< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

m (→‎RfC for Interface admins group: I'm not sure how I did that, I am so sorry)
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1,331: Line 1,331:
 
: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)
 
:2 questions though: Would only {{t|unresolved}} add to a category? And, doesn't adding to a category add the entire page? <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 
::Oops, first question has been answered as soon as i posted lol <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 
::Oops, first question has been answered as soon as i posted lol <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 15:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 +
:::I support this, though there's a conflict of interest since it uses my work as an example :)
 +
:::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).
 +
:::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.
 +
:::Question: Would undated resolutions make use of [[:Category:Pages with Dateless Templates]]?{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 20:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
== RfC for Interface admins group ==
 
 
With the recent update to MediaWiki 1.35, a new group has been created: [[Special:ListGroupRights#interface-admin]]. Currently, nobody has this group-- however this is the only group that is able to edit pages like [[MediaWiki:Common.js]]. While we have policies for how to request Experienced Wikian (through annual elections) and sysop (through requests on Community portal); there is no policy as to how to request Interface admin as it is a new group to Scratch Wiki. There are several possible ideas for how users might request this group.
 
 
Below there are three proposals. Keep in mind that these are not necessarily contradictory, multiple or all of them could coexist. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 
{{collapse top|title=Discussion}}
 
=== Proposal 1: Allow interface admin to be requested permanently through the community portal ===
 
 
==== Support ====
 
 
==== Oppose ====
 
: I think the group is too specific for this to be useful-- I also think granting permanent access puts importance and does not allow specific tasks to be vetted as they should be. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 
:Oppose, as Naleksuh stated. <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 04:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 
::As per TenType and Naleksuh. {{User:Filmlover12/Signature}} 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 
 
==== Comments ====
 
 
=== Proposal 2: Allow interface admin to be requested temporarily (for a specific purpose) through [[../Admin Requests]] ===
 
 
==== Support ====
 
: Allows users to edit the interface as needed. Seems like the best path for requesting and allows specific tasks as well as not granting permanent access as needed. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 
: As per Naleksuh. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:Support, but admin will probably only allow certain pages and they can only get certain permissions. <br/>{{User:12944qwerty/Templates/Sig}} 22:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 
 
==== Oppose ====
 
: "Hey can I have permissions to edit common.js? I want to [do something innocent]. - User1" "Sure, I'll grant you perms. - Admin1" "Thanks! - User1" ''User1 then proceeds to add a script that steals passwords. Admin1 quickly undos and bans User1, but the damage has been done. User1 can now login as User2 and User3.'' The exploitation possibility is too large here. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 
:: True, but this could also easily happen through permanent requests on the community portal. I see you chose not to vote on proposal 1 at all, neither support nor oppose. Is that mistake or intentional? <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 21:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 
:::Intentional, I would've just been repeating your message. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 02:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:::Naleksuh, saying one of the other proposals would do the same thing isn't really an argument against VFDan's point (I'm not sure if your intention was to argue against the point, though); because of this, I am interested to know if you do have an argument against it? {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:I agree with VFDan's statement, and I also think that the ambiguity in this proposal is a very big issue that needs to be addressed. Who would be able to request the permissions? Anyone? [[Scratch Wiki:Wikians|Wikians]]? Users who have been here for 30 days? You might argue that this could be decided afterwards if this proposal is chosen, but that doesn't really make sense to me. Who can request permissions is a very important thing to consider about this proposal ''before'' it is chosen, simply because of the sheer trust someone with this usergroup needs to receive from the community. Even if you argue that, for example, time on the wiki is not an effective measure of trustworthiness and/or experience (which is certainly a valid argument to make), there are other issues with ambiguities in this proposal. If anyone can request the permissions, how will "trustworthiness" by measured? For example, say it is a simple vote by the community. How many votes in support of granting the user the permissions will be required to actually grant the user the permissions? Even disregarding all of the ambiguities I've mentioned so far, I'm not sure really think this is a good idea under any circumstances (unless something was put in place where only bureaucrats{{-}}for example{{-}}would be able to request the permissions). The reason this discussion is happening in the first place is because the permissions granted by the <code>interface-admin</code> usergroup can be used dangerously and maliciously. Instead of taking a shot in the dark and giving users who haven't been trusted with many other permissions a usergroup that can be used dangerously{{-}}even temporarily{{-}}why don't we grant the permissions to users that are already trusted by the community (for example, bureaucrats with server access)? I really don't see many pros that outweigh the cons of granting any users this permission if they find a use for it and a haphazard look at the user by the community determines that the user is "trustworthy." <u>I want to make it very clear that this is ''not'' to say that I don't trust users who aren't EWs, admins, bureaucrats, etc. (I trust very many users who do not have these usergroups!), but rather to say that I don't really see a point in granting the usergroup (again, even temporarily) to users that haven't already been trusted with other permissions by the community when there are readily available users who ''are'' trusted with other permissions by the community.</u> Please keep in mind I do not mean to offend anyone with this comment; I just disagree with this proposal. If you have any questions about my statements above, please feel free to ask. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:: I do not think any groups would be required to request it. However, as a guideline, I would say that anyone who was not a [[Project:Wikians]] would be unlikely to get it, as it would be difficult to level trust to someone that new. However, I think that people put too much comparison to groups and trust. I would not tie usergroups and trust together here, and would not require Experienced Wikian or administrator. I do not like the implication that anyone who does not have Experienced Wikian is clearly untrustworthy. I would say trust is not something that can be measured or defined, but is done on a user-by-user basis. The three things I think about when granting usergroups are trust, need, and experience. I think it very much works here. Trust is certainly an issue, but I think that most people on Scratch Wiki ''only'' think about trust. The other two parts, need and experience, also apply. Need is actually much ''more'' easy to do with a temporary group. As one explains what the purpose of it is for, then it is granted for that one purposes then expires once it is done. Experience is also another thing that is commonly considered. If I was a crat, I would be likely to decline the group to anyone who I thought did not have experience with JavaScript/or the type of person who uses weak passwords/no antivirus/etc or something that is likely to get their account compromised. So I think the entirety of this "how would you define who is trustworthy" is kind of a question that it isn't really possible to answer, but trustworthiness can be found for users individually. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 04:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:::* ''"I do not think any groups would be required to request it. However, as a guideline, I would say that anyone who was not a [[Project:Wikians]] would be unlikely to get it, as it would be difficult to level trust to someone that new."''
 
:::** Thanks for clarifying.
 
:::* ''"However, I think that people put too much comparison to groups and trust. I would not tie usergroups and trust together here, and would not require Experienced Wikian or administrator. I do not like the implication that anyone who does not have Experienced Wikian is clearly untrustworthy."''
 
:::** When did I imply this? I think I made it very clear in my post that my point was not that I don't trust people who aren't Experienced Wikians, admins, bureaucrats, etc., but rather that those people are ''already'' trusted with extra permissions by the community and thus it is less of a risk to grant them the usergroup than others who are simply given a haphazard review by the community. EWs go through a whole election process, and you are suggesting that ''anyone'' would be able to easily get this usergroup if they are seen as trusted by the community. By comparison, EWs have proven that they are trustworthy by having access to permissions such as <code>delete</code>, and using them responsibly. I think that you and I both know that there are very many other users in the community who could be trusted with <code>delete</code>, and yet we don't grant them Experienced Wikian, right? Right, because there's not a need. In this case, there is not a need for users who have not been trusted with any extra permissions by the community to be granted this usergroup when there are users readily available who are already trusted with many dangerous permissions. By the way, I am not necessarily saying that I would support EWs, admins, or even bureaucrats without server access having this usergroup; I'm just trying to use those usergroups as a starting point to explain my opinion.
 
:::* ''"I would say trust is not something that can be measured or defined, but is done on a user-by-user basis."''
 
:::** Yes. However, some users have been trusted with more dangerous rights than other users, and those users have proven that they can use these rights responsibly. This needs to be taken into account; it can't just be ignored.
 
:::* ''"The three things I think about when granting usergroups are trust, need, and experience. I think it very much works here."''
 
:::** Well, yes, those things are good to take into account.
 
:::* ''"Trust is certainly an issue, but I think that most people on Scratch Wiki ''only'' think about trust. The other two parts, need and experience, also apply. Need is actually much ''more'' easy to do with a temporary group. As one explains what the purpose of it is for, then it is granted for that one purposes then expires once it is done."''
 
:::** While I definitely see your point here, I think I should refer to my comment in the "Support" section of Proposal 3 here: "If we don't trust users with server access to only make controversial/major changes after there is consensus, then I feel we have a much larger problem on our hands. {{e|:)}}" The point is that Proposal 3 can still go hand-in-hand with consensus; users with server access{{-}}who are already extremely trusted by the community{{-}}can get consensus from the community before making a major or controversial change. If the community sees a user making major changes without first getting consensus, then perhaps the community should revoke their privileges.
 
:::* ''"Experience is also another thing that is commonly considered. If I was a crat, I would be likely to decline the group to anyone who I thought did not have experience with JavaScript/or the type of person who uses weak passwords/no antivirus/etc or something that is likely to get their account compromised."''
 
:::** (I think you meant "''not'' commonly considered" here? Unless I am misunderstanding you?) Anyhow, the fact is, we already ''have'' users who have this experience and are bureaucrats with server access.
 
:::* ''"So I think the entirety of this "how would you define who is trustworthy" is kind of a question that it isn't really possible to answer, but trustworthiness can be found for users individually."''
 
:::** Going off of my previous statement, we have users who have already individually proved themselves as trustworthy over ''years'' (for example, jvvg and Ken). Therefore, if those users are willing to take the responsibility for the usergroup (I'm not saying they are or aren't, I'm just using them as an example), why would we take a proverbial "shot in the dark" with someone who the community hasn't yet determined over a long period of time is trustworthy (even if they ''are'' trustworthy)?
 
:::I'm going to re-post this statement from my earlier comment, since I really want to emphasize it: <u>"I want to make it very clear that this is ''not'' to say that I don't trust users who aren't EWs, admins, bureaucrats, etc. (I trust very many users who do not have these usergroups!), but rather to say that I don't really see a point in granting the usergroup (again, even temporarily) to users that haven't already been trusted with other permissions by the community when there are readily available users who ''are'' trusted with other permissions by the community."</u>
 
:::Again, I do ''not'' mean to offend anyone with my statements. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
::::Furthermore, why would we want to make sure a user is trustworthy and experienced ''as well as'' making sure that the changes are necessary many of the times when someone proposes changes, when we would just have to do one of those things with Proposal 4 (make sure the changes are necessary)? Just something to keep in mind. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
 
==== Comments ====
 
 
=== Proposal 3: Allow interface admin to be non-controversially granted to any user with server access ===
 
 
==== Support ====
 
: This is exactly how it used to be, and anybody with server access is trusted, and they usually won't make changes without the community's approval; they should still ask for feedback, but they should have the right. {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 
:My statements in the "Oppose" section of Proposal 2 apply here. If we don't trust users with server access to only make controversial/major changes after there is consensus, then I feel we have a much larger problem on our hands. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:: My point here was that the request for the group also serves as a chance to discuss the proposed edits, which is why I wanted them to request it through there. Jvvg had raised a point on Discord about that sometimes urgent changes must be made that don't have time for consensus, but I was not really satisfied with the examples given and did not think it was worth it. I could see a server user granting to themself for example to perform a change that must be done for legal reasons, or to revert vandalism to such a page. But because the request process also serves as a way to discuss the edits, I do not think they should have the group 24/7. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 04:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:::We already trust users with server access with, well, server access; so why should we not trust that they will get consensus from the community before making a major change? Consensus doesn't have to come through a usergroup request system. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 05:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
::::There are some times that changes need to be made with little or no notice. For example, when setting up a new extension (a recent example that comes to mind is that due to a small glitch in setting up the new account request system, some messages on the account request page did not render properly, so we had to update the messages immediately). Having to go through community approval usually takes days, which in most cases is ok, but ''requiring'' it to be able to make any change at all adds unnecessary burden when sometimes quick action is needed. Thus I think keeping the permission available to server admins while having a policy be that non-urgent changes should be community approved would be best, but making it so we do not have the technical ability to make urgent changes could actually cause problems.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 17:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 
::::: This seems reasonable, however in the past granting a permission to a specific group leads to that group interpreting it as "go and do whatever you want with it". I think it does make sense for server users to grant interface admin to themselves for solely technical maintenance or time-sensitive tasks, but not for anything that requires discussion. Sounds okay. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 18:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 
==== Oppose ====
 
: This was initially proposed because users with server access have the ability to escalate their own permissions to begin with-- but I would still prefer they request it through the traditional method as the community should still at least be given a chance to weigh in on the attempted edits. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 03:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 
: Oppose. What if in the rare case that someone with server access ruins the wiki with the admin privilege? Additionally, as per Naleksuh. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 
::Someone with server access can delete every single file on the wiki anyway... {{User:VFDan/Sig}} 00:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
 
==== Comments ====
 
 
=== Proposal 4 (by apple): Get rid of that group, and grant the permissions to bureaucrats ===
 
This is similar to Proposal 3 except we remove the interface admin entirely. Bureaucrats are trusted enough to edit Common.js; no need for a new group. This is basically the same as 1.28 system.
 
 
We can (probably) also grant this to admins - they are trusted members chosen by bureaucrats. {{User:Apple502j/siggy}} 10:48, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 
 
==== Support ====
 
Support, no need to have a new usergroup. What we had in 1.28 worked just fine.<scratchsig>Jakel181</scratchsig> 12:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 
==== Oppose ====
 
* Oppose. It did not "work just fine", admin is too low a barrier to be editing JavaScript pages and the group was added for a reason. In addition, removing the group seems like another attempt to turn Scratch Wiki into a hierarchy which I will certainly oppose. The group was created for a reason, security reasons, and removing it would be a net negative for the same reason there is consensus to not remove CheckUser and Suppressor groups. If you think that all users with server access should be able to edit the interface, I'd say support proposal 3. But not remove the group. <scratchsig>Naleksuh</scratchsig> 19:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 
As per Naleksuh. <br />{{User:Garnetluvcookie/Sig}} 20:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 
:Same as the above ^^ <scratchsig>TenType</scratchsig> 04:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 
 
==== Comments ====
 
 
=== General Comments ===
 
:From Naleksuh's original post: ''"While we have policies for how to request Experienced Wikian (through annual elections) and sysop (through requests on Community portal); ..."'' {{-}} I am surprised no one has pointed out that this is not how we choose Experienced Wikians and admins. EW elections are ''not'' annual; the current EWs and admins start one when they feel a new one is needed. Admins are not always elected through the Community Portal; for example, [[Special:UserRights/Makethebrainhappy|makethebrainhappy was appointed (not elected) during an EW election]]. I think the reason my case when being granted admin (for instance) was different was because there was no EW election happening at the time. I just wanted to clarify this, since when a controversial discussion is happening, we should at least make sure that objective statements are correct. {{e|:)}}<br/>{{User:Bigpuppy/Real Signature}} 04:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 
::I am going to provide my two cents here and indicate that I don't think this is really a good use of our time. The interface changes pretty infrequently, and we currently do have a system in place that only trusted users (bureaucrats, who have all been active for a very long time with a good track record) can edit interface text, and if an interface change is requested by any non-bureaucrat, they can contact a bureaucrat. Ken and I are around often enough that a change should be handled within a day. If the situation changes and at some point we do need a lot of interface edits, we can revisit the situation.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 18:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 
{{collapse bottom}}
 
:::This whole idea is mistaken. We've never had a process to "request" any usergroups - adminship has never been granted by explicit request (jvvg's exceptional case was that scmb1 saw a need and filled it), and EW is by election, which is not the same thing as by request. Admins and bureaucrats have always been appointed.
 
:::There's been talk of [[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 100#Removing the "EW" usergroup|removing the EW usergroup]], and while that was eventually [[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 101#Let's change EW stuff moar|rejected]], it still baffles me that you would propose ''adding'' a usergroup (or giving it purpose, anyway) in light of proposals to remove them.
 
:::The permissions of admins and bureaucrats are a strict superset of those of interface admins. For that reason I would originally have gone with Proposal 4 (removing the group entirely). However removing software default usergroups makes me uncomfortable, and there could be a future-proofing argument to be made. For that reason I suppose it can stay, just empty.
 
:::Addendum:
 
:::* Proposal 1 is unacceptable because we do not grant usergroups by request.
 
:::* Proposal 2 is unacceptable because either it bypasses the amount of trust we require of people with interface access, or the amount of trust building it would require would be better spent on becoming EW and admin.
 
:::* Proposal 3 is redundant because giving the group to those with server access grants no new permissions to them.
 
:::* Proposal 4 is not worth it because removing builtin usergroups is dodgy and the situation may change in the future.
 
:::In conclusion, I'm unilaterally stating here that all proposals in this topic are '''rejected'''. Therefore this topic is now marked {{done}}.{{User:Kenny2scratch/sig}} 19:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 

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}} (2,075)) [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.