< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

(85 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
 
{{Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archives}}
 
{{Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archives}}
 
{{shortcut|S:CPND}}
 
{{shortcut|S:CPND}}
If a topic on the [[Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal|community portal]] hasn't received a lot of replies or 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.
+
If a topic on the [[Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal|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.
 
</noinclude>__TOC__<noinclude>
 
</noinclude>__TOC__<noinclude>
  
Line 295: Line 295:
  
 
:::::::Either way, Interwiki still does a good job so I think it would be nice if this were changed and even nicer if this was not changed. I'm going to be lopsided on this one.<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 13:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 
:::::::Either way, Interwiki still does a good job so I think it would be nice if this were changed and even nicer if this was not changed. I'm going to be lopsided on this one.<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 13:20, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|7}}
 +
This might already have been said before, but maybe the links to the Community Portals in other languages could go in the Community portal header? However, the Community Portal header is quite large, so maybe another section (like the how to edit the Scratch Wiki section) could be collapsed into a box? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 302: Line 304:
 
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.
 
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 [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:IframePage 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.<scratchsig>EH7meow</scratchsig> 22:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
+
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 [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:IframePage 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.
 +
<scratchsig>EH7meow</scratchsig> 22:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 
:My concern is that having projects load on a WIki page could be slow and take up a lot of RAM and make things slower overall.{{User:Turkey3/Sig}} 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 
:My concern is that having projects load on a WIki page could be slow and take up a lot of RAM and make things slower overall.{{User:Turkey3/Sig}} 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Line 330: Line 333:
 
:::::We can use thumbnails of the projects rather than run them. For example, take a look to a code: <code><nowiki><span class="plainlinks">[https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/392399555 https://scratch.mit.edu/get_image/project/392399555_144x108.png]</span>
 
:::::We can use thumbnails of the projects rather than run them. For example, take a look to a code: <code><nowiki><span class="plainlinks">[https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/392399555 https://scratch.mit.edu/get_image/project/392399555_144x108.png]</span>
 
</nowiki></code><br/>{{note|Also, why hasn't done?!!}}<span style="color:grey">(edited in 23.06.2020 (UTC))</span>{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 
</nowiki></code><br/>{{note|Also, why hasn't done?!!}}<span style="color:grey">(edited in 23.06.2020 (UTC))</span>{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 18:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::::This is a interesting idea but I want to know why this would be helpful<scratchsig>AirMargaret33</scratchsig> 21:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 415: Line 421:
 
:::<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 20:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 
:::<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 20:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
==custom signatures==
 
{{not done}}
 
 
Recently I've noticed many custom signatures break one specific rule:<br/>
 
''The signature may not contain any background colors, images, or borders''<br/>
 
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! <br/>
 
{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 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.
 
:{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 16:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
::That is what I had said in my post [https://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_91#Custom_Signatures here].{{User:Customhacker/sig}} 17:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
:::clearly it got archived quicker than it should of! we'll label this not done so that doesn't happen.
 
:::{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
::::Some signatures I've seen with background colors or borders don't seem to be causing any problems in my opinion, but that's just my opinion. {{e|:P}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
:::::There was an issue that came up on the CP when someone used borders and backgrounds and some issues arose. I'm not sure what archive it's under but that was the reason the rule was added.
 
:::::{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
::::::Ah. Then maybe it might be best to keep it as a rule.<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
{{outdent|::::::}}I found the section with the new rules [https://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_81#New_rules_on_custom_sigs here]. Not sure if that was it. Was it it?{{User:Customhacker/sig}} 18:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
:yep, it's that one.
 
:I still support a background-border free signature. keeps signatures super clear and also limits the amount of custom signatures on the wiki (keep in mind custom signatures are not recommended)
 
:{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
::Is the font on mine clear enough? Just wondering...{{User:-Vuton-/Signature}} 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
:::@KrIsMa: I would support enforcing the rule of no borders no backgrouds (nbnb).<br>
 
:::@Vuton: Yours is fine. If anything, I would have to change mine.
 
:::Content from older discussion (linked above):
 
----
 
{{quote|{{warning|Your signature sub-page must have only your signature on it! Adding line breaks or even noinclude tags may mess up the format on talk pages!}}}}
 
First, create a [[Special:MyPage/Signature|sub-page]] to place your custom signature in. After that, create a custom signature which has a 18*18 pixel picture on the leftmost part of the signature, a link to your own userpage and talk page. Adding a link to your contributions is also needed. Custom signatures are strictly regulated and therefore, compulsory rules must be followed when making a custom signature:
 
*The profile photo must be a square shape and must be 18*18 or 20*20
 
*The signature cannot attract undesirable attention (ex. flashy text, some flashy profile [[Animated GIF|GIFs]] [some exceptions apply, see [[#Picture]]] in which another user would tell the custom signature creator to change the signature)
 
**This also means the signature may not contain any excessively bright colors
 
*The signature may not contain any background colors, images, or borders
 
*A link to the user's user page, talk page and contributions must be present
 
*Links must be self-explanatory (ex. A link that says "talk" must link to a talk page, nothing else)
 
*Nothing not Wiki related may be added (e.g. a link to your Scratch page is allowed, but not a link to your latest Scratch project, a quote, etc.)
 
<!--*Signature cannot be wider than 275 pixels or higher than 25 pixels. To test, go to the [[Scratch Wiki:Sandbox|sandbox]] and place your signature (excluding timestamp) between the tags: <pre><div class="sig-test">sig here</div></pre>If scrolling arrows show up or the signature takes two or more lines, your signature is too big.-->
 
*Signatures must occupy one line only; there should not be any formatting that cuts to other lines, such as adding text shadow.
 
*Signature cannot be very long. To test, do the eight colon test. Go to the [[Scratch Wiki:Sandbox|sandbox]] and place your signature, with timestamp, after eight colons (:). If your custom signature breaks lines, it is too long.
 
Keep in mind that the timestamp should always be present. Editing the design of the timestamp is not relevant under custom signatures, and should not be done.}}
 
 
 
Those are the rules off [[S:CSIG]] and yet I see some not being followed such as the background and border + some extremely lengthy ones. What is our position on this?{{User:Customhacker/sig}} 17:24, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 
:If they pass they eight colon test, than they are fine. Also, with borders, in the case on something like Kenny2Scratche's signature, that is fine since it is only bordering the small links, and not the whole signature. (I believe) And, I've never seen one with background colors, but if somebody is breaking one of these you can let them know on their talk page. Although, we should wait for some more answers.{{User:Duckboycool/Signature Code}} 17:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 
::Personally all the custom signatures I see people using don't seem to be causing any problems, but that's just my view.<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC){{User:Customhacker/sig}} 20:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
----
 
:::::If someone could fix the extra div tag, that would be great.{{User:Customhacker/sig}} 21:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 
::::::You didn't even use {{t|collapse bottom}}... However, the extra div is something I've tried to fix and failed - no fix for that.
 
{{outdent|::::::}}<!-- yahaha I got the outdent -->
 
In my opinion, that previous discussion is all we need - as long as the borders and backgrounds aren't all around the sig I think it's fine. I really don't see the harm in having sigs with borders around "talk" and "contribs".
 
 
Background colors may be a bit more problematic - I wouldn't be upset if a sig I made had its background color removed. So I'm fine with that.
 
 
<small>also "Kenny2Scratche" is the worst spelling of my name I've seen in a long time...</small>{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 05:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 
</noinclude>
 
:I would like to bring up the issue with borders and background colors used for custom signatures again.
 
:[[Scratch_Wiki:Custom_Signatures#Creating_Custom_Signatures|Right now it's now allowed]], yet people still do it. In fact, it's becomming more prevalent. This shows that people will (unnoticingly) break the rules because others are doing so.
 
:''Clearly'' not many people read the page before making their signatures, regardless of if it actually should be allowed or not. We need a stronger force that monitors custom signatures of users, or we need to disallow it altogether. <br/>{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}}  14:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 
::I don’t really mind custom sigs with background colours and borders tbh. As long as they don’t stand out too much they actually make discussions look prettier and easier to read.{{User:Hellounicorns2/Signature}} 09:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 
:::{{note}}I edited this post because {{t|collapse top}} and bottom are complete broken here. I'll try to fix it later, but it's just weird{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 01:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 
::::I'm non-biased on this thing (because I don't have a problem if it breaks the rule, nor do I have a problem if it follow the rule) but I believe that the rules should be bent just slightly so that things like background colors and borders could work, but insane things like background colors with ~thirty different shades wouldn't be ok, and backgrounds ~20px thick wouldn't be ok. Pictures also still wouldn't be ok because 1) there is no point of pictures; and 2) if people did put pictures they would be huge. {{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 21:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 
:::::I agree with NYCDOT on this. Although custom signatures need to have less restrictions they can still allow small things like background colors and borders. Major text, images, and insane backgrounds could get prohibited. I don't really know what to say on this one, because I'm not really planning to use custom signatures at any point in my life because I don't ''see'' the point, but fine - for the sake of people that want this feature but I'm still neutral I think we should give NYCDOT's thoughts a go.<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 13:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 
  
 
== 3.0 updating ==
 
== 3.0 updating ==
Line 490: Line 435:
 
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 538: Line 482:
 
:::::{{User:PrincessPandaLover/Sig}} 23:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 
:::::{{User:PrincessPandaLover/Sig}} 23:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 
::::::I'm clearly not some big-shot lawyer, but the images should really be deleted. We don't want to be caught by the image owner and have Mtwoll fined $1000, and in some cases a year in prison (according to legalzoom.com)!{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 21:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
 
::::::I'm clearly not some big-shot lawyer, but the images should really be deleted. We don't want to be caught by the image owner and have Mtwoll fined $1000, and in some cases a year in prison (according to legalzoom.com)!{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 21:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
+
{{outdent|::::::}} Wait, isn't all of Scratch under Creative Commons or the MIT license, meaning we're allowed to use screenshots from Scratch...? Or is this about screenshots from Scratch of copyrighted work e.g. a Pacman sprite? In the latter case, from what I've found on Google, educational organizations are generally excempt from copyright restrictions, and I would argue the Scratch Wiki is educational. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 00:26, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 
+
: Scratch's license is irrelevant, as this largely refers to copyrighted works referring to Scratch (i.e. [[:File:Step by Step SCRATCH Programming.jpg]] and [[:File:Scratch 2.0 Idea Book.jpg]]) or just things not related to Scratch at all (i.e. [[:File:Spam_meat.jpeg]] and [[:File:My windows 2000 desktop.png]]). The Scratch Wiki is not an educational organization by any sense of the legal term, as well as the educational exemption generally not referring to publicly available material. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 01:10, 30 August 2020 (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:
 
# Move HTML5 Player to HTML5 Player (2.0) and make it as HTML5 Player (3.0)
 
# WebGL Player
 
# Scratch 3.0 Player
 
# JavaScript Player (added 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC))
 
{{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 23:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 
:I thought the 3.0 Player used JavaScript?<scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 01:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 
::[[HTML5 Player]] does too{{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 
:::"React Player" might work too - the 3.0 editor uses ReactJs{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 04:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 
::::{{not done}}{{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 11:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 
:::::I would just call it The 3.0 player. <scratchsig>Jakel181</scratchsig> 15:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 
:::::: I'd call it the HTML5 PLayer, seeing as we've had the Java and Flash Players in the past.  
 
::::::[[File:Redglitter Profile Picture.gif|30px]] '''[[User:Redglitter|Redglitter]]''' ~ ([[User_talk:Redglitter|Talk Page]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Redglitter|Contributions]]) ~ 07:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 
{{outdent|::::::}}
 
"HTML5 Player" is a different thing, there was a previous attempt at making an HTML5 player that lost traction, so that wouldn't work.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 03:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 
:Universal Player or Vector Player.<scratchsig>SpyGuy9</scratchsig> 00:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 
::I say name this HTML5 Player (3.0) and the previous one with (2.0). There would be either a disambiguation page or a see alsoon the top of the page.{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 19:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 573: Line 496:
 
:::I think some of the articles in the Help namespace actually don't belong in Help:Contents. They should be linked to from other help pages instead.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 10:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 
:::I think some of the articles in the Help namespace actually don't belong in Help:Contents. They should be linked to from other help pages instead.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 10:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 
::::I think we should have all the Help pages in Help:Contents because they're helpful tutorials for editing, and I refer to them a lot, especially when I was starting out. It would give them much more visibility (I didn't even know that all these help pages existed) and organization. Maybe we could put related pages in drop-down menus underneath other pages somehow, sort of like how Recent Changes groups multiple changes to the same page (if you have that option on)? <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 03:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 
::::I think we should have all the Help pages in Help:Contents because they're helpful tutorials for editing, and I refer to them a lot, especially when I was starting out. It would give them much more visibility (I didn't even know that all these help pages existed) and organization. Maybe we could put related pages in drop-down menus underneath other pages somehow, sort of like how Recent Changes groups multiple changes to the same page (if you have that option on)? <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 03:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::I think that it should have all of the help pages for the reason 290Scratcher mentioned. Ken, could you give some examples of pages that don't belong there? As for Groko13's idea, we could also use sub-headings (which some of the pages at [[Help:Contents]] are under already).<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 21:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::I think put all of the help pages to [[Help:Contents]] isn't necessary, there has been a [[:Category:Help]] page already. Also, [[Help:Contents]] page is using for [[mw:Help:Contents|most important pages(that's standard for all wikis)]], or [[wikipedia:Help:Contents|using for search engine(for example, Wikipedia).]] We can put a search engine, I think.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 07:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 596: Line 521:
  
 
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.{{User:Customhacker/sig}} 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 
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.{{User:Customhacker/sig}} 02:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 
:I'm hesitant about making request notes more intensive like this because it makes it harder, and scares away more people. I think the current system is good enough on its own.
 
:I'm hesitant about making request notes more intensive like this because it makes it harder, and scares away more people. I think the current system is good enough on its own.
 
:That being said, I do agree that the current system doesn't really make users show why they want to join; perhaps require an actual article that they would edit, as before, but nothing beyond that.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 
:That being said, I do agree that the current system doesn't really make users show why they want to join; perhaps require an actual article that they would edit, as before, but nothing beyond that.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Line 602: Line 528:
 
::I don't think that's too much, is it? {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 
::I don't think that's too much, is it? {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 00:27, 26 January 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)
 
:::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)
 +
::::(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}}
  
 
== Not Done doesn't get enough attention ==
 
== Not Done doesn't get enough attention ==
Line 646: Line 575:
 
:::Force users? No way! Plus, what would be the punishment if they don't comment? <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 20:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 
:::Force users? No way! Plus, what would be the punishment if they don't comment? <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 20:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 
::::Why was this marked as done? It seems like the discussion is still ongoing. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 
::::Why was this marked as done? It seems like the discussion is still ongoing. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 15:17, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::One of the solutions that ken had layed out is marked as done, not the entire discussion. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:46, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::Just an idea, we could add the CPND TOC onto the CP page to link to it. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 850: Line 781:
 
:::That...is a really good question. I have no idea. I really don't.{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 19:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 
:::That...is a really good question. I have no idea. I really don't.{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 19:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 
::::I noticed that {{user|Jedibrine|name}}'s userpage's TOC has different colors and font. You can ask how they did it. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 20:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 
::::I noticed that {{user|Jedibrine|name}}'s userpage's TOC has different colors and font. You can ask how they did it. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 20:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::::A very simple solution would be to put the {{t|done}} and {{t|not done}} templates ''in'' the title of the post instead of right below the title. If everyone put <code><nowiki>{{not done/done}} {{-}} <title here...></nowiki></code> in the titles of their posts, everyone could easily see whether a post is done or not. [[User:Groko13/Sandbox|Here's an example]]. It even shows up bold in the TOC! I see no reason why we shouldn't implement this, considering that the CP already says to put {{t|not done}} at the start when creating a new post. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 01:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent}}
 +
I give my support. Nice idea, but I also agree with Kenny2Scratch with the idea about making the titles bold. <scratchsig>Filmlover12</scratchsig> 13:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 884: Line 818:
 
:::Drunken Sailor kind of already said this, but I wanted to add: a dedicated page would make it much easier to see which images have already been suggested and used previously as well. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 04:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 
:::Drunken Sailor kind of already said this, but I wanted to add: a dedicated page would make it much easier to see which images have already been suggested and used previously as well. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 04:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 
::::What if we also advertised the featured images along with the featured article each month, in the Wiki Wednesday forum post? <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 04:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 
::::What if we also advertised the featured images along with the featured article each month, in the Wiki Wednesday forum post? <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 04:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::{{done|Supported by myself}}<s>, but also if someone share featured images in Announcements forum, we need to upload another source manually; because Scratch Wiki photos isn't working on forums. </s>
 +
:::::@Groko13: I agree your opinion, but also we're adding stars to featured images/articles.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 11:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::Ahmetlii, the Scratch Wiki is an [[Image Hosting#List|approved image host]].<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|6}}Actually, the correct link is [[Image Hosting#Host List]], sorry.<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 16:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
:<s>Yes, Scratch Wiki is an approved host; but it's not working correctly on forums as I know - if</s> I'm wrong, sorry about that. You need to use real image source rather than file's link, also you cannot shrink it with [img] code.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 17:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::I can see the image you posted [[post:4181522|here]].<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::Me too.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::I think this is a really good idea although I don't think we need to edit the current Wiki Wednesday suggestion forum post. Good job! {{e|meow}} <scratchsig>Filmlover12</scratchsig> 09:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::It seems tht we've come to a general consensus that a dedicated spot on the Wiki to suggest featured images should be added, but we haven't settled on how to implement it yet. Here are the suggestions I've seen:
 +
::::* A page such as [[Scratch Wiki:Featured Image Suggestions]] for Wikians to suggest images.
 +
::::* A forum post/editing the current forum post to allow featured image suggestions from people outside of the Wiki.
 +
::::* A page such as [[Scratch Wiki:Homepage Tasks]] for suggested changes to the homepage, with a dedicated section for suggesting featured images, along with a shortcut and/or redirect.
 +
::::* Merging a page for suggesting featured images into [[S:WWS]] and allowing editors to suggest images and articles directly on the page.
 +
::::Did I miss anything? Which of these  should we implement, or does anyone have any other ideas? {{e|:)}} <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 04:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::'''+1''' for everything! This seems like a great idea! However, we must decide whether there should be another forum post for suggestions or if we edit the current post. I'm fine with either option. {{e|:)}} <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
 
== New page for mall simulators ==
 
== New page for mall simulators ==
{{not done}}
+
{{done|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? <scratchsig>Sti_scratch</scratchsig> 04:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 
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? <scratchsig>Sti_scratch</scratchsig> 04:55, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Line 899: Line 848:
 
{{outdent|6}}I haven't heard of mall simulators until now, so I don't they're that necessary.{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 22:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 
{{outdent|6}}I haven't heard of mall simulators until now, so I don't they're that necessary.{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 22:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  
Actually, doesn't scratch ban users that participate in such activities? e.g. Mattcoin
+
:Actually, doesn't scratch ban users that participate in such activities? e.g. Mattcoin
 
<scratchsig>Kritav</scratchsig> 03:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 
<scratchsig>Kritav</scratchsig> 03:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 +
::Yes, some users banned because of that, including sti_scratch(not active anymore); and nobody want to use cryptocurrencies or mall simulators. Some of ironic. Maybe we should close this topic..{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 11:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 916: Line 866:
 
:::::Next question: "Paint Editor" will have to redirect to either Bitmap or Vector Editor (not a disambig page, because there's only two). Which one?{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 05:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 
:::::Next question: "Paint Editor" will have to redirect to either Bitmap or Vector Editor (not a disambig page, because there's only two). Which one?{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 05:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 
::::::There are some sections that cannot be on the two: Types of Graphics,  Bitmap and Vector Comparison, Costume Pane, Basic Options, Interaction With Other Programs, Example Uses, History, and Alternatives. Keep them on [[Paint Editor]].{{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 10:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 
::::::There are some sections that cannot be on the two: Types of Graphics,  Bitmap and Vector Comparison, Costume Pane, Basic Options, Interaction With Other Programs, Example Uses, History, and Alternatives. Keep them on [[Paint Editor]].{{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 10:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
{{collapse bottom}}
 
 
== 3.0 updating question ==
 
{{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.<scratchsig>Jakel181</scratchsig> 22:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 
:A copy of the page before I began updating it can be found [[User:Drunken Sailor/Sandbox/Getting Started with Scratch|here]].{{User:Drunken Sailor/Signature}} 22:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 
::Our school hasn't updated to 3.0. I bet they don't even know what 3.0 is... I think that should be right. We should make two separate articles or two categories. <scratchsig>God286</scratchsig> 19:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 
::: I think you should could make two separate articles. There could be schools and people who don't know about 3.0.<scratchsig>998930</scratchsig> 01:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Line 979: Line 919:
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
  
== “Secret” Compliments ==
+
== Block Problems ==
 +
{{Not done|Not done, as blocks are still unfinished or broken}}<br />
 +
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 [https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/292813/ this forum topic]? <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 04:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:The blocks still don't match the one in the post, I tried again on my sandbox and it still does not cut out. Anyone who is an expert at doing this? <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 05:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
::You can use [https://scratchblocks.github.io this page].<scratchsig>Ahmetlii</scratchsig> 07:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::Curse Garamol56 for not using forum scratchblocks!{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 13:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
::::@Ahmetlii That website may come in handy...
 +
::::@kenny2scratch Yes, it is so exhausting to convert it into proper scratchblocks! <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 19:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::::Wait, is it possible to convert forum scratchblocks to wiki scratchblocks???? {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 03:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::    <code><nowiki><scratchblocks>define scratch</scratchblocks></nowiki></code>
 +
It will give:
 +
<scratchblocks>define scratch</scratchblocks>
 +
See also: [[Block Plugin]]<scratchsig>Ahmetlii</scratchsig> 20:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent}} Hmmm. I'll see if I can help although I'm not sure if I'll be able to. <scratchsig>Filmlover12</scratchsig> 18:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 
 +
== Scratch Wiki Adventure ==
 +
{{not done}}
 +
 
 +
On Wikipedia, there is an option for new Wikians to complete the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure 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.<scratchsig>54329</scratchsig> 17:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:<b>+1</b> {{e|:D}} <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 22:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
::I hope you're prepared to put in the amount of work involved, because The Wikipedia Adventure is really involved (I've [[wikipedia:User:Kenny2wiki|done it]] once before) and a lot of stuff has to be created for it to work. I like the idea, but I don't know if anyone here has the follow-through to actually focus on a project like this that could take a week or more to make.
 +
::If you think you can commit yourself (and furthermore get others to commit themselves) you can make a [[Template:SWP|Scratch Wiki Project]] of it. Good luck!{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 03:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::Woohoo; we got bureaucratic approval!  I think we can do it (maybe not ''as'' well as the Wikipedia Adventure, but still good).  I'll start thinkin' up some basic ideas to start us off.  If anyone is interested in working with me on this, please let me know on my [[User talk:54329|talk page]]. {{e|:)}}<scratchsig>54329</scratchsig> 05:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::: Isn’t this going to be a duplicate of the [[Help:Welcome|welcome tutorial]]? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 06:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::::No, the Wikipedia Adventure is really involved and more interactive. <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 06:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
::::::Adding on, when I did it, it felt a lot more like a game/activity than a guidebook.  It allows the user to actually collaborate, talk to people and create/edit a page all in a sandbox setting.  It helped me learn the basics of Wikipedia far more than a guide could (probably because I was really interested in it and getting those shiny badges was nice).<scratchsig>54329</scratchsig> 06:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|::::::}}
 +
{{Scratch Wiki:Scratch Wiki Adventure/project}}{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 10:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
:I can help some tech stuff maybe? {{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 17:55, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
::I can help too! <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 22:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::I want to help too, so should I add myself or should 54329 do it as he's the owner? <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 01:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
::::In reply to both of you: Thanks for offering to help out!  I'll add both of your names to the list.  For future people that wish to help: feel free to just add your name under the "Assigned" section. <scratchsig>54329</scratchsig> 05:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 +
:::::I just took a quick glance at the Wikipedia Adventure, and that looks cool! I created a very different page a while ago with the same goal of educating New Wikians using a sort of quest system - you can check it out at [[User:Bigpuppy/Quests]]. {{e|:)}} It seems like this would be very different than that, though. {{cool|Good idea}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 02:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|5}}That's super cool that you made a quests page.  This will be semi-similar.  Feel free to stop by if you have any ideas for it. <small>''wink wink''</small><scratchsig>54329</scratchsig> 08:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 +
We could make a scratch project and link it when people get welcome notficiations on their talk page.
 +
 
 +
<scratchsig>ACS_Scratch_admin</scratchsig> 14:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
I'm new to the scratch wiki and am kind of counfused so i think this would be a great idea<scratchsig>AirMargaret33</scratchsig> 21:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
Yes, it would be nice if we included such a project. It can benefit new wikians. <scratchsig>MitFieldatdawn</scratchsig> 12:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 
 +
== 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 [[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 105#Privacy Policy Article|cannot be translated into English]] without it being inaccurate. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:Why would they be German?<scratchsig>OurPrincess</scratchsig> 16:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 +
::The Wiki servers are located in Germany and therefore follow the rules/regulations of Germany. <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 00:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::Would you be amenable to using the [https://example.com external link marker] on them instead? Putting "(German)" on a footer link seems unorthodox...{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::The servers are German because they are owned by Martin Wollenweber, who lives in Germany.<scratchsig>OurPrincess</scratchsig> 11:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::: Maybe the Privacy Policy and the Disclaimers can be individually labelled that they are in German, or is that still 'unorthodox'? They could have 'in German' put in brackets after them. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 13:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::I think it's fine the way it is, but it should get translated for other wikis so we know what happens to our data.{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 17:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|::::::}}
 +
Did you read the OP? They can't be translated accurately.
 +
 
 +
Having a notice at the top of the actual pages saying something similar to what I say on my userpage (the "many other wikis link here" thing), ideally translated into everything, would also be fine for me - I'm only opposed to changing the footer.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 11:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 
 +
== 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! <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 14:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:I think that this would compete with the [[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal#Scratch Wiki Adventure|Scratch Wiki Adventure]] though... {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 15:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
::I don't really see much benefit in it. Why would we need this? We already have Wiki Wednesday.{{User:Dominic305/Templates/Signature}} 15:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::Well we would be able to produce varied content aside from Wiki Wednesday. People have also suggested tutorials for S:WELCOME to me privately. We'd be modeling it in some regards to Wikipedia's YT Channel. <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 16:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::I'm interested! But... What do you mean by "volunteer yourself for content creation"? Is there a specific page to apply? {{User:Dilek10/Minisig}}
 +
:::::I'm interested too {{-}} I'd like to help make a few videos. I already have a YouTube channel but I can't share it because of my real name and face reveal. I'm just ten years, but I don't think that will affect anything as I enjoy talking on-camera and a lot of people tell me I have a talent for vlogging / gaming (not to brag though). I also have a Scratch tutorial series, so I already have some experience with it.<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 09:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::I am interested, too! I have a channel already. How do I start? <scratchsig>R4356th</scratchsig> 19:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 
 +
== 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.
 +
 
 +
<small>wow... that's... long</small>
 +
<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 09:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:While I understand what you're saying, I don't think it would be necessary to enforce constructiveness here. The discussion forums and Community Portal are two fundamentally different things. The Scratch Team has an extremely large userbase. Thus, there are many possible people contributing to discussions, and also many people that decisions will affect. It makes sense for there to be an expectation that people are constructive. However, as of writing, there are 72 [[Special:ActiveUsers|active users]] on the Scratch Wiki. This is much smaller than the userbase on Scratch. And yes, you might argue that our "userbase" is not just our editors but also our readers; yes, but our editors are the ones who are supposed to make the decisions here.
 +
 
 +
:Anyway, on the topic of having fewer active users on the wiki, it helps to see if someone ''supports'' your idea. And it matters, too. If multiple people like your idea, it probably has a better chance of being successful here. This is in stark contrast to the Suggestions Forum, where that is simply not true. This is why simply saying "support" or "no support" on that forum is not helpful, nor constructive.
 +
 
 +
:In summary, yes, I think it would be ''helpful'' for people to provide a reason that they like or dislike an idea (perhaps we could recommend it), but I don't think it's necessary to ''enforce'' it. I don't think that it's fair to compare the convention ''here'' to the convention ''on the Suggestions Forum,'' because the CP is fundamentally different from the Suggestions Forum and the discussion forums in general. That said, if someone ''dislikes'' an idea, I think it is more necessary to provide reasoning than if they like it, as they are disagreeing with the reasoning provided by the OP, and thus need to provide their own reasoning.
 +
 
 +
:So, to end this off, I agree that we should recommend it, but I disagree that we should ''enforce'' it.<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 14:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::Good idea! I suppose that could work too.<scratchsig>Nambaseking01</scratchsig> 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: Depends on what you mean by "enforce". The policy of discussion over polling already exists, however if by "enforce" you mean removing comments like <span color="lime">'''Support!'''</span> is not a good idea, as such comments generally should be left as-is, however, explaining that such a comment holds no weight can be done. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 22:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 
 +
== 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.
 +
<scratchsig>ContourLines</scratchsig> 06:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
 +
 
 +
== Naming Blocks ==
 +
{{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.
  
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.  
+
<small>(Thanks to [[User_talk:Groko13#Capitalization|Naleksuh]] for bringing this up)</small><scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 17:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:I looked at the [[S:EC#Introductory paragraph|Editing Conventions]], and they say that "capitalization for blocks remain the same as the title; for example, Tempo (block) changes to 'Tempo' and Project Downloading (1.4) changes to 'Project Downloading.'" If this is the case, should we change articles that don't follow this capitalization to match? What about articles that just use scratchblocks code? <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 17:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
:: I am okay with the block name the same as in the title, however I do think that this means the title system should be changed, as it is currently using incorrect grammar, unnecessary disambigs, and not even aligning with the actual names used in Scratch
 +
:: For example:
 +
::: * [[If on Edge, Bounce (block)]] will become "if on edge, bounce" (yes, titles that start with a lowercase letter *are* possible - can be done individually or via the infobox)
 +
::: * [[Boolean Block]] will become "Boolean block"
 +
::: * [[How to Move Sprites with the Arrow Keys]] will become "How to move sprites with the arrow keys"
 +
::: * [[Advanced Topics (forum)]] will become "Advanced Topics"
 +
::: * [[New Scratcher Status]] will become "New Scratcher status"
 +
::: * [[Scratch Design Studio]] will stay "Scratch Design Studio"
 +
:: Any objections? [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]]) 18:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::It's ironic that I have to be this person this time.
 +
:::[[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 96#A talk about capitalization of article titles|I brought this up]] nearly 3 years ago, and most people agreed that capitalization here is not ideal. However, Scimonster, an admin who predates me by nearly 6 years, came out of inactivity just to push down the idea. He quoted JSO, a founder:
 +
:::{{quote|I'm sorry to disappoint you all, but I really think this is a change we should not put our efforts and time in. I think the titles look just fine as they are, but most importantly I think it's not worth either breaking every single link ever created to the wiki or messing up the wiki by creating hundreds of redirects.|JSO}}
 +
:::I appreciate your eagerness to improve the Wiki, but suggesting sweeping radical changes literal hours after being accepted is not the way to go about it.
 +
:::<small>Also, fight your own fights. Why did you make Groko bring it up instead of posting it yourself?</small>{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 20:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::So, we should make sure all pages follow the same capitalization as the title, correct? What about pages with scratchblocks code? Personally, I think we should change them if the scratchblock replaces the bolded words in the intro paragraph, like in [[Set Video Transparency to () (block)]], but leave scratchblocks elsewhere. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 04:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::"I appreciate your eagerness to improve the Wiki, but suggesting sweeping radical changes literal hours after being accepted is not the way to go about it." I do not appreciate the condescending tone here. Especially not when "literal hours" was all I needed to find that multiple blocks were named wrong for over a year and half. I try to be polite and informative. Granted sometimes I fail at this. This attempts neither.
 +
:::::: I do not agree with the text's capitalization matching the title (although I also disagree with how the titles are, so this may be null to begin with). I also do not think blocks mixed with text is a good idea, especially in introduction. [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]]) 17:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::::If you disagree with the Editing Conventions or titles, you should bring it up in a separate topic (although, as per what Ken said, a change in title case has been suggested and rejected multiple times now). <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 20:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|7}}
 +
Back to my original question; the Editing Conventions do not say whether blocks within the article should match the capitalization of the title; it only has guidelines for the bolded words in the intro paragraph. I think that a consistent way to refer to blocks should be added to the Editing Conventions, if one does not already exist. Personally, I think that blocks should all follow title capitalization, or else it would look strange and inconsistent. I also think that inline scratchblocks are fine as well. Thoughts? <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 20:18, 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)
 +
{{collapse bottom}}
  
Right now you suggest a compliment, everyone who wants to including the person who was complimented can see it and get posted on CP.
+
== Suggestion: Have a dedicated page for feedback on the account request system ==
  
So I thought that’s good but you do let look forward to the CP post because you know if you have been complimented.
+
{{not done}}
  
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.
+
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.
  
Proposed new method:
+
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):
 +
{{quote|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!}}
  
* Users suggest compliments on Google Form entering all details as they would before
+
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]].
  
* End of the month (organizer)s have admin access to the form and gather responses
+
This is the comment I leave on people's profiles if I first put their request on hold and then accept it:
 +
{{quote|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!}}
  
* Posted in CP
+
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.
  
This way:
+
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.
  
* Users will look forward to see compliments received and not seeing anytime of the month
+
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 [https://en.scratch-wiki.info/w/index.php?title=Scratch_Wiki_talk:Elections/October_2019/Nominations&action=edit&section=new&preload=Scratch_Wiki_talk:Elections/October_2019/Nominations/Template the link users click] to nominate themselves for an EW election.
  
* People will be more encouraged by the compliments
+
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]].
  
Ideas?{{User:Asqwde/sig}} 07:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
+
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. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 02:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
:There are pros and cons to this... on one hand, people will be less self-conscious about complimenting if nobody knows it's them, but on the other hand some compliments either don't make sense if you don't know who it is or imply on their own who the person complimenting is. I do like the idea of looking forward to compliments rather than seeing them immediately, but the con to that is people might be disappointed if CT doesn't come out at the end of the month due to not enough people complimenting...{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 07:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
+
:[[Project talk:Become a contributor]] <br /><small>''-unsigned comment by {{user|Naleksuh}}''</small>
::I'm on board with this. I still would like to keep the non-secret compliments as a second option if we go about this. The main problem would be moderation. With anonymity, there is more of a chance that something mean would come out of it. An unwritten policy of CT is, if I see a disrespectful "compliment" it won't be included. If we were to use a google forum, we would have to have some way of knowing who compliment who, we can't just ask for a username since we can't verify it wasn't an impostor. Any ideas how to go about this?<scratchsig>Jakel181</scratchsig> 11:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
+
::Thanks for your comment. However, did you read my whole suggestion? That page does not include everything I suggested. Plus, my suggestion would not encompass feedback on ''just'' [[S:CONTRIB]], but also on the [[Special:RequestAccount]] interface, how we manage account requests, etc. {{e|:)}} Thank you for reminding me of that page, though! {{e|:)}} <br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 02:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:::Perhaps (again) an extension? Special:ComplimentTuesday sounds like an interesting idea...{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 11:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
+
::: I understood what you were saying. However it may have been my fault for including only a link instead of an additional explanation. My point here was that I do not believe a whole new page is necessary, but that the existing page should suffice, and that discussions there can be extended to this new ground (since Special pages do not have talk pages). b<br /><small>''-unsigned comment by {{user|Naleksuh}}''</small>
::::Guess who forked your report extension ;) (or possibly Special:ThankfulThursday :P)<scratchsig>Jakel181</scratchsig> 12:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
+
::::Alright. So, assuming that we would not create a whole new page, but rather extend that page to be about feedback on the account request system in general, what do you think of my other suggestions (e.g. actively facilitating feedback, making the page easy to use even for people new to wikis, etc.)? Thank you for your quick response, by the way {{-}} it is greatly appreciated. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 02:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
:::::+1 for a Special: page where compliments can be submitted and a way of suggesting public compliments{{User:Asqwde/sig}} 16:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
+
:::::I think these are good suggestions! it's a good idea to actively facilitate feedback from New Wikians, and putting a link in the acceptance or welcome message will hopefully make them aware of the page. We could probably add the button which you suggested that automatically creates a form to the top of the [[Scratch Wiki talk:Become a contributor|S:CONTRIB talk page]], and/or have the link do it automatically. I think we should also create a shortcut for the talk page if possible, if this suggestion gets implemented. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 22:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
{{outdent|5}}
+
{{outdent|5}}Great! I've created a draft of what the feedback page could look like [[User:Bigpuppy/Account Request Feedback|here]]. (As we've discussed, the feedback page might be the [[S:CONTRIB]] talk page.) I also think it might be a good idea to create a Scratch Wiki Project for this. The users assigned to the project would be in charge of creating the page and maintaining it. The job of maintaining it might include:
But also,Scratch and Scratch Wiki are growing up with "Imagine, Program, Share".[[Frequently Rejected Suggestions#Private Messaging|Here]]'s an rejected example suggestion:{{quote|Private Messaging
+
 
When communication is public, people are more likely to be respectful because they know that everyone can see it. However, when posting PMs, people know that only the intended recipient can see it, so do not think as much before posting. Even if a "Flag PM" function is implemented, the Scratch Team currently does not have the resources to moderate it, because of the reason said before there would be a lot of inappropriate/disrespectful messages.|Scratch Team}} Also,we can see other's compliments(Google Forms give this in finish of the form,right?).
+
* Observing how users use the page, and finding ways to improve the user experience
 +
* Answering users' questions about how to provide feedback
 +
* Archiving old feedback sections
 +
 
 +
If you would like to participate, feel free to add your name [[User:Bigpuppy/Account Request Feedback/project|here]]! You don't have to process account requests to be a part of this Scratch Wiki Project!
 +
{{User:Bigpuppy/Account Request Feedback/project}}
 +
 
 +
Feel free to make edits to [[User:Bigpuppy/Account Request Feedback|the draft of the feedback page]] as you see fit. {{e|:)}}
 +
<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::: So, this is expected to post to [[Project_talk:Become_a_contributor]]? If so, I see few objections to this, although I would have preferred a single section myself. It might also help to say what you are planning to do with the responses. <br/>[[File:Naleksuh.jpg|20px]] [[User:Naleksuh|Naleksuh]] ([[User_talk:Naleksuh#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/Naleksuh|contribs]]) 05:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::Having it as the talk page of [[S:CONTRIB]] is a possibility. It all depends on what we want to do. Currently, I'm keeping it in my userspace since it's just a draft.
 +
::::For the second part of your post, could you clarify what you mean? We will find trends in the responses, then propose changes to the account request system if those trends are major enough. Thanks! (Would you like to join the SWP?) {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|::::}}
 +
I'm not sure I see the point of this. I've never heard of anyone having feedback on the account request process, especially not immediately after being accepted. All the changes to the account request system have come from proposals by EWs, as far as I'm aware.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:Right {{-}} that's why we should have a dedicated page for it. {{e|:)}} As I said in my original post:
 +
:"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."<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 15:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::Furthermore, they may not think their thoughts are important enough to point out. Or, they might not think they have feedback, but when we facilitate their feedback, they think of feedback. New users have a unique point of view when it comes to the issue of account requests; thus, I think we should actively facilitate their feedback on the account request system. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 16:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::In that case, we should direct them to the Wiki CP forum topic, so that both accepted and rejected users have equal representation, instead of silencing those who were rejected. The Wiki isn't a good place for feedback about account requests if not everyone who might have feedback has an account.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 20:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::I understand what you're saying, and I think I may have considered that issue before too. I do agree with you at first thought. However, after I think it through, here's my view: Time has shown that many people are able to get accepted with our current account request system. The account request system is designed so that anyone who reads ''all'' of [[S:CONTRIB]] can get through, if they put in the work. I feel that if we actively facilitate rejected users' feedback, we might get feedback from a lot of people who haven't actually read all of [[S:CONTRIB]]. If we get feedback from a lot of people who haven't read [[S:CONTRIB]], then we're getting feedback from people who don't really know everything about how the account request process works. This is not to say that we should shield our eyes from rejected users' feedback, but I'm not sure whether we should actively facilitate it.
 +
::::I disagree that actively facilitating accepted users' feedback and not doing so for rejected users is "silencing" rejected users, though. If a rejected has a valid concern about the account request process, I would assume that they would let us know of it. They might not know about the CP forum topic, but they could reply to the account processor and tell them their thoughts.
 +
::::Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to discriminate against rejected users; the above thoughts are just things to think about. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 21:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::You took me way too seriously - I was just pointing out that rejected users are shut out by your proposal, not saying that you have a vendetta against them.
 +
:::::I still don't think that the Wiki is the place for it, though. The account request process concerns the people as Scratch users, not Wiki users, so the feedback should be done on Scratch. But if you think rejected users have a less informed opinion, we can simply invite accepted users to give feedback on the CP topic and omit that invitation for rejected users.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 21:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::I think many rejected users have a less informed opinion (those who have not read [[S:CONTRIB]]). If someone has actually read all of [[S:CONTRIB]] and is still getting rejected, I think there should be a place for them to give feedback. However, we shouldn't necessarily put it in the rejection message because many rejected users have not read [[S:CONTRIB]].
 +
::::::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)
 +
{{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}}
 +
 
 +
== Tip of the Day ==
 +
{{not done}}
 +
 
 +
{{User:Bigpuppy/Tip of the Day/project}}
 +
I created a [[User:Bigpuppy/Tip of the Day|Tip of the Day]] system that will show one tip for each day of the year. It's inspired by [[Wikipedia:WP:Tip of the day|Wikipedia's tip of the day]]. However, we need tips! If you would like to help, feel free to [[User:Bigpuppy/Tip of the Day/project|add your name to the project page]]. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 02:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 +
:Ooh! Sounds interesting :) Should I just add my name next to yours or somewhere else? {{User:Illusion705/Signature}} 02:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::How do we add tips? Is every tip going to have it's own subpage? If so, it would be cool if the "Add one?" link for adding a tip linked to the subpage for the current day's tip. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 04:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::Is there enough to know about the Wiki for 365 tips? (Regardless, I've fixed your {{t|SWP}} usage, Bigpuppy - the <code>page</code> parameter is meant for the /project page itself.){{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 07:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::Based on what Ken said above, maybe there could be tips for each day of the month (eg. on the first of January, February and the rest of the months, one tip shows, and so on for the rest of the days in a month)? {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 09:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::I agree with what Jammum said. I think the Scratch Wiki doesn't need 365 tips for each day because this wiki isn't a Wikipedia.{{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 10:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
::::::Wow, I didn't expect so many people to reply in such a short amount of time.
 +
::::::* @Illusion705 {{-}} You can add your name to [[User:Bigpuppy/Tip of the Day/project]] similar to how ahmetlii's name is. {{e|:)}}
 +
::::::* @Groko13 {{-}} Currently, it's just one page with all of them. While that would be a lot of subpages, I think that might be cool too.
 +
::::::* @Kenny2scratch {{-}} I mean, there might be, but there might not be. (Thanks for fixing that.)
 +
::::::* @Jammum {{-}} I think that's a good idea. I'll do that today.
 +
::::::* @ahmetlii {{-}} As per above.
 +
::::::However, after I made this, I had another idea. We could run a Scratch tip of the day as well. It would show tips related to Scratch, its editor, and its website. Unlike the wiki, I think there ''is'' room for one tip for each day of the year. We could have this be part of the same Scratch Wiki Project. What do you think? {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 17:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::::I think that's a good idea. Would that be separate from the Wiki tip of the month, but in the same SWP? Also, I think that if there are enough Wiki tips, we could expand it to a tip every week, but that depends on how many tips we can come up with. <scratchsig>Groko13</scratchsig> 18:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
{{outdent|7}}I think they would be part of the same SWP, since they are both Tips of the Day. I've created two separate pages: [[User:Bigpuppy/Tip of the Day/Scratch Wiki]] and [[User:Bigpuppy/Tip of the Day/Scratch]]. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 20:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:Do you think we'll be able to find 366 tips for Scratch? While I understand the concern that we won't be able to, I also don't want us to be limited by a lower number. We can take all the time we need to write them. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 21:40, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
I'm currently making tips and already have about 75. Will share when done
 +
<scratchsig>Acebsa</scratchsig> 19:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::::Ok here is the huge list of quite a few tips I made/ found online:
 +
You can use the language extension to make your projects multilingual.
 +
 
 +
To become a SDS curator you need to help around the studio.
 +
 
 +
There are 2 types of paint editors bitmap and vector
 +
 
 +
Use the Scratch Wiki to find helpful info. About many scratch topics.
 +
 
 +
Use turbo mode to make projects run faster.
 +
 
 +
You can use cloud variables to store data on Scratch Servers
 +
 
 +
You can use starter projects to help get started on Scratch!
 +
 
 +
You can join the welcoming committee to welcome new scratchers by making a project on what scratch is about.
 +
 
 +
Use the discussion forums to give suggestions on new Scratch features.
 +
 
 +
Use the report button to let the ST know about inappropriate projects or comments.
 +
 
 +
To delete multiple sprites, Shift+ click with the Scissors tool (it won't revert to the arrow).
 +
 
 +
Find a sprite: To show a sprite that's off the screen or hidden, Shift+click on its thumbnail in the sprite list (bottom right-corner of screen) - this will bring the sprite to the middle and show it.
 +
 
 +
To turn a costume into a separate sprite, right-click (Mac Ctrl+click) and select "turn into a sprite".
 +
 
 +
Drag the blue line on sprite thumbnail (in the middle of the screen) to rotate the sprite.
 +
 
 +
To rotate a sprite from the stage, shift+click on the sprite.
 +
 
 +
Shortcut to get a sprite to "point in direction 90": double-click on sprite thumbnail in the top middle of the screen.
 +
 
 +
To delete multiple sprites, Shift+click with the Scissors (it won't revert to the arrow)
 +
To make multiple copies of a sprite, Shift+click with the Copy tool (it won't revert to the arrow)
 +
Drag to reorder thumbnails in sprite list (bottom right corner of screen)
 +
Drag to reorder costumes in the Costume tab area
 +
To make a sprite that looks like part of the background, Right-click (Mac Ctrl+click) the stage to grab a portion of the image on the stage.
 +
 +
BLOCKS AND SCRIPTS
 +
 +
To copy a stack of blocks from one sprite to another, drag the stack to the thumbnail of the other sprite (at the bottom right corner of the screen).
 +
To clean up the script area, right-click (Mac Ctrl+click) in Scripts area.
 +
Get help for any block: right-click (Mac Ctrl+click) on the block
 +
You can fit some blocks within other blocks. For example, you can put any Number or Sensing blocks with curved edges inside a "switch to costume" block or any block that has a white number or text area.
 +
Want to get the current x-y of a sprite? Click on the Motion category to update the x-y numbers in the glide and go-to blocks in the palette.
 +
 +
PAINT EDITOR
 +
 +
To crop an image, outline it with the Selection tool, then Shift+delete (or Shift+backspace)
 +
To rotate part of a costume, use the selection tool, then click the left or right Rotate button (curved arrows).
 +
To rotate more precisely: Shift+click on the left or right Rotate button. It will let you enter a # of degrees to rotate
 +
Grow or shrink more precisely: Shift+click on the Grow or Shrink button (arrows pointing out or in). It will let you enter a % size for a costume
 +
To stamp multiple times, press Shift while using the Stamp tool.
 +
Press Shift with the Rectangle tool to make a square.
 +
Press Shift with the Oval tool to make a circle.
 +
Press Shift with Line tool to make a straight horizontal or vertical line.
 +
Press Shift key when clicking on a color square to change the other color.
 +
To pick up a color from outside the paint editor, select the Eyedropper tool, click in the Paint editor, then drag while holding down the mouse key.
 +
 +
REPORTERS & VARIABLES
 +
 +
Click a monitor to toggle between options (hide monitor name, show slider)
 +
Check boxes to show monitors on stage
 +
 +
 +
KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS (some of these are repeats with above)
 +
 +
To delete multiple sprites, Shift+ click with the Scissors tool (it won't revert to the arrow).
 +
Check boxes to show monitors on stage
 +
To make multiple copies of a sprite, Shift+click with Copy tool (it won't revert to the arrow).
 +
Ctrl+S to save your project.
 +
 +
OTHER
 +
 +
You can drag multiple images at once into Scratch. They will become costumes within a sprite.
 +
You can drag in an animated gif.
 +
You can drag in images from a web browser, Word, and some other programs (on Windows).
 +
You can drag in a Scratch project from a file folder.
 +
 +
Right click a block for help.
 +
Visit the Scratch wiki for more help.
 +
There's a whole community of Scratchers that have come across a multitude of issues and would also love to help.
 +
To join the community make an account!
 +
 
 +
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)
 +
::Semi-necro-reply, but I think the Tip of the Day for Scratch could be 31 days as well (or even two to three months repeating because there is lots more to know than the wiki) because 365 is a huge number and there might not be enough facts to fill 365 up. {{User:Jammum/Signature}} 08:20, 17 February 2021 (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}}
 +
 
 +
== [[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}}
 +
 
 +
 
 +
== 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.
  
Shortly:
+
I think one way we could implement a system like this would be with two templates: {{t|unresolved}} and {{t|resolved}}.
  
*It's a bad idea because...
+
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.
  
:*It means a lot of disrespectful or other bad messages
+
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]].
  
:*I have some questions about Google Forms security
+
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.
  
:*Also, we'll need a lot code(if we'll use the Wiki for this)
+
;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.
  
:*And,we and Scratch Team have some notes about private messaging
+
;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.
  
:*If we'll try to check all of messages,it'll mean more time and more work
+
;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.
  
:*Anonymous and fake users have a big problem(in Google Forms)
+
;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}}
  
<scratchsig>Ahmetlii</scratchsig> 20:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
+
{{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.
  
::I would generally discourage the use of google forms for this kind of project given that you are seeking input from the entire community. <scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 00:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
+
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)
:::I also disagree with using Google Forms because fake or anonymous users could abuse the feature. However, maybe Special:ComplimentTuesday could be the way to go... <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 02:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
+
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
::::Google Forms are out by multiple Community and Wiki G/guidelines. A special page is the way to go. @Ahmetlii: If we're using a special page, problems solved include:
+
: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>It means a lot of disrespectful or other bad messages</s>
+
::[[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)
:::::Compliments would be reviewed before being shown. Inappropriate messages are vandalism and would be treated as such. {{done|Solved}}
+
:::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)
::::* <s>I have some questions about Google Forms security</s>
+
::::Thank you for your opinion. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::No Google Forms. {{done|Solved}}
+
:::::You're welcome. {{e|:)}} {{User:Ahmetlii/sig}} 20:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
::::* <s>Also, we'll need a lot code(if we'll use the Wiki for this)</s>
+
::::::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)
:::::Not a problem for me, it'll be fun! {{e|:)}} {{done|Solved}}
+
{{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)
::::* <s>And,we and Scratch Team have some notes about private messaging</s>
+
: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>.
:::::Compliments are shown to everyone - only who submitted the compliment is hidden. Not private messaging. {{done|Solved}}
+
: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)
::::* <s>If we'll try to check all of messages,it'll mean more time and more work</s>
+
::Oops, first question has been answered as soon as i posted lol <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
:::::Not very much more, and @jakel181 has been doing a great job on CT so far, I'm sure he wouldn't mind looking through the compliments before he posts them.
+
:::I support this, though there's a conflict of interest since it uses my work as an example :)
::::* <s>Anonymous and fake users have a big problem(in Google Forms)</s>
+
:::To be serious, if it's a float-right box, this is a far better visual indicator of topic resolution status and might even facilitate automatic archiving (not suggesting a bot, just a script run on a user account).
:::::Not with a special page! {{done|Solved}}
+
:::I suggest, however, that the CP and CPND also be excluded from unresolved categorization, since they will always have unresolved topics. I envision this as a tool primarily for use as an alternative to going through [[:Category:Article Stubs]] - another choice of list of tasks to tackle, if you will.
::::I think a special page is definitely the way to go. I believe the following are the only questions to really consider:
+
:::Question: Would undated resolutions make use of [[:Category:Pages with Dateless Templates]]?{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
::::* Do we actually want compliments to be hidden from everyone (except the organizer and the submitter) until they are posted?
 
::::** If so, who do we want to review the compliments so that nothing is inappropriate?
 
::::* Do we actually want to allow anonymous compliments? (Note: This and the previous question are two separate questions - the answer to one does not imply any answer to the other.)
 
::::** If we do want to allow anonymous compliments, we will have to still also allow onymous compliments - people can just include their names in their compliments.
 
::::This concludes my post.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 08:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 
:::::I think we should allow EW/Admins/Bureaucrats see in some fashion. (Maybe not all but a couple)<br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 12:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 
{{outdent|5}}
 
* Do we actually want compliments to be hidden from everyone (except the organizer and the submitter) until they are posted? -Yes, they are. (I don't need it :P)
 
** If so, who do we want to review the compliments so that nothing is inappropriate? -It's named as "be shy" :)
 
* Do we actually want to allow anonymous compliments? (Note: This and the previous question are two separate questions - the answer to one does not imply any answer to the other.)
 
-No, we don't because S:JOIN-if somebody want to send a message, they must join and login to the Wiki.
 
** If we do want to allow anonymous compliments, we will have to still also allow onymous compliments - people can just include their names in their compliments.
 
-They can use Scratch profiles to send a message - it's only a Wiki about Scratch.
 
<scratchsig>Ahmetlii</scratchsig> 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 
:{{not done|No clear resolution}}{{User:NYCDOT/signature}} 22:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 
::Probably this wiki won't need "secret" compliments anymore.<scratchsig>Ahmetlii</scratchsig> 19:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}

Revision as of 20:02, 17 February 2021

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)

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 2,230edit 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 2,230edit 08:13, 21 February 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}} (2,072)) [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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.