.
 +
:::* ''"So I think the entirety of this "how would you define who is trustworthy" is kind of a question that it isn't really possible to answer, but trustworthiness can be found for users individually."''
 +
:::** Going off of my previous statement, we have users who have already individually proved themselves as trustworthy over ''years'' (for example, jvvg and Ken). Therefore, if those users are willing to take the responsibility for the usergroup (I'm not saying they are or aren't, I'm just using them as an example), why would we take a proverbial "shot in the dark" with someone who the community hasn't yet determined over a long period of time is trustworthy (even if they ''are'' trustworthy)?
 +
:::I'm going to re-post this statement from my earlier comment, since I really want to emphasize it: <u>"I want to make it very clear that this is ''not'' to say that I don't trust users who aren't EWs, admins, bureaucrats, etc. (I trust very many users who do not have these usergroups!), but rather to say that I don't really see a point in granting the usergroup (again, even temporarily) to users that haven't already been trusted with other permissions by the community when there are readily available users who ''are'' trusted with other permissions by the community."</u>
 +
:::Again, I do ''not'' mean to offend anyone with my statements. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::Furthermore, why would we want to make sure a user is trustworthy and experienced ''as well as'' making sure that the changes are necessary many of the times when someone proposes changes, when we would just have to do one of those things with Proposal 4 (make sure the changes are necessary)? Just something to keep in mind. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
==== Comments ====
 +
 +
=== Proposal 3: Allow interface admin to be non-controversially granted to any user with server access ===
 +
 +
==== Support ====
 +
: This is exactly how it used to be, and anybody with server access is trusted, and they usually won't make changes without the community's approval; they should still ask for feedback, but they should have the right. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:My statements in the "Oppose" section of Proposal 2 apply here. If we don't trust users with server access to only make controversial/major changes after there is consensus, then I feel we have a much larger problem on our hands. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: My point here was that the request for the group also serves as a chance to discuss the proposed edits, which is why I wanted them to request it through there. Jvvg had raised a point on Discord about that sometimes urgent changes must be made that don't have time for consensus, but I was not really satisfied with the examples given and did not think it was worth it. I could see a server user granting to themself for example to perform a change that must be done for legal reasons, or to revert vandalism to such a page. But because the request process also serves as a way to discuss the edits, I do not think they should have the group 24/7. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 04:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::We already trust users with server access with, well, server access; so why should we not trust that they will get consensus from the community before making a major change? Consensus doesn't have to come through a usergroup request system. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::There are some times that changes need to be made with little or no notice. For example, when setting up a new extension (a recent example that comes to mind is that due to a small glitch in setting up the new account request system, some messages on the account request page did not render properly, so we had to update the messages immediately). Having to go through community approval usually takes days, which in most cases is ok, but ''requiring'' it to be able to make any change at all adds unnecessary burden when sometimes quick action is needed. Thus I think keeping the permission available to server admins while having a policy be that non-urgent changes should be community approved would be best, but making it so we do not have the technical ability to make urgent changes could actually cause problems.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 17:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::: This seems reasonable, however in the past granting a permission to a specific group leads to that group interpreting it as "go and do whatever you want with it". I think it does make sense for server users to grant interface admin to themselves for solely technical maintenance or time-sensitive tasks, but not for anything that requires discussion. Sounds okay. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
==== Oppose ====
 +
: This was initially proposed because users with server access have the ability to escalate their own permissions to begin with-- but I would still prefer they request it through the traditional method as the community should still at least be given a chance to weigh in on the attempted edits. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
: Oppose. What if in the rare case that someone with server access ruins the wiki with the admin privilege? Additionally, as per Naleksuh. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
::Someone with server access can delete every single file on the wiki anyway... {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 00:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
==== Comments ====
 +
 +
=== Proposal 4 (by apple): Get rid of that group, and grant the permissions to bureaucrats ===
 +
This is similar to Proposal 3 except we remove the interface admin entirely. Bureaucrats are trusted enough to edit Common.js; no need for a new group. This is basically the same as 1.28 system.
 +
 +
We can (probably) also grant this to admins - they are trusted members chosen by bureaucrats. {{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
==== Support ====
 +
Support, no need to have a new usergroup. What we had in 1.28 worked just fine.<scratchsig>Jakel181</scratchsig> 12:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
==== Oppose ====
 +
* Oppose. It did not "work just fine", admin is too low a barrier to be editing JavaScript pages and the group was added for a reason. In addition, removing the group seems like another attempt to turn Scratch Wiki into a hierarchy which I will certainly oppose. The group was created for a reason, security reasons, and removing it would be a net negative for the same reason there is consensus to not remove CheckUser and Suppressor groups. If you think that all users with server access should be able to edit the interface, I'd say support proposal 3. But not remove the group. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 19:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
As per Naleksuh. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
:Same as the above ^^ <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 04:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
==== Comments ====
 +
 +
=== General Comments ===
 +
:From Naleksuh's original post: ''"While we have policies for how to request Experienced Wikian (through annual elections) and sysop (through requests on Community portal); ..."'' {{-}} I am surprised no one has pointed out that this is not how we choose Experienced Wikians and admins. EW elections are ''not'' annual; the current EWs and admins start one when they feel a new one is needed. Admins are not always elected through the Community Portal; for example, [[Special:UserRights/Makethebrainhappy|makethebrainhappy was appointed (not elected) during an EW election]]. I think the reason my case when being granted admin (for instance) was different was because there was no EW election happening at the time. I just wanted to clarify this, since when a controversial discussion is happening, we should at least make sure that objective statements are correct. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}

Revision as of 08:23, 12 November 2020

Archives

Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
Unfinished discussions

Shortcut:

If a topic on the community portal hasn't received a lot of replies or it's not been solved in a while, topics may be moved to this page, to keep track of incomplete discussions. Remove the original topic and move it to this page to prevent confusion.

We need your help: Apply for getting "International Scratch Wiki Coach"

No Not done

TOC

Click this picture to jump to "ScratchWiki:Watch"

To hold this long thread readable I build sub-Threads. I also moved individual conversions and answered it there (hope you don't mind). Please write new appliances to get " "International Scratch Wiki Coach"" there. Please answer each Sub-Thread at it's end:

Introduction

After presenting at de:Scratch2015AMS (see [1]) (and before at de:Scratch2013BCN see[2]) we have some just starting International Scratch Wikis. We found out, that there is much more work, than me de:user:Mtwoll, de:user:LiFaytheGoblin and de:user:akhof can handle.

We just started international Scratch-Wikis where we were sure, that there are Scratchers of that language that would really work hard for their Scratch-Wiki, but it seems that those people all need help, coaching and motivation, to cope with the problems of a just started Wiki: It seems that only id: is completely on the right track until now (Thanks to id:user:Rumanti, who made a great start and motivated some other Indonesian Scartchers to help). ru: is also evolving slowly but there seem to be too less active authors with just ru:user:Dimon4ezzz and ru:user:Timkoiko. With ja: we have great hopes in ja:user:Jp86143 and ja:user:Abee who just started. But hu: and nl: are still in a kind of "starting position".

In opposite to the English and German Scratch-wiki the starting Scratch-Wiki-Authors have no templates and existing articles where they can look up what is needed and mostly less experiance in Wikimedia-Syntax. Also some of them have problems with the English language: Naturally they know it, but everything lasts longer with misunderstandings and so on. (My English isn't perfect either, but where is a will there is a way ;-) Ironically the language-communities that have the biggest problems with English language need a Scratch-Wiki the most. Imagine the English Scratch-Wiki had nearly zero articles and templates and you could only see other wikis in languages that you know only a little bit. Also imagine that your Scratch community was not so big than the english-language one (see Wikipedia: World_language#Living world languages).

How would you start? Therefore I'm asking you for your help: Who of you wants to get „International Scratch Wiki Coach "? You would get an account and perhaps also admin-rights at all existing international wikis (depending on your activity). You should be an experienced Scratch-Wiki author in the English Wiki (>1 year membership and >300 edits?). We already have some de:Scratch-Wiki:Team_Mitglieder#Interwiki Autoren but that's only Interwiki, not coaching. It would really be great, if some of the English Scratch-Wiki-Admins would also apply for this job: They would immediately get Admin rights at all other international Wikis and perhaps also FTP-rights, if they are experienced with that "under the hood"-stuff. To see what goes on, we have made de:Scratch-Wiki:Watch. There are also many other ideas from the International Scratch-Wiki-Community (e.g. automized-account-application everywere, multinational-accounts like in Wikipedia, international templates, Scratch-Projects inside the Scratch-Wiki like we have it in DACH, international Blocks Plugin support, #Mobile Device Skin & Responsive Design for Scratch-Wikis ?, conecting scratch-wikis as a part of the scratch-editor-help…)...

...but let's begin with the beginning :-) Who wants to help and applies for getting "International Scratch Wiki Coach"?
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 12:16, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Individual Threads with scratch-wiki-authors that want to help

back to top

answer of TheHockeyist

answer of KrIsMa

answer of ErnieParke

answer of jvvg

answer of Mathfreak231

answer of Rumanti

answer of Eribetra

answer of OurPrincess

Forum Thread: Scratch Wiki in Your Native Language

back to top

@All: Am I right that all of you know this Forum Thread? Diskussionsforen » Translating Scratch » Scratch Wiki in Your Native Language (New)] . user:ErnieParke created it and sort of curates it (Thank you very much Ernie!). There are some other language communities that could be ready to start with their own native wiki in the future.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs)

Link-Table: Authors wih multiple Scratch-Wiki-Accounts

I put a Table here that shows de:Scratch-Wiki:Watch#Authors wih multiple Scratch-Wiki-Accounts. Please feel free to correct it if there are any mistakes.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 15:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

New Idea for the future of international Scratch-Wiki or even more

Why is Interwiki not possible in the english community-portal?

No Not done Why is Interwiki not possible in the english community-portal? In de:Scratch-Wiki:Gemeinschafts-Portal it is no problem (but in and id:Pembicaraan_Scratch-Indo-Wiki:Portal_Komunitas it seems to be, just tried it...).
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 14:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Embedding of Scratch Projects

No Not done

Hey! :) I was thinking it'd be cool if we could embed Scratch projects into the wiki. They could be used in place of the existing example projects in the Pen Projects article, used on certain tutorial pages to demonstrate an expected result or even show a process more easily using an animation.

At the moment, you can't use the <iframe> tag required for embedding a Scratch project on the wiki. I've done a little research, and it looks like the easiest way to allow iframes would be to install this Media Wiki plugin. The good thing about this extension is that it doesn't allow the embedding of any iframe, it can be configured to only allow the embedding of Scratch projects, for example.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 22:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

A Thorough Discussion on Thinking of the Past, Present, Future, and Organizing them All

No Not done

One of the complexities of documenting Scratch is it changes so much. When Scratch transitioned from 1.4 to 2.0 there was an unbelievable amount of work on the Wiki that required tons of articles to be updated. This reached the solution of keeping articles relating to Scratch 1.4 but denoting them by putting "(1.4)" in the title of the article. For example, the older version of Paint Editor is Paint Editor (1.4). Another example is Project Compression (1.4) which is the old version of Project Compression.

I think we need to set in place some standards. In the future, we are going to have to do this for Scratch 3.0, so it's better if it can be done consistently. Firs thing to discuss is:

Past or Present Tense - I have noticed it is not always consistent. For example, Scratch Forums (1.4) discusses the forums in past tense. Paint Editor (1.4) uses the present tense, though that may make more sense since you can still use Scratch 1.4 while the Scratch forums are nonexistent. However, an article like Project Downloading (1.4) talks in the present tense even though project downloading on the Scratch 1.4 site is not possible since that old version of the site does not exist.

So I wonder, for an article that documents a feature in an old version of Scratch that is still accessible like the 1.4 Paint Editor, should it be: past or present tense?

For an article that documents a feature in an old version of Scratch that is impossible to access and there solely for history, should it be: past or present tense?

In the latter case of an article that documents an unavailable feature just for history, if present tense is used it sort of gives off the feel that that is how the article would be read if you were to be reading it in 2010 or whenever. This may make sense if we want our articles to sort of be like a frozen time capsule of the past. But if past tense is used, that could also make more sense because it's not 2010 but 2017.

Block Pages - This brings up another issue, and it has to do with block pages. An example of this is Distance to () (block). Please note that there is no Distance to () (block) (1.4) page on the Wiki, and that is so because this block is available in both Scratch 1.4 and 2.0, so we believed it was not necessary to document the same block in a prior version of Scratch. I'm starting to think, though, it might be a good idea.

Take a look at the script on that page. It uses the if <> then block as well as the stop [all v] block. Both these blocks are sort of in Scratch 1.4, but "if ()" then was just "if ()" and "stop [all v]" was just "stop all". So if somebody is using Scratch 1.4 and looks up the documentation of this block on the Wiki, the scripts in the article may use blocks not available in 1.4. There are probably more examples of block pages on the Wiki that use blocks not in Scratch 1.4, probably more dire examples than mine above.

It's just something to think about. How do we want to make our Wiki consistent throughout history to avoid any possible confusion? Do block articles deserve a (1.4) version or not? Eventually we are going to have (2.0) articles. It's best to decide stuff like this at the present moment.

If Block - I just noticed there happens to be no article on it. Technically "if () then" is only in 2.0, so shouldn't "if () (block) (1.4)" be an article?

Titles of Articles on items not in 2.0 - Examples of what I am talking about are the articles Stop All (block) as well as Java Player. The titles of these articles do not have (1.4) in the title because, well, they are not available in Scratch 2.0! So, I'm going to ask you guys, do you think by not having (1.4) in the title, it can be misleading, making people think it's a feature still available?

It does say at the top, "This article or section documents a feature not included in the current version of Scratch (2.0). It is only useful from a historical perspective" so I do not believe anybody reading the article is going to be confused and think the Java Player still exists. But do you think it should or should not have "(1.4)" in the title, or should "(1.4)" only be in the title of articles on features that have been replaced in Scratch 2.0?
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

custom signatures

No Not done

Recently I've noticed many custom signatures break one specific rule:
The signature may not contain any background colors, images, or borders
Specifically, background colors and borders cannot be added to custom signatures. It is important to read that page fully before creating a custom signature. Please change it to satisfy that rule. Thank you!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

another suggestion: we could also propose to scrap that rule so if you're up for it you may start a discussion.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

3.0 updating

No Not done

Note Note: before writing please read this

As a result of Scratch 3.0 releasing, we have to update a lot of articles.

  1. Is there anything more to update?
  2. Is it OK to use bots?
  3. When to update?

Updates are:

  1. {{Pen Blocks}} to {{Pen Extension}}
  2. Change {{block}} for 3.0 blocks (it's larger than 2.0!)
  3. Music Extension, LEGO WeDo Extension categorize and put a new template
  4. remove {{unreleased}}
  5. if there's XX (1.4) and XX, XX moves to XX (2.0), and XX (3.0) moves XX
  6. TOC remake
  7. Tutorials remake
  8. Upload blocks' images
  9. Remake scratchblocks
  10. put {{Obsolete feature}}

(everybody can edit this list, with Siggy!)

--
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,229edit 04:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We have to delete Fair Use

The server is in Germany now. German copyright law doesn't allow Fair Use, so we have to delete all the fair use images. For example, screenshots of games are prohibited.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,229edit 08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What should we call the Scratch 3.0 player?

There are some player articles like Flash Player, Java Player, HTML5 Player. So what should we call the 3.0 player? HTML5 Player is different from Scratch 3.0. My opinion:

  1. Move HTML5 Player to HTML5 Player (2.0) and make it as HTML5 Player (3.0)
  2. WebGL Player
  3. Scratch 3.0 Player
  4. JavaScript Player (added 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC))


Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,229edit 23:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Help:Contents Is missing some help pages

No Not done
There are a few help pages which aren't in Help:Contents, for some reason.
We need to fix that.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 14:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Account Request Notes

No Not done

I, when, recently doing account requests (yes, I do still use this thing) I have noticed that I am not learning much about what this user wants to edit and why they want to join the wiki. I like this system which identifies things to fix, but I feel that we should also add back some of the old application. I suggest adding the wiki experience, why they should be accepted, and an article to edit, and then have the current Find 3 Add 2 system. Opinions?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 02:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Take Example:

There is a capital S in the word "Screen" in the middle of a sentence that should not be capitalized. There is a dead link to the page "Oranges." There is the first person used under the paragraph called "Pineapples." It would be possible to add a section about Kiwis under the header of "Awesome Fruits." It would be possible to add a picture of an orange to the section titled "Oranges". The secret word is "Bananas"

With this example (which is totally about fruits) as long as they use complete sentences and basically fit this point:

  • In the request notes, does the user properly identify at least 3 flaws in the flawed article and 2 things to add?
  • Saying "I found a grammar error" is not clear
  • Users must actually make sense of what they are talking about.
  • If the specific examples of what they would add to the flawed article are not allowed on the Wiki (e.g. writing about their projects), fully reject if there was little effort, partially reject if it seems like you could get more ideas out of them or explain to them why it's not allowed.

Then they can be accepted into the wiki. This system, In my opinion, only tests the reading comprehension and if the user can write in complete sentences. It shows nothing about if the user can navigate the wiki or know what they want to edit. We get nothing of why they deserve to be a wikian. I belie these systems need to be combined.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Not Done doesn't get enough attention

Yes One of them is done, Not Done discussions are collapsible

So I was browsing through Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done and realized that all of the discussions had been moved there and left to rot simply because they happened to last longer than an archive period. I suggest that we do at least one of the following things:


Don't have a separate Not Done page at all and keep the not done discussions on the main CP.
This would be effective but not feasible.
Pros
Great at keeping attention on topics.
Cons
Would likely break links and increase CP loading time.

Link to them in a more obvious way
This would be feasible but potentially not effective.
Pros
Saves space, keeps links.
Cons
Doesn't really solve the problem. Nobody wants to click an extra link just to get to topics they might not even care that much about. From my point of view, people comment on discussions because they're new and they want to get their opinion in. When a discussion takes an extra click to get to and has been rotting for so long, it no longer is attractive to comment on. Also, the Not Done page actually feels like an archive more than another discussion page - thereby discouraging new comments on it.

Have an entirely separate page for not done topics (maybe "Scratch Wiki talk:Not Done"?).
This would be partially feasible but potentially effective too.
Pros
Wouldn't break links (redirects exist, people), and would remove the feeling of an archive since it's a talk page of its own; would also save space on the actual CP because the content is literally in another page.
Cons
Still needs another click, and still seems too separate from the actual CP.

What are your thoughts? Do you have another suggestion for this problem? Do you have an opinion on or amendment to one of the current suggestions? Discuss!
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
14:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Relax S:NOSP even more

Okay, so the English wiki is obviously by far the most restrictive wiki out of the nine. Especially strict is our rule against user-generated content, S:NOSP. That rule was recently relaxed, to the point where as long as there is at least one Scratch Team member involved, it is allowed.

I feel like we could write so many more articles and have so much more activity, however, if the rule was relaxed further. I propose a relaxation of the rules to the following points:

  • All of the following are still prohibited:
    • All Scratch-prohibited things, including userscripts, iO, and the like
    • Particular projects
    • Certain forum topics or posts
    • Specific studios
    • Individual users
  • Advertising gets kind but firm warnings, three warnings is vandalism, twice vandalism is a block.
  • All user-generated content articles must have a template denoting them as such.

That means no Paper Minecraft, no Sigton's Shop, no Scratch OS Studio, no Griffpatch; articles about anything else should be allowed by default.

For a quick rule of thumb about what crosses the line under this system, basically specific things are prohibited but collections of them are okay. (Things like studios as collections of projects and forum topics being collections of posts notwithstanding.)


If you think these rules are too relaxed for mainspace articles, I have an alternate proposal. A separate namespace for articles about user-generated content, subject to the following rules:

  • All Scratch-prohibited things remain prohibited (follow CGs, people!).
  • Everything else is a go.
  • Advertising will be treated almost as severely as vandalism, thrice advertising is a block.
  • The entire namespace is treated as non-content pages (i.e. it's not indexed by default and isn't counted in the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} (2,056)) [this rule is open for debate].

The namespace name would be something relevant, e.g. "User Content:" or "UG:" or something.


Which idea would you prefer? What are your thoughts?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
22:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Not Done

Yes Look at the OP

I know someone already brought it up...
Anyways, Not Done is not getting any attention. I know that Kenny2scratch already added “Things To Do” on the left sidebar, and the TOC of Not Done, yet no one seems to notice it. I think that we should release an announcement to all existing editors about ND, and all incoming users about ND on their welcome page. In fact, I’m going to add that to my welcome right now.
Any thoughts?
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 23:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion: Scratch Wiki:Featured Image Suggestions

No Not done

It's as it says on the tin.

As part of this new revival of featured images (and leading on from #An Interval for Featured Images, I propose that we create a page similar in concept to S:WWS, where users leave new section saying which image they think deserve to be featured. This will clean up the CP (just slightly). At around the same time as Wiki Wednesday, the EWs/Bureaucrats review the suggestions and pick three images which will then to onto S:FI. If necessary, we could also edit the current Wiki Wednesday suggestion forum post to incorporate Featured Images too.

What do you think?
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 15:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New page for mall simulators

Yes Sti_scratch has been inactive since a year (as of June 2020), and mall simulators/cryptocurrencies banned; they were a few users

Should we make a new page for mall simulators? Mall simulators are sort of big with the biggest mall simulator (Palace of Points) having more than 1400 members. Should we create a page for it?
Sti_scratch (talk | contribs) 04:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Split the Paint Article

No Needs doing

I was browsing the wiki and noticed that the Paint editor article (here) is really long and could possibly be split up into three different articles: History of the paint editor, 2.0 Bitmap Paint editor, and 2.0 Vector Paint Editor.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 20:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

3.0 updating question

No Not done

Should we rename the page Getting Started with Scratch to Getting Started with Scratch 2.0 and create a new page called Getting Started with Scratch 3.0? Because some people (Mainly teachers who's curriculum is based around S2) will still use the offline 2.0 editor.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 22:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Articles to update for 3.0

No Won't be done for a long time

Hello everyone, it's already January 2nd for me, so I figure I might as well get the preparations started.

Observations/Edit Guidance

Pages outdated upon 3.0 release are incredibly numerous. In most cases, one or more of the following edits can or should happen:

  • Parts that talk about 3.0 features in future tense (e.g. "there will be a new paint editor") should be changed to use present tense (e.g. "there is a new paint editor") or past tense (e.g. "a new paint editor was introduced")
  • Parts that talk about 3.0 changes in future tense (e.g. "the editor will be moved to the right side") should be changed to use past tense (e.g. "the editor was moved to the right side")
  • Parts that mention dates in any tense should have their tense updated (e.g. "the official release will be January 2019" -> "the official release was January 2019")
  • Parts that talk about 2.0 features in any tense (e.g. "the paint editor has these features") should be changed to use past tense (e.g. "the paint editor had these features")
  • Parts that talk about 2.0 changes in any tense (e.g. "the editor was moved to the left") should all be changed to past tense if they haven't already.
  • Take this opportunity to update things that weren't changed from 1.4 days as well.

Progress

Here is a list of articles that need to be updated (on their real versions in mainspace) upon the release of 3.0. You can probably already start updating them now. Articles marked with an asterisk (*) have updates available at Scratch Wiki:3.0 Articles/the article title, but:

Note Warning: do not copy articles directly from their 3.0 versions!

Though in most cases the information will be correctly updated, make sure to use your own judgement as to its accuracy.

Note Note: Some of the articles listed below need to be created.

Feel free to update this list yourself. Add any articles that you discover that need updates; remove articles that have been updated.

  • Blocks
  • File:Name bar.png
  • File:Offline Editor Share Icon.png

Remember to take this opportunity to clean up articles as well as update them!

Fix typography or other writing issues as you come across them

We don't want to have to make a second sweep to clean up all the weird grammar from tense changes. Remember to fix the grammar and spelling of the articles as a whole while you update them.

Ask for help when you need it

If a page or redirect needs to be deleted or you need some other admin action, leave a message at Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Admin Requests. If you don't specifically need admin actions, you can ask anyone you think would know the answer to your question.

Here's to a good 3.0 release!

Hooray.png
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

“Secret” Compliments

We all know Compliment Tuesday. To suggest compliments we have the S:CT page. It’s a great way to compliment people, but could be even better.

Right now you suggest a compliment, everyone who wants to including the person who was complimented can see it and get posted on CP.

So I thought that’s good but you do let look forward to the CP post because you know if you have been complimented.

I propose proposing compliments on a way no-one else can see apart from the organizer(s). This can be achieved by a Google Form.

Proposed new method:

  • Users suggest compliments on Google Form entering all details as they would before
  • End of the month (organizer)s have admin access to the form and gather responses
  • Posted in CP

This way:

  • Users will look forward to see compliments received and not seeing anytime of the month
  • People will be more encouraged by the compliments

Ideas?
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 07:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

List of deleted pages

Yes Done

(Brought up here after discussion here.)

So, there are currently four lists of deleted pages on this wiki:

  • Mathfreak231's, which is the most comprehensive but is no longer updated in his absence
  • Mine, which is a duplicate of Mathfreak's but hopefully more organized
  • Jammum's Deleted Pages, which are more recent than either of the above
  • Jammum's All Deleted Pages, which seems to be more recent and extensive but has the least information (it's only a list of titles)

I suggest (from jakel181's idea) that these become a single page in projectspace, something like "Scratch Wiki:Deleted Pages". This could be a Scratch Wiki Project.

Advantages
  • More organized
  • One place for all
  • Can be updated by anyone
Disadvantages
None I can think of off the top of my head

Thoughts? Shall we do it?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
11:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Block Problems

No Not done, as blocks are still unfinished or broken
Today I started to finish up the script for How to Evaluate an Expression, and things got out of hand. When I first completed it, I realized I did some of the block loops wrong, and it like wrapped around some things that I didn't want to wrap around, while I also couldn't get this one if then else block to wrap around something else — it was all a mess. I cleaned some of it up, but I am afraid I'll make it worse and I already spent more than an hour on it. Also, I have to save it each time I want to check if it is correct, since for some reason the blocks won't load up in Show preview mode (it appears in code) but loads when the changes are saved. Can somebody please fix up the script to match the one in post #19 in this forum topic?
TenType (talk | contribs) 04:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Tinkercad Codeblocks

Tinkercad has a new feature called Codeblocks that looks similar to Scratch. It has hat blocks and variables. I think this could have a page on this wiki.
LiamSapp123 (talk | contribs) 19:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki Adventure

No Not done

On Wikipedia, there is an option for new Wikians to complete the Wikipedia Adventure. This teaches them skills and covers all the basics of using Wikipedia. I think it'd be a good idea to create a Scratch Wiki Adventure of our own to teach new Wikians the basics of the Scratch Wiki. This would include editing tips, rules, etiquette, etc. I'm wondering what people's thoughts are on this idea and/or if anyone would like to work with me on creating this.
54329 (talk | contribs) 17:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Mention that the Privacy Policy and Disclaimers are in German

Currently, the links under the 'Legal' category do not are not mentioned that they are in German. I suggest that the footer mentions that the content under the Legal category are in German.

Without mentioning that, some people might be confused that they are in German, and not English. They also cannot be translated into English without it being inaccurate.
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki YT Channel

Hi everyone! I wanted to put a little feeler out there to see who was interested in participating/creating content for a possible Scratch Wiki YT Channel. We would publish wiki-like content within YT's video format. We could then link to this content from within the Wiki. You could for example create a Scratch tutorial, run-through a certain block or feature, or discuss a recent community venture you participated in. If y'all are interested in seeing this idea come to fruition, please comment to express your interest and volunteer yourself for content creation. Thanks!
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 14:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

When are we planning to implement the new Flawed Article?

No Not done

Per title.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 01:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Constructiveness in Community Portal - An Idea

Hello there!

In case you didn't know, I'm a Forum Helper (https://scratch.mit.edu/studios/3688309/) on Scratch, which means I generally help out on the the Scratch discussion forums. One day, I headed over to the Community Portal and it seemed like a sort of "discussion forums" within the Scratch Wiki, and I understand that the concept is different, but for me it personally seemed that way.

Anyways, I mostly help around a lot on the Suggestions forum, which, yet again, redirects to the Community Portal since there are a lot of suggestions for the Scratch Wiki here. One difference is though, that the Scratch Team and some Scratchers (like me) enforce the rule of "constructiveness" while making posts, and I'm pretty sure most of you know what that means but I'll just clarify:

  • It means that one does not simply post "Support!", "Good idea!", or "+1!" and explain why they like the suggestion, that they provoke discussion, and look for possible issues instead of continuosly leaning on one side, like "I love this suggestion" or "I hate this suggestion"
  • It means that one does not simply add one sentence to act as if their post is constructive. For example, "Support, because this might be useful for many Wikians!" seems constructive but it isn't really constructive, because they're not stating how it would be useful for many Wikians or why it would be.

Now, I've been looking around in the CP, and I've been seeing a couple of responses just saying "+1!" or merely "Support!" without provoking any further discussion and merely showing your satisfaction. So I thought, maybe, we could enforce the constructive rule on the CP as well. Especially because the ideas here much more mature and complex, and not like Scratch where it's just new blocks or random new features.

I do agree that many people are already following this rule, but maybe just enforce it more? I do think it'll be incredibly helpful for the type of suggestions being given here.

wow... that's... long
Nambaseking01 (talk | contribs) 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Scratchblocks Plugin not Working

On any wiki page I go to that has the Scratchblock Plugin, all of the blocks end up half-rendered, except for the text. Are other people seeing this?

HalfRenderedBlockTextError.png
Ravenclaw900 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Require custom welcome messages to be transcluded

When custom welcome messages on new Scratch Wikians' talk pages are not transcluded from a templat (when the entire contents, including the formatting is copied and pasted onto the talk page), it could lengthen the talk page.

I suggest that there should be a rule (unless one already exists) requiring all custom welcome messages (this excludes the default Scratch Wiki welcome message) to be transcluded as a template (from the creator's userspace, obviously).
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 16:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

A flaw in the "Random Page" button I see

No Not done

So, I've been using the Scratch Wiki for almost 3 months without an account, and about 1 with, and I see a flaw in the "Random Page" button. Sometimes it links you to disambiguation pages, and I'm just wondering- is this really useful? Because most people (I'm assuming) who use the RP (Random Page) button just want to find an article they can revise or look at, and I find that whenever a disambiguation page while clicking the RP button, I just click the RP button again, and find an article. I have a suggestion, maybe have an option to toggle if you want to not go to disambiguation pages while clicking the RP button? Just a little suggestion.
Foxlife37 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Merging Cloud Data Articles?

I think that there are far too many articles on Cloud Data. I think these should all be merged or certain ones removed to reduce the amount of potential editing.
ContourLines (talk | contribs) 06:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Linking Style Sheets

No Not done

Could anyone please tell me if it is possible to link style sheets similar to

<link rel="stylesheet" href="filename.css">

in HTML? If it is then could you please tell me how?
R4356th (talk | contribs) 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Custom Signatures

Would it be a violation of S:USERSPACE to replace the contents of another user's custom signature which has all its code and formatting on the page itself with a transclusion of the template it is from?
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 11:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Naming Blocks

No Not done

When referring to Scratch's blocks within an article, what format should be used? Some articles follow the capitalization of the title (like Tempo (block)), some articles use all lowercase (like Abs () (block)), and some use the block plugin (e.g. Set Video Transparency to () (block)). If there's not a consistent format, then there probably should be one.

(Thanks to Naleksuh for bringing this up)
Groko13 (talk | contribs) 17:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Misdirected Request error

No Moved to Scratch Wiki:Bugs
Sometimes, when I go to the Test Wikis and back on an iPad, I sometimes get a '412 Misdirected Request' error. However, this does not happen on a desktop computer.
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 17:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Have a dedicated page for feedback on the account request system

No Not done

I was browsing through some old CP archives, and one of the topics reminded me of a suggestion I thought of earlier. My suggestion may have been partly inspired by an account request I reviewed that included feedback on the account request system.

Currently, I leave users one of two messages if I accept their account request. I use this one if their request meets all the requirements already (I have preserved the external links, since this is how I post it on the Scratch website):

Hello, (USERNAME). Congratulations - your Scratch Wiki account request was accepted! You can log in here with the password sent to your email address: https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Special:Login Begin here: https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/S:NEW Make sure to follow the guidelines, shown at https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/S:GUIDES. If you have questions, visit https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/S:FAQ and if they aren't answered there, feel free to ask me or any other Wikian! Have fun!

Now, some people inevitably miss something in S:CONTRIB. When we're reviewing account requests, and someone seems to have put in effort and has not missed too much of S:CONTRIB, we first put their request on hold. We comment on their profile and ask them further questions. If they satisfy the requirements after replying to our comment(s), we accept their request. This is all outlined in Scratch Wiki:Become a contributor/Admin Guide.

This is the comment I leave on people's profiles if I first put their request on hold and then accept it:

Thanks, that's all. Congratulations - your Scratch Wiki account request was accepted! You can log in here with the password sent to your email address: https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Special:Login Begin here: https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/S:NEW Make sure to follow the guidelines, shown at https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/S:GUIDES. If you have questions, visit https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/S:FAQ and if they aren't answered there, feel free to ask me or any other Wikian! Have fun!

Some Experienced Wikians have a slight variation of this message, but we all link them to Special:Login, S:NEW, S:GUIDES, and S:FAQ (or other shortcuts that link to those pages). Now, why am I mentioning the messages that I use when accepting someone's account request? Well, because those may be changed if my suggestion gets implemented.

What is my suggestion? Well, in short, I think we should have a dedicated page for feedback on our account request system. As a wiki, we should always be looking to improve; and this is a way to do it. People can already give feedback on the account request system (or anything else wiki-related, for that matter) in the CP, but feedback is not actively facilitated. This is why I think we should have a dedicated page.

This page would be specifically designed to be easy-to-use for people who are new to the Scratch Wiki and wikis in general. Users would be able to click a link or button, and the "new section" interface would be filled with a form where they could insert their feedback. The user's signature would be automatically inserted at the end. It would be similar to the link users click to nominate themselves for an EW election.

However, I don't think that the page should just exist — I think we should actively make New Wikians aware of it. When someone gets accepted, the account request system is fresh in their mind, and they may have some ideas on how to improve it. However, they may not know where they can put that feedback, or may be too nervous to make us aware of it. My first thought was to add a link to the page to the messages used when accepting users. If we feel that that already has too much information, we could also add it to S:WELCOME.

Of course, all of this is subject to change. What do y'all think of this idea? Is it a good one? A bad one? Do you have any ideas to make it better? Everyone's feedback is equally valued. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 02:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

How to Connect to the Physical World Is really outdated

How to Connect to the Physical World is really outdated.
GrahamSH (talk | contribs) 19:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Tip of the Day

No Not done

SWP 005 - Tip of the Day
DescriptionStatusOwnerStartedLinks
Create a panel that will show one tip for each day of the year.No Not done
  • bigpuppy
  • ahmetlii
  • Illusion705
  • Groko13
  • Filmlover12
  • Jammum
  • garnetluvcookie
  • jakel181
  • Dominic305
  • 12944qwerty
8/22/2020Project results
Project page
Project discussion

I created a Tip of the Day system that will show one tip for each day of the year. It's inspired by Wikipedia's tip of the day. However, we need tips! If you would like to help, feel free to add your name to the project page. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 02:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Would it possible to prevent users from using external links to wiki pages in the AbuseFilter?

Question is in title. If this were to be implemented (if it even is possible), would it apply to all non-userspace or just mainspace?
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 10:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Allowing borders in custom sigs

I think we should allow borders in custom signatures. S:CSIG states that there shouldn't be borders in custom sigs, but so many people already have it in their signatures (kenny2scratch, 12944qwerty, EIephant_Lover, Dominic305, ahmetlii, ContourLines, ajsya, etc.) As long as the border isn't needlessly large or flashy, I believe it's fine.
VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  03:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the usage of fixed with in ScratchWikiSkin2

Hello all. As you may have noticed, ScratchWikiSkin2 seems to used a fixed width (similar to Fandom's Oasis skin), as a holdover from previous skins designed to look similar to scratch.mit.edu -- however, I and several other users have noticed an increasing number of problems using fixed width. Fixed widths generally leave a large amount of the screen entirely unused, and show a small amount of the page content. It also introduces design problems that rely on fixed width and break for some users. The current, fixed width style, looks a bit like this. I am proposing to use free-styled width based on the screen resolution (a mockup something like [ https://i.imgur.com/UEd14yX.png this], ignore the blue line, that is accidental and will not be shown in the final version). This allows for a larger content space, as well as making the view more consistent across skins. Please let me know if you support or oppose this proposal.
Naleksuh.jpg Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 00:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Centralized Cross-Wiki Discussion

Hi everyone,

Since all of the various Scratch Wikis are hosted on the same server and part of a common community, they have a number of things in common, including outreach efforts (such as Wiki Wednesday) and technical aspects. This means that some changes (especially technical ones) will affect all wikis, not just the Wiki for one language. We usually like to seek community feedback before implementing major changes, but currently there is no centralized place to do that between all languages. As a result, changes either do not get community input at all or just get input from the community for one language (usually English, i.e. this one). We do have the Test Wiki for both new language-specific Wikis off the ground and coordinating cross-wiki stuff.

Therefore, I propose making it so anyone who has an account on any language-specific Wiki may have an account on the Test Wiki (you would still need to request it, but you can just say "I have an account on [language] Wiki") and that we host all cross-Wiki discussions there. Announcements for any major discussions would still be posted on the English Community Portal so everybody remains aware of any active discussions without having to check the Test Wiki Recent Changes.

Thoughts, everyone?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

An idea

Hi everyone, I had an idea recently to make a way for non-wiki editors to suggest changes if they don't want to go through the hassle of making a wiki account. Maybe a google form or something that editors can look at and, if needed, make the change.
Acebsa (talk | contribs) 04:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 107#Tell users on Wiki Wednesday topics not to spam in replies continuation

I am just reviving the discussion mentioned in the title above because it was archived and it did not seem to be completed. Also, on the latest Wiki Wednesday topic, no notice in the first post telling Scratchers not to spam in the topic was put in.

In the discussion linked above, I mentioned some examples of what the notice would mention as being spam. I also think posts only saying 'Hi', 'Hello' or something similar could also be mentioned as being spam.
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 15:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about User:Gdpr000001, User talk:Gdpr000001 and S:B redirects

As explained in the title, these are discussed on their related talk pages and User talk:Ahmetlii, but I'd like to an RfC for solving the question.
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
06:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Resolved and Unresolved Templates

No Not done

There are many discussions on talk pages on the wiki that get abandoned until someone discovers them again. Wouldn't it be helpful if we had a list of all the pages with unresolved discussions that have yet to be finished? Here are some advantages to a list like this:

  • In many cases, discussions won't get abandoned without being documented as unresolved discussions somewhere.
  • Users who want discussions to contribute to can just look at the list for some unresolved discussions.
  • It would improve the wiki's organization.

I think one way we could implement a system like this would be with two templates: {{unresolved}} and {{resolved}}.

The {{unresolved}} template would mark the discussion with "unresolved." It would also add the page to the hidden category Category:Pages With Unresolved Discussions, and provide a link to the category. If the page was in the "User talk" namespace, it would not be added to the category. This is so that if users want to use the templates on their own talk pages, they can, but users looking for discussions to participate in won't have to dig through user talk pages. There would also be a cat=no option to manually prevent the page from being added to the category. I've created a draft of this template at User:Bigpuppy/Unresolved. Note that the category part is commented out right now, so that pages don't get added to a nonexistent category. If this suggestion gets accepted, it will be un-commented.

The {{resolved}} template would mark the discussion with "resolved." It would have a date parameter that would show when the discussion was resolved. Resolved discussions would not be added to any category (unless that is something we want). I've created a draft of this template at User:Bigpuppy/Resolved.

Here are answers to some questions you may have:

Don't we already have the Yes Done and No Not done templates?
Yes. However, those templates don't have all of the functionality that the {{resolved}} and {{unresolved}} templates would provide. If we added this functionality to the Yes Done and No Not done templates, all of the discussions that were not actually marked Yes Done but still have the template on them (e.g. if the template was used in casual conversation) would be added to the category.
Would these templates replace the Yes Done and No Not done templates?
No. Those templates would still be used in casual conversation and in tandem with the {{resolved}} and {{unresolved}} templates (e.g. "is this conversation Yes Done?"). The {{resolved}} and {{unresolved}} templates would be used more formally at the top of discussions.
Would use of these templates be required?
No. However, it would be recommended, so that the page gets added to the category of pages with unresolved discussions.
Would anyone be allowed to add these templates to any discussion, even ones they didn't create?
Yes. Similar to how the Yes Done and No Not done templates are used now, anyone would be able to mark a discussion as resolved or unresolved, even if they didn't create it.
The drafts you created look curiously similar to the {{shortcut}} template.
That's because I based part of their code on the {{shortcut}} template. :P

Kenny2scratch implemented semi-similar templates at User talk:Kenny2scratch/Permalinks. They are similar in that they are templates located in the top-right of a discussion and show whether the discussion is done or not.

So, thoughts? Do you like the idea? Do you think it could use some improvement? Do you think we shouldn't create these templates at all? Please share your thoughts below. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk ▪︎ contribs 19:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

GitHub interwiki links

There seem to be a lot of GitHub links (including references) to the Scratch Wiki. Although the URL is not very long, maybe LLK github links (and maybe other github links) could have an interwiki link made for them (such as gh-llk, not 'gh' due to the presence of non-LLK github links as well).
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 06:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Megathread: MediaWiki Version Bump

TL;DR: We're upgrading to MediaWiki Version 1.35. Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Why upgrade?

Currently we're using MediaWiki 1.28, which is unsupported. This caused some problems and MW 1.28 is also incompatible with some extensions. This is why we upgrade to MediaWiki 1.35, a LTS version soon to be stable.

Timeline

Time not set, but this is a big project which can take weeks.

Checklist

Extensions and Skins:

  • Yes Compatible ScratchWikiSkin2
  • Yes Compatible ScratchLogin (patch applied to fix warning)
  • Yes Replaced ConfirmAccount (new version built)
  • Yes Compatible Report (patch needs review)
  • Yes Compatible ScratchSig
  • Yes Replaced EditAccount (new version built)
  • Yes Compatible ScratchBlocks4
  • Yes Compatible RecentChangesWebhooks
  • Yes Compatible VisualEditor (but sb blocks will be only seen as string)

Bots:

  • Yes Compatible InterwikiBot
  • Yes Compatible TemplatesFTW
  •  Internal errors WikiMonitor (has problems about dependencies)

Misc:

  • Yes Compatible Special:BlockList patch - new version created
  • Yes Compatible Common.css
  •  Incompatible Common.js (sigwarn is problematic)

Discussion

This is gonna be big.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,229edit 08:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Increase the file size thingy (read this to get it)

No Not done
i can't explain anything so here goes... I've seen many people getting the "compress every file you upload if it's not under 2 KB" message. Why? These users uploaded files that are like 6 KB. 6 KB!!! That's incredibly small, at least for file sizes. I believe that the minimum file size for compression should be raised to 20 KB because that's a size that's small, but large enough that it's too big. Thoughts?
Glc.jpg ♥ garnetluvcookie ♥ | ♥ talk ♥ | ♥ contribs ♥ 00:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Tone down the rejected messages on S:BR archives

Note Note: None of this was made to offend the people who reject bot requests. Please take no offense.

Some of the rejected summaries at S:BR rejected requests are very unwelcoming. For example, my rejected message had "User has no programming experience" which comes off extremely rude, and when I do have programming experience (if you count Scratch as a programming language... *awkward smile*). The only reason that I don't is because I'm incredibly young, not even in middle school. If I was 5 years older, I would've created a bot already. (Please don't argue this point against me, I don't want the summary bored into my head)

Also, a user may not have much experience in the language, but that doesn't mean that they are incapable of creating a bot. I know many people online (haha don't ask about IRL) that are new to the language that they chose, but they've created amazing stuff. It's enforcing the stereotype of "young children are dumb and can't do complex stuff". No matter how minor, it's still showing bad behavior as a role-model.

This doesn't mean that the admins need to rewrite every single rejected summary, they just need to be more considerate about how others will feel. extreme nostalgia and/or cringe side affects may occur in 3... 2... 1... It's like that concept that everyone was taught in early grade school, fill others buckets, don't dump them.

now my fingers hurt :P

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 21:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

make templates like trout

(yes, i am aware of S:NOTWP. i am suggesting because it's funny.) Self-explanatory. There would also be self-trout, minnow, and whale.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 14:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC for Interface admins group

With the recent update to MediaWiki 1.35, a new group has been created: Special:ListGroupRights#interface-admin. Currently, nobody has this group-- however this is the only group that is able to edit pages like MediaWiki:Common.js. While we have policies for how to request Experienced Wikian (through annual elections) and sysop (through requests on Community portal); there is no policy as to how to request Interface admin as it is a new group to Scratch Wiki. There are several possible ideas for how users might request this group.

Below there are three proposals. Keep in mind that these are not necessarily contradictory, multiple or all of them could coexist.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)