< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Revision as of 18:22, 29 September 2019 by Jakel181 (talk | contribs) (Profile Safety)


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
Unfinished discussions


If a topic on the 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.

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

No Not done


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:


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

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

First Successes

It's great that so many experienced scratch-wiki-members will help us with international wiki and we had the first success within a few days:

If you want to have a impression of the international scratch community, have a look at this videos of the Scratch2015AMS-Conference. You will also find a (horrible ;-) video of user:LiFaytheGoblin and me there, where we try to introduce our international scratch wiki idea. You will also find many other People at the multiple short videos, that you perhaps could know, like Joren Lauwers user:JSO, Tim, Connor & Michael, Jens Mönig & John Malloney that gave a first look at their logical successor of BYOB & Snap! called GP, Ricarose & Eric from the Scratch-Video-Update, Eric Rosenbaum, Mitch Resnick and so on... best is the whole international scratch community singing the Scratch song :-) de:Scratch2015AMS was real great!

MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 22:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Seriously this is even better than everything is expected! I noticed we have the authentication system now (THANKS A TON, jvvg) but wow so much happening in the other wikis as well! This is great!!! Thanks everyone, I can't wait to see what the next weeks will bring :D - LiFaytheGoblin Avatar.png LiFaytheGoblin (Talk) 10:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Test-Scratch-Wiki is online!

Like explained in "#New Idea for the future of international Scratch-Wiki or even more" we started http://TEST.scratch-wiki.info/ that will have much lower restriction for new wiki-authors and that will be a kind of "really big sandbox", where everybody who wants can start a scratch-wiki of his own language to prove if he is able. We will help and coach to make a start, but only if we see success there (>50 articles + homepage), we will start a real wiki for this language. There is still much work to do, because until now this wiki is completely empty. We should write/copy help-text and templates there. user:jvvg, de:LiFaytheGoblin and de:mtwoll are admins there and I hope that user:jvvg will manage to create an automatic account creation system that fits to the targets of this test-scratch-wiki.

@user:jvvg: Please write here when it works and how to use it, so that everybody who wants to help can join.

We need your ideas an help to make this happen! Find most important international links at de:Scratch-Wiki:Watch. Please comment here, what you will do to help. Thank you in advance!
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to know! What do you recommend we do with this forum topic ?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The test-wiki is not ready for start now, but after it is ready, we should inform all participants of this this forum topic how they immediately can get authors in the test-wiki and how they can make a start for the first 50 pages and the community of a scratch-wiki in their own language there. I suggest you prepare the invitation and explanation text in a sandbox (you could take the text above and shorten it as a start), so that we all can take part in creating this text. We should not inform the participants of that thread to early, because we still need some time for preparation. I think it will decrease success if we start inviting new authors without having everything ready.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 01:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Not Done!

MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 11:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I already joined. :P
AghaCool (talk | contribs) 15:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, that's great! Hope many other will join us. I already wrote at your user-DISC, see: http://test.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/User_talk:AghaCool :-)
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 15:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yep! I told fmtfmtfmt2 to join and his account was accepted.:)
AghaCool (talk | contribs) 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I would like to apply! I have great interested in helping other language communitites :)
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 12:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
To join see: https://test.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Test-Scratch-Wiki:Become_a_contributor
Mtwoll logo.jpg MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:38, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I am already a contributor, I was just wondering how I could get admin rights?
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 07:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To become admin, you have to have considerable technical knowledge and ideally know at least one non-real wiki language. As a contributor, you can already help plenty.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I am waiting from a reply from Martin
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm entitled to speak for him, as he has his own company to run and following the upcoming transfer he will be even less active on the non-German wikis. I don't see why you need admin rights when you don't speak any of the languages currently available on the Test wiki nor do you speak any language not available on any wiki. Additionally, you are not multicultural enough to understand how to interact with people whose native languages are far different from your own. Though you definitely have leadership skill, it only applies to leading people who speak a language you speak.
In fact, I'm not sure why you should be on the Test wiki in the first place, seeing as you made exactly one edit over 2 months ago (which is your complete editcount) and haven't been seen since. Once you have encountered multiple cultures, and been far more active on at least one wiki and/or gained far more considerable technical skill, then we can start talking about potential administrative rights.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
11:34, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I asked you to teach me some technical skills, but you have not come back to me with an answer
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 12:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Ken is busy, and you need to learn some by yourself. You have Russian wiki - where you should start.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 12:40, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that too. You are already an administrator on the Russian wiki. You should spend most of your time there. Even though I have admin privileges on all wikis, I only use them with any frequency on the English and Test wikis, the wikis I am most comfortable in. I use them on other wikis only on request. Since you don't have such privileges on other wikis, and therefore can't deal with requests there, I recommend you instead focus completely on the Russian wiki, maybe with some English wiki work on the side.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
12:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The Russian Wiki is inactive
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 14:19, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
@Asqwde If the Russian wiki is inactive, then do something about it! Don't let it stay inactive, you are an admin there, you can recut people, you can edit there! If you are active in the Russian language community, then you can easily meet people who can help edit the wiki. I see you already made a post in the Russian forums and thats great! You should also make a post in the request forum, to artact more attention to the wiki because that forum is more active than the Russian forums. Another tip is to also practice the language so your lingo seems natural to a native Russian speaker. I know these tricks work because I use these when I was looking for translators for the SDS, I currently am also teaching my self Spanish to help connect with the Spanish speaking community and improving my German to better connect to the German community.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 19:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I just sent an application for the Spanish Test Wiki.

Scratch-CodingProfilePic.png Scratch-Coding (Talk |Scratch |(391 edits) 23:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

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)

Hmm.. Does the CP needs interwiki(s)? Because I didn't see any interwiki in this CP.
Really_A (talk | contribs) 23:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Interwiki at cp only means that the cp's of all Scratch-Wikis would have a language-link box, so you could switch between them fast and find them without knowing the language (like Interwiki in any article). Surely it only helps you if you have a lttle knowledge of the other language, or if they use english for some threads (what we often do in DACH because we have some non-german-speaking authors that help us). If you put [[:de|Scratch-Wiki:Gemeinschafts-Portal]] in the cp here (that should create the Interwiki-Link to Scratch-Wiki:Gemeinschafts-Portal) it has not that effect like in an article, because cp is somehow special configurated.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 11:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see. Anyway, I have a question; should I add an interwikis to the Indo wiki?
Really_A (talk | contribs) 14:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
id: already has Interwiki, as you can see in multiple articles that have a language-link in the language-Box to other Scratch-Wikis (like the Homepage). See Scratch_Wiki:Interwiki for explanation of Interwiki. But you can look for possibly missing Interwiki-Links.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 16:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I see. But the indo's CP still doesn't has any interwiki.
Really_A (talk | contribs) 09:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Interwiki seems only to be possible at certain group of pages. Surely I could setup it somewhere in the config of the international scratch-wikis (because I'm admin+bureaucrat+sysop ), but I don't know where to do it. At de: there seems to be a configuration difference (possibly an error :-) that allows you to interwiki-connect de:Scratch-Wiki:Gemeinschafts-Portal. Does somebody know how to set up wiki-config, so interwiki-connection works for every cp? As I'm no admin+bureaucrat+sysop of this English wiki, I couldn't do it here, even if I knew how ;-)
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 11:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The problem I assume is true is that the community portal is actually a talk page.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not Done

This Thread is No Not done! Because I think we should find a way to Interwiki-connect the community portals of all international Scratch-Wikis here:*

MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 12:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I am currently looking into this problem. It seems to be stemming from the fact that our CP is a talk page, but the DACH/Indo CP are not.
This problem is even present on the DACH wiki. See my talk page: [:de:Benutzer_Diskussion:ErnieParke]
Do you mind if I do a quick interwiki test on the Test wiki?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 15:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, do that test, that's a good idea!
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 15:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The only other way is to change the cp into mainspace, which is not feasible.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I tried looking up some information but it is proving to be hard to understand. For now, I will try translating a DACH article (if there are any not translated yet).
ErnieParke (talk | contribs)
Thank you very much for trying, I also try to learn more about mediawiki-namespaces and their different effects, perhaps we find a solution in the future. Until than this thread will stay have the state No Not done
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 07:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────it's not possible to put interwiki on a talk.--
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 12:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Because the CP is a talk page, direct interwiki is impossible. Interwiki links must go on the mainspace page: Scratch Wiki:Community Portal. We may end up simply redirecting the mainspace page to the talk page, if it becomes that important, but that would also mean that we can't interwiki-link to other wikis.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
11:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I have created a template that mimics the interwiki box! It is currently in my user page, but I would like to move it to the template main space. Here is the link if you want to try it out: User:Jakel181/Templates/InterwikiTalk :)
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 01:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
You found a very interesting solution to this problem. Thank you! That is realy a way to solve this issue I didn't thought about. But I'm not sure if this will always show the box at the right position: At least at my mobile it displays the box in the midle of the article.
Mtwoll logo.jpg MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, Jake, unfortunately a template won't cut it because the sidebar is hidden on mobile, whereas your thing is always shown. Ideally we would use an extension to show interwikis on the talk side of mainspace pages, but I don't know if even that is possible.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:29, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
What about JSes?
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 10:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I just made a JavaScript file that adds a fake interwiki box on talk pages for pages with interwikis: User:Kenny2scratch/interwiki.js. If you want to test this for yourself, create Special:MyPage/scratchwikiskin2.js with the content mw.loader.load('https://en.scratch-wiki.info/w/index.php?action=raw&title=User:Kenny2scratch/interwiki.js&ctype=text/javascript'); (or add it to the bottom of your scratchwikiskin2.js page if you have already created it); whether you test it or not, though, please read the code - if you think it looks good I will add it to MediaWiki:Scratchwikiskin2.js.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
14:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I think it looks really good! Though for me it only shows the german wiki in the cp (since I have a DACH account), and it would be helpfull if it shows every cp. But I am in supoort of adding it!
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 01:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It only shows German for me as well, because only the German wiki is interwiki-linked on the main side of the CP! I've now added interwikis to all the other language wikis that have community portals. It should show those when you visit the CP.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:18, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Full support in adding it now, though I have 2 Questions: What about vector skin? Will this show for logged out users?
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 12:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1st: it will break on vector. 2nd: it also works for anonymous/logged-out users.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 12:58, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
1: I should have re-phrased the question, Should we make a vector option, or will the vector skin not have an interwiki? 2: Good :)
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 13:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we don't need to worry about vector, those who really want interwikis on vector talk pages can write their own script.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it looks nice, but should we also add the test scratch wiki CP?
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  22:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I would say yes (and I would add it right now too), but the test wiki has multiple CPs in it so, I'm not sure if only the main (English) one should be added or all of them.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 23:10, 18 February 2019 (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)

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.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I definitely take your point. As long as we only embed one low-asset project per page though, it's impact on loading times would be more limited.
One article I thought could benefit is Pen Art Examples. For example, this project could be used to let readers see how it is rendered, in addition to the existing pictures. Readers could also then click the link and see inside to learn more.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
We could just make a gif of the pen being rendered.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 17:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a(n) (possibly better) idea. If we could enable video files to be uploaded, then we could make screen recordings of example projects and have those recordings directly in articles. Thoughts?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If I'm correct, mp4's were suggested before and accepted, but support was not added to the wiki.
This time around, when I re-suggest mp4's, how about we compile a list of what pages would benefit from it? Having examples is good motivation.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure! I think over 3/4 of all How To pages and tutorials would benefit from this :P
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Support! It would be like the YouTube videos on the Minecraft Gamepedia Wiki!
Forested (talk | contribs) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This wouldn't take up almost any ram at all if we just use iframes to the main scratch website. :/
TheUltimatum (talk | contribs) 19:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I made an extension which allows <scratch project=""> tag. (github) Code is reviewed by user:kenny2scratch. This can only embed Scratch projects, and you don't have to upload big files - like mp4. Big files are laggy.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 03:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeahhh, but I don't think certain articles would benefit. Take platformer. A video won't show the controls, and how you make it. I think embedded video tutorials would be the best in this case.
Knitt (talk | contribs) 02:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe a button that when clicked, creates an iframe linking to the scratch project. If there is not a way to do it directly, we could possibly use a third-party website such as Sulfurous.
Logabe (talk | contribs) 15:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This is a good idea, +1 support! The main problems are that a. it would slow the wiki and b. we can't monitor the changes made to every project very well. What if the creator of the project decided to change it to something else, or remove a feature we've pointed out? And then, would we show the notes and credits or instructions? If so, people could notice their project displays on the wiki and advertise there. We couldn't put the notes and credits and/or instructions in that case. Finally, we can't fully trust anybody over the internet (or anywhere, for that matter), so if we put a project on here and, once again, they notice, they could advertise within the project. We'd need to find a way around this. Maybe we could do something where we save the project in its current form, use that, and recreate notes and credits/instructions?
EIephant Lover logo.png EIephant_Lover  Talk  Contributions  Subpages 
18:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, if we didn't do the saving in its current form thing, we would have to put a report button by the project, right?
EIephant Lover logo.png EIephant_Lover  Talk  Contributions  Subpages 
18:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I think we'd just have to only embed projects that are guaranteed not to change - ideally, either by or remixed by a Wikian. Displaying projects uploaded to the Wiki is very difficult to accomplish.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:41, 23 February 2019 (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)

Turkey3 at it again with the great writing! I intend to move some things (leaving redirects, ofc) once I have time.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
23:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I think that this is a very important topic. It's important to get this right, or, like you say, things could get more messy and complicated.
So, here are my views:
I agree that past tense should be used when something is no longer accessible, it's odd to say 'you can' if you can't anymore. Similarly, I support using present tense on still accessible but outdated features because you still 'can'.
I don't think we should make 1.4 versions of articles for blocks that are unchanged on both versions. Examples are only examples, so I don't believe it's worth duplicating a page for them. That being said, it should be good practice to make examples as 1.4/2.0-friendly as possible.
I also agree with making a 'if () (block) (1.4)' article as the change between versions could be a cause for confusion, and this article could help clear up that confusion.
I believe that the version number used on an article on an outdated feature should be the last version it was available in, making it clear that it is no longer used.
Furthermore, a feature on the current version should have no version number in my opinion, as this causes lots of moving when Scratch updates and also makes it appear to be historic, as the version number looks like it's denoting a secondary, or outdated version of something.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
So with that said do you believe the title should be "Java Player" or "Java Player (1.4)"?
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 19:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I support Java Player (1.4) and Stop All (block) (1.4) and at this moment I also support Flash Player and Stop () (block). However, when Scratch 3.0 comes, I believe that Flash Player should become Flash Player (2.0) and there should be a new article titled HTML5 Player.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I changed the article about Project Downloading (1.4) to past tense as you can no longer do it.
Blessing06 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
If this is still going on, I started to move it to 1.4, 2.0, etc.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 15:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Ok-here are my thoughts.
Any article that is about a feature available in all three versions (like the forums) should be one large article with different sections for 1.x, 2.0, and 3.0. An example name for an article like that would be "Scratch Discussion Forums."
Any article that is about a feature not available in the current version (like a Friend), it should have it's own page. An example name for an article like that would be "Friend." It would not be "Friend (1.4)" because there really is not a point; people don't need to know what an obsolete feature is right away.
Any article that is about a feature that is available in all three versions but went by different names (like Gallery -> Studios), it should be named what it is currently called (studios) and have a section documenting all versions. A redirect would be set up called "Gallery" for (if I'm being blunt) oldie users, and to document past versions for others.
Any article about a feature that isn't currently available but has the "main idea" still being used (like Scratch 3.0 Beta (forum)), there would be a separate article going by its feature's name, with a (xx) documenting what version it was used in. There would also be a link on the "main idea" wiki page going to that page.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 20:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
So, current admins, what do you think?
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 13:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Let's get all our ideas out before we start judging them; here's my proposed rules:

  • If the page is about a feature that has remained unchanged throughout all versions of Scratch, there should be a single article about it under its normal title.
  • If the page is about a feature that has changed between versions of Scratch:
    • If the changes were rather major/need a lot of documentation, have separate "title (version)" articles for each version it was changed in. The latest version should omit the "(version)" but the title including the version should redirect to it.
    • If the changes were rather minor/only need mentioning, include information about each past version in its own section and have separate "title (version)" redirects to their respective sections for each version it was changed in.
  • Previous rules apply to features added in later versions of Scratch than 1.4.
  • If the name of the feature changed between versions:
    • If the feature itself did not change, the old names (with and without a parenthesized version) should all redirect to the single article about the feature, which should mention the old names somewhere.
    • If the feature itself also changed:
      • If the changes were major (e.g. Friend -> Follower), the old and the new version of the feature should really be treated as completely separate features. The old name should be used for the old article, and the new name for the new article, neither of which should have parenthesized version numbers, but both of which should have corresponding redirects with said version numbers.
      • If the changes were minor, include a section in the new article about the old version, and the old name (with and without a parenthesized version number) should redirect to that section.
  • The same rules apply to future versions as do to past.
  • If the page is about a feature that was removed in a past or current version, all previous rules apply but as if the most recent version in which it was still present was the current version. (Id est, if following was removed entirely in 3.0, the page "Follower" would document the 2.0 version, and "Friend" would document 1.4.) The {{obsolete feature}} template should be added to the most recent version.
  • If the page is about the current version of a feature, it should be in present tense.
  • If the page is about an old version, it should be in 'past tense. (Even if there is no subsequent version, this holds. Snapshots of the past do no good.)
  • If the page is about an upcoming version, it should be in future tense, but should be updated to present when the upcoming version becomes current.
  • If the page is about the current version which is to be removed in the future, it should remain in present tense but be updated to past when the upcoming version becomes current.

Those are my thoughts; anyone else have ideas?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 19:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
TenType (talk | contribs) 22:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

custom signatures

No Not done

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

another suggestion: we could also propose to scrap that rule so if you're up for it you may start a discussion.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
That is what I had said in my post here.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 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.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 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. :P
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 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.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Then maybe it might be best to keep it as a rule.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I found the section with the new rules here. Not sure if that was it. Was it it?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 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)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Is the font on mine clear enough? Just wondering...
Vuton Logo.png -Vuton- (Talk 💬 | Contribs 💾 | Pages 📚) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@KrIsMa: I would support enforcing the rule of no borders no backgrouds (nbnb).
@Vuton: Yours is fine. If anything, I would have to change mine.
Content from older discussion (linked above):

Note 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 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 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.)
  • 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 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?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 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.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 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.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 20:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

If someone could fix the extra div tag, that would be great.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 21:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
You didn't even use {{collapse bottom}}... However, the extra div is something I've tried to fix and failed - no fix for that.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── 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.

also "Kenny2Scratche" is the worst spelling of my name I've seen in a long time...
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to bring up the issue with borders and background colors used for custom signatures again.
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.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 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.
Hellounicorns2’s current logo.png нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlкcσηтяιвsρяσғιlε) 09:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Note Note: I edited this post because {{collapse top}} and bottom are complete broken here. I'll try to fix it later, but it's just weird
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
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.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 21:49, 26 April 2019 (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. Category:Pen Blocks to Category:Pen Extension
  3. Change {{block}} for 3.0 blocks (it's larger than 2.0!)
  4. Music Extension, LEGO WeDo Extension categorize and put a new template
  5. remove {{unreleased}}
  6. if there's XX (1.4) and XX, XX moves to XX (2.0), and XX (3.0) moves XX
  7. TOC remake
  8. Tutorials remake
  9. Upload blocks' images
  10. Remake scratchblocks
  11. put {{Obsolete feature}}

(everybody can edit this list, with Siggy!)

Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 04:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The ScratchBlocks plugin might need a style update.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
14:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm making for it. 
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 10:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
...that repo is (effectively) empty? Also the current ScratchBlocks version is 3 - if we rewrite it the new version will be 4.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
i don't know how to use source from other repo..
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 22:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
The ScratchBlocks extension is fairly complicated. I think we would have to rely on Blob8108 to update it, if he feels like it. If you want, you can ping him on his Scratch profile to let him know he needs to get cracking on updating ScratchBlocks.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
10:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── +1 Kenny2Scratch, I second.
S-zhangcha (talk | contribs) 02:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I am currently working with blob8108 on updating scratchblocks to fit the new format. The sourcecode is up at github.com/s3blocks. I need to get some work done to allow you to use it with the wiki.
NitroCipher.png NitroCipher (talk | contribs | edits | account) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
For articles that are needing updates: Can I put {{update}}?
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 13:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Change Links
For 2.0 articles that use scratch blocks would they all change to 3.0 blocks? If so that would be confusing. Also are the current 2.0 articles that are being replaced by 3.0 articles, being deleted or are they going to be saved and just add "(2.0)" or something similar to the title?
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 22:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
You said "6. if there's XX (1.4) and XX, XX moves to XX (2.0), and XX (3.0) moves XX". What does that even mean?
EIephant Lover logo.png EIephant_Lover  Talk  Contributions  Subpages 
21:49, 6 March 2019 (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 2,154edit 08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I don‘t like that idea, even if I am the one that would have to bare the struggle, if we would really get legal problems. Until now in the DACH wiki we acted according to the saying „without complaint, there is no redress“... but you are right, that we must take the matter more serios. I‘m even considering moving our sever somewhere, where we have less legal problems...
Mtwoll logo.jpg MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:20, 21 February 2018 (CET)
I think that legally, the images are not illegal until the owner of the game or whatever claims the images as their own - that is, until someone says "you cannot use this image, it contains my project in it" then that image is not illegal.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
11:00, 21 February 2018 (CET)
Are they copyrighted?
Dilek10 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 22 February 2018 (CET)
Just move the server to a different place!
PPL Icon.gif ♥PrincessPandaLover Talk | Contributions | Scratch Account 02:29, 22 February 2018 (CET)
@PrincessPandaLover: That's not "as" easy: It needs trust (in the new place, e.G. the new host should not sometimes "pull our plug"), knowledege of and trust in the law of that country + trust that we could cope better with that countries law than with German law, + econonomic work (which hosters offer's best), + technical work to analyse new server and not the last doing the transfer itself...IMHO - because we never got problems since 2012 wether with the DACH Scratch wiki, nor with the others - and because I don't got the time, we should postpone decissions about that.
Mtwoll logo.jpg MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:07, 22 February 2018 (CET)
Hi everyone! I consultet with someone who is studying law in Germany and has some knowledge. Pictures like eg. a Mario sprite can not legally be on the Wiki. We could be fined for it. It is more likely that we get a "Aufforderung zur Abgabe einer Unterlassungsverpflichtung" which means we need to sign something that states we'll remove the picture and won't upload that content again, else we need to pay something (probably 5000€+). However, we can most probably put screenshots of Scratch games or so on here that have these sprites, since this would be categorized as "Kunstfreiheit" (freedom of art) because a new piece of art is created with it. Which images are these pictures that fall under fair use? Are they all in a certain category? Also, how do people upload profile pictures? They should not have copyrighted content. We should add a notification or so for that. -
LiFaytheGoblin (talk | contribs) 18:43, 23 February 2018 (CET)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I made a template {{fair use}} and a category Category:Images under Fair use.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 07:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Apple502j: Thanks! It‘s good to have an overview and to have the users of that pictures warned, even if we wait with the decission what to do with that pictures. How did the pictures that are already in that category get there?
Mtwoll logo.jpg MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
08:07, 27 February 2018 (CET)
I checked a lot of images one by one.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 07:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but why are you treating Fair Use images like they have to be burned immediately?
PPL Icon.gif ♥PrincessPandaLover Talk | Contributions | Scratch Account 00:37, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Because they basically do. Now that the servers are in Germany, we have no right to keep such images without being sued. So unfortunately all your game screenshots are now effectively illegal, and will likely need to be taken down.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Screw lack of fair use.
PPL Icon.gif ♥PrincessPandaLover Talk | Contributions | Scratch Account 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)!
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 21:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

What should we call the Scratch 3.0 player?

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

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

Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 23:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought the 3.0 Player used JavaScript?
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 01:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
HTML5 Player does too
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 01:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
"React Player" might work too - the 3.0 editor uses ReactJs
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
No Not done
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 11:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I would just call it The 3.0 player.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 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.
Redglitter Profile Picture.gif Redglitter ~ (Talk Page ~ Contributions) ~ 07:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "HTML5 Player" is a different thing, there was a previous attempt at making an HTML5 player that lost traction, so that wouldn't work.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Universal Player or Vector Player.
SpyGuy9 (talk | contribs) 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.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 19:46, 15 May 2019 (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)

+1 It's a contents page, it should have contents to all help pages. If you see a contents page in a book, it tells you where every chapter is.
290Scratcher (talk | contribs) 15:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 14:34, 29 October 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.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
10:51, 15 November 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)

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.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Interesting; I do see what you are saying, Customhacker. But I also see what Kenny2scratch is saying. I don't think it would hurt to add another small thing, like "Please explain why you want to join the wiki in your request notes."
I don't think that's too much, is it? :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 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.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 11:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Not Done doesn't get enough attention

No Not done

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.
Great at keeping attention on topics.
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.
Saves space, keeps links.
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.
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.
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)

I think putting {{Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done}} is better - we can still put them here, and no problem for page size.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 02:15, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Page size would still be a problem - the point is, there is so much content here that browsers need a long time to load the page. Also, by transcluding the not done page, it has to parse the contents of that page anyway, so the only thing that does is increase loading time.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
This is something that definitely needs to be addressed, I personally think the last option is the best, but it is a hard one.
Vuton Logo.png -Vuton- (Talk 💬 | Contribs 💾 | Pages 📚) 22:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I also vote for the last option.
Mtwoll logo.jpg MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:42, 19 February 2018 (CET)
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,079)) 12:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Something like that is mentioned in different recent posts + continued at: #A little reorganization of old topics
Mtwoll logo.jpg MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
12:39, 22 February 2018 (CET)
I suggest adding a link in page options.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,079)) 13:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Offtopic :D
This topic is not getting enough attention :D
This topic is in the place that isn't getting enough attention :D
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  16:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This suggestion might seem bit idiotic, but it'll get the job done. How about we make every active user post at least one comment on a ND Topic once a month?
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
...no? Forcing users to do anything is not how we work...
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
10:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Force users? No way! Plus, what would be the punishment if they don't comment?
TenType (talk | contribs) 20:34, 4 August 2019 (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}} (1,711)) [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)

How will this actually help the Wiki? I feel that you're trying to relax these rules for the sake of having them. What kind of user will go onto the Scratch Wiki and read about a user? How many Scratchers will actually be interested about reading about the development stages of Paper Minecraft? None. I also don't understand what you mean about your warning system. What is the difference between advertising and user-generated content? The line is very, very fuzzy between them. If you're going to give out warnings, at least be specific about what will get you a warning, and what is allowed.
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 08:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
As one wiki's admin, here's some examples that are not allowed here but allowed on jawiki.
List of Featured Projects by Japanese
Scratch Day Article in Each Year
Japanese Forum's Topics
0%control, 0%if
Snipetch - would be allowed before the new mod rule

Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 13:25, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Drunken_Sailor - I think it was that things like Paper Minecraft wouldn't be allowed. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 20:37, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Bigpuppy But in the second proposal, it states: "Everything else is a go". Meaning projects such as Paper Minecraft will be allowed. There is no line at all between what is advertising and what is allowed.
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 20:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Apple502j CoderDojo would be allowed as far as i know.
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 05:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@D_S I said how it would help the wiki at the start of the second paragraph: it would increase activity and allow us to write many more articles.
"Relax[ing] these rules for the sake of having them"? That doesn't even make sense - relaxing rules means not having them as strict.
Users and things like Paper Minecraft would only be allowed in a dedicated non-content namespace anyway, so you're exactly right there; it's just that pages like those are meant to be linked to, rather than searched for (e.g. someone could document Paper Minecraft and then griffpatch might link to the page from his project).
It's not a warning system, it's just an expansion to the current one. Our current policy is that we warn users once for vandalism, and the second time we block. In my first system, advertising in a usergen article three times would count as vandalism. In my second system, advertisement in an article in the usergen namespace would immediately count as vandalism (or almost vandalism, since you get three chances not two).
I know that there is a fine line between advertisement and user-generated content; that's why I ask that policing of advertisement in usergen articles be more strict than normal, tending more towards false positives than missed cases (in layman's terms, catching advertising when it isn't actually advertising more than missing things that actually are advertising).
@jvvg Here are some things that would be allowed under the first system:
  • Shop Federation as its own article
  • "The Shop Federation", also as its own article (it is a collection of shop forum topics, and not any specific shop, therefore it is allowed)
And some things that would not be allowed:
  • Paper Minecraft
  • Griffpatch
Here are some things that would be allowed under the second system ("usergen" is the name of the namespace, feel free to debate on this namespace name):
  • Usergen:Paper Minecraft
  • Usergen:Griffpatch
Here are some things that would not be allowed:
  • Usergen:Discord
  • Usergen:isOnline
I hope I've cleared up that my "warning system" is merely an expansion to our current system, and explained what exactly would be allowed or not.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I misworded my first bit. I meant that I feel that we're trying to relax these rules for the sake of relaxing them. What good does having articles about user generated content do? If griffpatch wanted to tell his followers about Paper Minecraft, he'd do so in the project notes, not in some Wiki article that he can't even edit anyway. The whole thing still seems a bit pointless.
Just saying "I know that there is a fine line between advertisement and user-generated content" doesn't actually specify where that line is. It's like saying that my house is next to my neighbour's house: It doesn't specify anything. For example, if Usergen:Paper Minecraft and Usergen:Griffpatch are allowed, then could I create Usergen:Drunken Sailor? Or maybe, if it suits you better, Usergen:Late in Space or Usergen:Soulless 0? What classes as advertising, and what does not?
Aside from this, I still fail to see the point and use of doing this. It would "increase activity and allow us to write many more articles", would it? If we wanted activity, we could just enforce a mandatory mainspace edit every day. All in all, this just seems like an attempt to boost... certain users' editcount.
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 08:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Have you considered that griffpatch would want to get an account for the sake of documenting his projects?
I know it doesn't specify where the line is, but you need to understand the fact that nobody knows where the line is. Can you truly say where the line is between advertising your project in another project's comments, and simply describing its purpose without encouraging them to check it out? In the first system, projects, users and so on are still disallowed, and what is allowed is likely impossible to link to. In the second system, it doesn't make sense to not link to the particular thing it's documenting, so you can't draw the line there, but where you can draw the line is between documentation and promotion.
Documentation means description. Explaining how the project works, listing different features; documenting the user's past actions, clarifying misconceptions about their personality.
Promotion means prescription. Recommending that the reader visit the project page, even give it a love or favorite; stating opinions about the user's quality of work, suggesting that the reader drop them a follow.
The line between documentation and promotion is one we already draw in mainspace articles: if there is an opinion, it is advertisement and must be removed. If there is merely an explanation, it can stay.
Under the second system, you could totally create Usergen:Drunken Sailor - you just could only document yourself, not advertise. I could just as easily create Usergen:Late in Space or Usergen:Soulless 0 (though why would I, ew), but again they would only be for documenting how the projects work, not stating opinions about their quality.
And yes, it would allow us to write many more articles! And no, we could not enforce a mandatory mainspace edit every day; what would the punishment be? how would we make up for the users scared away by the requirement of activity every day? And who are you accusing of having their edit count boosted? I certainly wouldn't be editing usergen pages, I have too many months of prejudice behind me. This would simply present more opportunity for articles to be created and edited, therefore increasing the general amount of activity.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
08:53, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I have been a proponent of relaxing S:NOSP for a while but not in the way proposed here. My ideas concerned the documentation of articles supported by the Scratch Team. Our first S:NOSP revision accomplished this already. Therefore I'm going to have to vote against this measure. I felt that it was appropriate to write articles about certain stickies such as The Shop Directory, while including others in the actual forum page descriptions specifically. These are all reviewed by Scratch Team members and through their sticky status recomended to the community. The "shop federation" (an idea cooked up by CrazyGoldFish3 and myself incidentally) can be mentioned in the one line description of "types of shops" (nothing against documententing the existence of that type of organization). While I would love to celebrate CrazyGoldFish3's work on the first Shop Federation (*cough cough* Chief Justice in the house), I'm not sure that it was really sponsored by the "Scratch Team". When it comes to making these determinations, people will also want to document the current establishments (maybe SPA in terms of Shop Federations; I haven't really checked in a while) which they are a part of instead of the historical predecessors. I'm not going to claim full credit for the "shop federation" idea, but I will say that it had its roots in a program at "MakeTheBrainHappy's Shop" (still like the 2nd largest shop ever & was the largest ever) called "Sub-Shops" where people would partner up and we would provide collective support to one another. Since this program (& many others) existed, does that validate my shop getting its own article. One could argue that it had as great or even greater an impact that the Shop Federation idea.
I honestly believe that the line between allowed and "not-allowed" is blurred in this case and would be in many others that we would consider. But if you were to grant an article to my shop, you would also have to grant one to Sigton's Shop (even though I was voted in as the 3rd Co-Owner I still have no idea what ever happenend there...) since it ended up being larger.
Now to your UG section. First read this: Conflict of interest. People usually assume the size of someone's page corresponds with their importance (i.e. a president has a larger wikipedia page than a local town official). If people are writing their own pages and don't need to provide any disclaimer about it, then they can really make their pages large & thereby inflate their own importance. I believe that the Userspace is the best place to put your own content about whatever. People should realize that you can use the userspace to write articles about whatever you wish and write your entire biography.
I vote against the idea and will not reconsider until major revisions are made on the scope and definition of these concepts.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 13:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
For reasons stated by MTBH, as well as my reasons stated above, I'm also going to have to vote against the idea.
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 17:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @D_S: that is a complete non-reply, try to only post messages when you have something new to say

The idea's core in the first place is allowing matters that are not "sponsored" by the Scratch Team. Requiring Scratch Team involvement severely limits the number of subjects we can document (as most of the ST aren't known for being active in multiple places).

If blurring the line is a problem, I would think you would go with the first idea, since the line between allowed and disallowed is the line between a single item and a collection of items (studios and forum topics are treated as single items).

Your example of refusing an article about the first shop federation is besides the point - you say it's not sponsored by the Scratch Team, but the whole point is to relax that guideline.

If you think userspace is a good place, what's wrong with the second idea? Userspace is just a namespace; a "usergen" namespace would also just be a namespace. The only difference I can see is that userspace makes it obvious who the page is affiliated with; usergen would not. But that's easily solved by writing a small extension that displays who created the article at the top of the page, or in some other way make it clear who the page is affiliated with (the extension could also add the namespace in the first place).

About whether "Makethebrainhappy's Shop" would get an article: if it's more than just one forum topic, then it would get an article under both systems; if it's just one forum topic then the first would forbid it, while the second would allow it (as long as it's documentation, not advertisement). Same goes for Sigton's shop.

About conflict of interest (assuming second system): we don't have paid editors (as far as we are aware, at least I do this unpaid full-time), so the financial relationship part is irrelevant. I see that there could be a problem if a user on the Wiki attempted to write an autobiography in the UG namespace; perhaps we could follow Wikipedia's example and disallow people directly related with the subject to contribute to it, as well as requiring people to disclose any indirect relationship with the subject when editing.

On a different note, please don't post inflammatory comments. "will not reconsider until major revisions are made" is far too blunt to be acceptable here - I had to prevent myself from swearing at my screen when I saw that, and I'm sure you've worsened the mood of any others who support the idea. You're here to constructively contribute ideas and bring up issues, not to subtly insult the topic without pointing out the problems. You can say things like "Unless you show how this would work, I don't think I like this idea at the moment"; things like "I will not reconsider until major revisions are made" are unnecessarily defacing to the topic at hand. Try to remember this in future replies.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"@D_S: that is a complete non-reply, try to only post messages when you have something new to say" - I'd like to clarify something for all the other wiki editors reading this. Ken is obviously very attached to his idea and want's to discourage people from disagreeing with it. The main point is: You do not need to have a novel contribution in order to state your agreement or disagreement. Knowing that someone feels one way or another is useful information and I hope that people feel that they can express their opinion. There will be no disciplinary action as a result any such comment and I encourage Ken to keep his opinion on the comments merit to himself.
"The idea's core in the first place is allowing matters that are not "sponsored" by the Scratch Team" - Let it be known that Ken wishes to document User-Generated content on the wiki mainspace. If this change were made, then all User-Generated content would be permissable. because everything is a collection of items. My profile is a collection of projects, my website a collection of posts, and my forums are a collection of responses. And yes we may disallow those items but we aren't really either.
CrazyGoldFish3 actually told me once why the ST refused to endorse the idea and the story went something like this: In 2013, they stickied a more "activist" directory with programs similar to Shop Federations, but then an issue arose and it was unstickied. Since then they haven't supported user-generated "collaborations" as it relates to the requests forum.
The reason why I think the "usergen" namespace is a bad idea is because it encourages competition among wiki editors as if it was a "popularity" contest. The usergen namespace is supposed to document accomplishments while the userspace is just like a personal bio (which is pretty obvious when one looks at all of pages). Knowing who wrote the page doesn't help a lot because I can just send my written article to you and have you post it.
Many, many things would deserve their own articles if MakeTheBrainHappy's Shop gets one. I mean we can't even document every SDS Studio individually. How are we supposed to document every Scratch Collaboration that is notable? Then go consider the Services Planning Department and try to pass judgement on it. I know you want to, but these judgements will just become more and more arbitrary over time.
There is no good way to get people to disclose conflicts of interest and enforce those policies.
It also seems like I didn't state my views clearly. This is a terrible idea. I hope I've convinced others of that. We've already relaxed S:NOSP once; we don't need to do it again. If you think that what I wrote before is "inflammatory", just imagine the kind of debate that we would have after this policy is implemented as we argue with people who want their User-Generated content in the mainspace. Debunking this change is the whole point Ken, but I won't attack you personally even though you attacked both Drunken and myself for our dissent.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 16:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Just a note on something you mentioned, Kenny2scratch - "Userspace" isn't simply a "namespace" (words in quotes you used); as is mentioned in Scratch Wiki:Userspace, images are also part of userspace (when they are in categories that declare it, such as Users' Images and Users' Logos), and parts of personal talk pages. So, I guess what I'm saying is that userspace is multiple namespaces. Or, rather, a namespace plus a certain section of another namespace, plus parts of another namespace ("User talk:"). :)
Makethebrainhappy, I don't think we should be that, well, you know what I mean (near the end of your post). Constructive criticism is good though. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ken did not think I was honest enough. ;)
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 20:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Accusations of hypocrisy won't help anything, either, but I digress. And yes, that's exactly the point. Having all user-generated content being permissible (within the limits I set above) is the entire point of this discussion. I know you have a bias against documenting user-generated content - so do I, and you have no idea how much I'm having to force myself to write this because I believe it would increase activity.
Let me once again restate that documenting user-generated content is not a bad idea. The major advantage of it is that activity would increase further as more content could be written without fear of breaking guidelines. How many ideas of yours to increase activity have been too complicated (or, on the flip side, too simple) to be accepted? The only solution to increase activity is to increase the amount of activity that can be had.
To put it in different terms: Scratch's design goals are "low floor, high ceiling, wide walls". "low floor" means anyone can get started, and it's not too hard to pick things up. "high ceiling" means there can be incredibly complex creations, as well as simple ones. "wide walls", the point I want to focus on here, means a wide variety of creations can be made.
Our account request process notwithstanding, I'd like to believe we have a low floor. You don't have to use Wiki markup to write articles, though others will certainly come along and improve it to do so. And once you've learned some markup, it's pretty easy to pick up the rest. We certainly have a high ceiling - look at complex pages like Scratch@MIT 2018 (oh yes, it's complex!) or anyone's sidebar. However, our walls are incredibly narrow. We are constrained by the limit of having Scratch Team involvement in anything we document.
Our mission is to document the Scratch programming language and its surrounding phenomena. The community, as well as community projects, are part of the surrounding phenomena. We would be shaming ourselves if we didn't document them.
"Knowing who wrote the page doesn't help a lot because I can just send my written article to you and have you post it." That's not true - I already said we would follow Wikipedia's example, and require disclosure when there is a relationship between you and the subject of the article. Even if you only told them to post the article, that's still a relationship of sorts.
There's no way to force someone to disclose affiliation, that's true, but it's perfectly possible to strictly warn people who are found to have not disclosed affiliation. It's also usually evident from the posted content whether they're affiliated; and if they are affiliated but their content seems otherwise, then that's just as good as being not affiliated anyway, since the major danger of affiliation is that it could be advertisement.
I know we can't document SDSes individually. (By the way, "SDS" stands for "Scratch Design Studio", so "SDS Studio" as you said would mean "Scratch Design Studio Studio" lol.) If you're worried about a flood of tiny articles, a minimum size requirement wouldn't be amiss. Or, if you think pagesize doesn't accurately represent content size (a point I agree with), we could have a minimum readable prose size instead.
I didn't mean to say "only post when you have something new to say", that was blurted out due to the anger at your last statement before then. I think what I actually meant was "if you have an opinion, justify it in your post instead of simply restating it". My mistake there.
@bigpuppy: I do realize that userspace rules encompass more than just the "User" namespace, but that's irrelevant - you wouldn't document yourself in a users' image anyway. :P
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll visualize it for you. I'm going to hold out two colored cards (choose whatever color you like). One says "people" on it and another says "idea." Here is what my statement concerning the people: "You do not need to have a novel contribution in order to state your agreement or disagreement. Knowing that someone feels one way or another is useful information and I hope that people feel that they can express their opinion." I will not think anything less of anyone (including you Ken) for expressing your opinion. The other is the topic at hand which is the idea being discussed. I do hope that I have persuaded others that it has little merit, but if I haven't, then I should know that. I wouldn't think any less of their character if they still agreed with this idea at this point. You on the other hand have gone after "character" by asking Drunken to stop giving his opinion & for me to be nicer to the idea. There is no hypocrisy in us taking different sides and arguing the case. You have just decided to use your gravitas to influence how people respond (i.e. don't respond unless you are ready to argue with me or don't respond unless you are willing to provide constructive suggestions to improve the idea). I'm not going to make those arguments. Anyone may respond with their opinion and if they add logic to it, then we can discuss it's merits. If there is no logic, then it becomes another consideration. If people are against the idea, then they can either provide suggestions for improvements or not. I'm not forcing comments to undergo the standards which I myself am creating as I read them. All I can do is respond to those which make arguments. In summary: I'm not trying to force people to express their opinion in a certain way; rather, I'm trying to convince them of an argument. I'm sure that Drunken will accept your apology. I think the limit's are arbitrary and will just cause more problems then they solve. The rest of your impassioned speech is very nice and dandy, but I'm going to skip making a similar contra-idea because I want to reevaluate what was said. you have no idea how much I'm having to force myself to write this because I believe it would increase activity. - This is what resonated with me not because I feel that it vindicates me, but because it is actually the underlying cause of this discussion. This is where I can provide constructive suggestions. But first let's do this exercise. Whoever is reading this ask yourselves these questions: "How do you visualize the scratch community?" & "Do you believe that the way you visualize the scratch community is similar to how another person visualizes the community?" The reason why the earlier system worked was because we had a common narrative: 40-someodd Administrators; the studios they were associated with; the announcements forum; etc. This would be lost if we began documenting UG- content. Now onto the suggestions: If we are looking to increase activity, then we should be finding more active editors (*shoutout to the New Member Recommendations). We aren't going to get the kind of editors we want if people are joining to document User-Generated content. On the hand: Maybe we should focus on increasing our exposure. Increasing the traffic to the wiki increases our prestige and importance for the overall scratch community. That could in turn drive more high-quality editors to the wiki. How would we accomplish this? Well maybe we could have a namespace for creating articles about programming in general and not just scratch-specific material. This would be in the general line of our mission of promoting Computer Science and provide information to Scratcher's seeking to move to text-based languages. Now there are articles like "Python" which document the language briefly, but the namespace would expand on this by providing specific tutorials in Python which would appeal to a more general audience. If we were able to focus on gaining exposure through search engines online, it would help scratch by driving traffic towards the main website. Here's the way I think about it: Would we get more traffic from 40 user bio pages or 40 high-quality python tutorials? Which one better represents our mission? Our main purpose is still to document the Scratch website which is why I propose creating a new namespace for Python (or maybe even general programming). I think it's a better solution to deal with the activity issue.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 15:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Note Tip: use two line breaks when you're the outdented reply
I'll only be responding to the actual suggestions, since those are the most to the point.
New Member Recommendations are a good idea, but they don't seem to have been gaining any traction. That obviously suggests that something's missing, but that's a different story.
The Scratch Wiki is a collaboratively-written wiki documenting the Scratch programming language and its surrounding phenomena. Our mission is not to promote CS; our mission is to document Scratch. Documenting other languages is worse than user-generated content (which is at least related to Scratch), unless the purpose of documenting the language is specifically in relation to the language's integration with Scratch. We are not Wikipedia - our mission is not to document everything. If people want to get documentation of other languages, they should search on Wikipedia.
"Would we get more traffic from 40 user bio pages or 40 high-quality python tutorials?" The Python tutorials, but "Which one better represents our mission?" The user bio pages.
That being said, your points imply a series of tutorials on moving from Scratch to other languages. Tutorials like those would probably be a) much welcomed and b) quite useful, and would stick to our purpose. But that should be in a different section; propose it in a different topic.
Our mainspace purpose is to document Scratch and its phenomena. I stick by my belief that user-generated content is part of Scratch's surrounding phenomena, and that we would be worse off for not documenting it.
As to your point about not wanting users to join only for UG pages: we could have a "one mainspace edit per ugspace edit" requirement, as in for every edit a user makes in the UG namespace, they have to have a mainspace edit as well.
"I think it's a better solution to deal with the activity issue" - I disagree, unfortunately, since writing such tutorials requires rather expert knowledge (or at least not just vague concepts), and it would only increase the activity of those who are already active.
Looking at all your points, though, it seems pretty clear to me that UG pages should not be treated as content pages :P
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay <removed - you know my views>, calm down.
First, I have never seen anyone use, ever, or be told to use, ever, two line breaks after an outdent. If anything, that tip seems to be done out of spite
Second, please stop being so toxic. If you want people to listen to you and appreciate what you’re saying, not accusing or swearing at them might help. If somebody states that they do not agree with the idea, accept it and move on. Everyone has a right to freedom of speech.
Third, "Would we get more traffic from 40 user bio pages or 40 high-quality python tutorials?" The Python tutorials, but "Which one better represents our mission?" The user bio pages." makes absolutely no sense. If we want to widen our range of articles, which you want to do, then we should follow MTBH's suggestion of Python tutorials because it branches out of Scratch and opens a whole new world up for Wiki Editors, which, as you want to do, would increase activity. Python tutorials, which you could actually help with, would also increase the Wiki's exposure (which, may I remind you, is one of the Wiki's goals, as said by MTBH) massively because people who don't even know what Scratch is can use our Wiki as a reference for Python tutorials. This would grow the Wiki from catering for a small community to supporting a large community as they grow and learn. It would, as you’d say, "widen our walls". By limiting the people we cater for, we lose exposure for the Wiki, and subsequently can help less people. Now what do you think better represents our mission?
Fourth, "you have no idea how much I'm having to force myself to write this because I believe it would increase activity". If you’re forcing yourself, then why are you arguing so fiercely for it, and accusing others when they disagree? If you want to increase activity, why don’t we just encourage new & existing users to make constructive edits on useful mainspace pages. Edits on Usergen pages would rarely be useful as they would mostly be either biased or unnecessary, causing a drop in quality on the Wiki. As MTBH said, "We aren't going to get the kind of editors we want if people are joining to document User-Generated content". Editors would join for the sake of editing User-generated content pages, which would have no real use to anyone not directly connected with them.
Fifth, you said that with Usergen activity would "increase further as more content could be written without fear of breaking guidelines". However, you’ve still not explained what the guidelines are. As I said way back in my first post: "The line is very, very fuzzy". What classes as a good usergen edit, and what would you revert as vandalism/advertising?
Sixth, just stating who created the page at the top doesn’t change anything. If anything, it makes the system worse because users would compete to see who could create the most articles. Basically, it would become another way of users to see who is the best, which is the opposite of what we want. Wouldn’t writing an extension also just cause more complications and confusion?
Seventh, how would we force disclosure of affiliation? Even if we managed a way to do that, where would it be disclosed? In addition to this, most edits would need disclosure anyway, since you can’t create or improve an article which you have no knowledge about.
Finally, even if we solved all these other problems, you’re stating way too many requirements for this to actually be functional. For example, how are you going to enforce one mainspace edit per one usergen edit? As you said to a separate proposition: "what would the punishment be? how would we make up for the users scared away by [it]?", which is exactly my point here.
What about the "minimum size requirement"? How would that be enforced? Wouldn’t it also prevent new(er) users who want to create an article but only have limited knowledge from furthering the wiki’s information?
That pretty much wraps up my long post. TL;DR: This is a terrible idea and has so many flaws that, even if you had the whole community backing you, it wouldn’t be worth the time and energy fixing them.
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 11:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
...the tip was supposed to be genuine, when you outdent a single line break doesn't actually break. It takes two line breaks to actually break without indents.
I don't see how I'm being toxic, but that's a different matter that I think would belong on my own talk page.
Branching out of Scratch doesn't excuse being not Scratch. Tutorials only about Python aren't even related to Scratch, and this is the Scratch Wiki, not the Python Wiki (which incidentally already exists). Our mission is to document Scratch - how do Python tutorials represent that mission? The only kind of Python tutorial that has a place on this wiki is one about transitioning from Scratch to Python, or integrating Scratch with Python (the latter of which I think exists). Sure, tutorials relating to both Scratch and another language would help widen our walls, and I hope whoever else is reading this topic makes one (I can't make a tutorial about transitioning from Scratch to Python, seeing as I learned the latter first and the former second and never really transitioned between the two). Increasing traffic is a secondary goal - the primary goal is to document Scratch. We don't want people to come here for Python tutorials that have nothing to do with Scratch - that defeats our entire purpose as a wiki! What we do want is one of the following:
  • People who have already encountered/learned Scratch coming to see how they can transition to other languages
  • People who have never heard of Scratch learning about it and joining its community because they read articles on this Wiki about Scratch
"encourage new & existing users to make constructive edits on useful mainspace pages" yeah, we've been trying to to this for 10 years now (the Wiki was created in 2008 iirc). Doing what we've always been doing hasn't yielded any results - so I'm proposing getting rid of our old biases and opening up to an opportunity to have a more healthy buzz. Yes, biases. That's why it's hard for me to say all this - I'm biased against user-created content being documented here, so I certainly wouldn't participate in it, but I want to give others who have no such bias an opportunity to document much more than before.
I already stated the line between documentation and advertisement: opinions are advertisement, explanations are documentation. If someone made an edit saying "This project can be viewed here: link" that would be acceptable (assuming 2nd system); if someone made an edit saying "This project is of high quality and should be viewed here: link" (notice the formality but opinion nonetheless!) then it would be advertisement and reverted.
Writing an extension isn't that difficult (at least for me, anyway :P), especially for a simple purpose such as this (add a parser hook, quick db query, done). Users competing to get the most articles - you would have to have a page that lists all the/the number of usergen articles they had created, which obviously would be unnecessary. I do now realize that there isn't any point showing the name, though, so consider that point dropped.
Forcing disclosure of affiliation is difficult, and I have no immediate ideas as to how, but I think I already mentioned it would be (I hate to use the word "punishing") reprimanding for lack of disclosure, rather than preventing said lack. Disclosure can simply be in the edit summary, something like "(note: I am a member of the board of directors of this federation)" (I obviously don't know much about shop federations, it's just an example). If you have little knowledge, research for more! If the subject is worth documenting, there'll be plenty to document. How a shop federation works is certainly enough for reams of material, and that's not the only aspect of a federation to document; under the 2nd system, if a project is sufficiently complex then there will be much to describe.
You often ask, "How would this be enforced?" In the case of a one-mainspace-one-ugspace edit requirement and/or a minimum readable prose size, it could be technically enforced - you would be physically logically unable to submit a new usergen article without a certain minimum size, or edit a usergen article if you have less mainspace edits than ugspace.
"What would the punishment be? How would we make up for users being scared away by [it]?" Assuming you're talking about lack of disclosure, since minimums can be technically enforced, I think a warning system similar or slightly greater in severity to WM warnings would be sufficient. For first infraction, remind them of the guidelines; for second infraction, bring up the possiblity of a block (worded as "the Wiki may not be the best place for you"); for third infraction, make that possiblity obvious; for fourth infraction, block for a certain amount of time that grows exponentially with each subsequent infraction.
As to why there are so many rules/requirements, that's the nature of partially relaxing rules here - a single large rule, bent only a small amount, becomes many small rules. Our rules go mostly along the lines of "if it's not forbidden it's allowed", and while a blanket ban is simple, relaxing it a tiny bit turns it into minor prohibitions of everything except what we want to allow.

Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
12:14, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Do you still want to try this?
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 23:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I still believe that this is a good idea; if you have further arguments to make go ahead and post them.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Ken, what do you mean when user-generated content WOULD be allowed, but then you go on to say about how Paper Minecraft, OS Studios, and Griffpatch (which are all UG content) WOULDN'T be allowed?
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 20:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I mean that certain kinds of UG content (rule of thumb: anything that is an individual thing and not a collection) would still not be allowed, including users, projects, studios, forum threads, and posts. Anything else that would still be prohibited currently would no longer be.

There's also the second option, which is to allow everything, but anything prohibited by NOSP now would go under a new namespace. Which would you prefer, or do you think neither of them works for some reason?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

RE: Option 1-Well then what would be allowed? A separate article on Shop Federations, and in it describing what it is, the different federations, and links to them, but it doesn't go on to say about how awesome the USS is or how awful the SPA is or something like that.
E: Option 2-No way! There would be too many people requesting for articles about their latest project, their "coolest" studio, their largest shop; and it would just get overwhelming!
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, can we mark this as done since it appears everyone except you doesn't seem to like this idea? (no offense)
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No. I still remain unconvinced that this is a bad idea, and popular vote is not the final say against a proposal.
Responding to you:
Option 1 doesn't relax the rules much, actually, but yes, there could be a separate Shop Federation article which could even describe/somewhat document more notable federations; only articles about individual federations would be prohibited.
Option 2: Many people requesting for articles is exactly the kind of activity the relaxation is meant to promote. And remember, nobody's under any obligation to obey the requests, but if they choose to do so then there's really nothing against them creating something like "UG:Cool Studio 24" because that would lead to more activity which is healthy for any wiki. (Keep in mind that UG articles would still be somewhat subject to our notability and documentability rules! That means no articles about anything if there isn't much to say about that thing.) And if you're worried about people only editing UG articles, we could easily have rules requiring that each UG edit be "paid for" by a non-UG or even mainspace edit.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
11:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
About your second proposal: don't articles about user generated content already belong in userspace? And what is the good in promoting activity if it isn't furthering the Scratch Wiki's goal of documenting Scratch?
Jonathan50 (talk | contribs) 08:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
What is the point of having more activity to the wiki if this won't help it? "Many people requesting for articles is exactly the kind of activity the relaxation is meant to promote." Why? Scratchers probably wouldn't actually want to read about someone else's studios, or anything like that. UG content should belong in userspace, which has far less activity than mainspace, which is healthy, because mainspace actually helps document Scratch.
And what do you mean by for each UG edit, there should be a mainspace edit? Scratchers that get accepted, if that rule was implemented, would pay less attention to their edits on mainspace, simply because they would want to edit UG content more, if that makes sense. Users should focus on mainspace editing, not just UG content.
For now, I disagree on this idea.
TenType (talk | contribs) 20:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Not Done

No Not done

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)

Nice idea, support!

Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 12:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 15:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Support, I think that is a great idea.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for support!
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
No worries.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 22:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Support better way to mark not done. Should the TOC on the CP mark out all the not done discussions in a different text color, or something like that? One idea
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Perhaps make all of the Not Done topics have bold titles? That should attract attention to them for those who browse the TOC.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe what we could do is put the Not Done Topics in Red in the TOC of the CP, the done topics Green in the TOC of the CP, and the in progress discussions the blue color it currently is.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 12:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree with KrIsMa, Kenny2scratch, and NYCDOT on having some way to show which topics are done and which are not done, but how would we make topics show as a different color in the table of contents?
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
That...is a really good question. I have no idea. I really don't.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 19:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I noticed that Jedibrine's userpage's TOC has different colors and font. You can ask how they did it.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  20:18, 5 February 2019 (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)

This is a great idea! +1! :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Millie S.jpeg Millie S (talk|961 contribs|directory) 18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Any bits that need improving?
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 18:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I think the featured images are too minor to have a dedicated projectspace page. I propose instead to have a miscellaneous "homepage tasks" page (or something like that) where you can suggest news items, featured images, and edits to other things that appear on the homepage. Does that sound better?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
19:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
good idea
Millie S.jpeg Millie S (talk|961 contribs|directory) 19:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Nice idea, Yes Support
Logoasqwde.png asqwde talk | contribs 21:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ken won't a homepage tasks page just get cluttered up? If they had to filter through edits and news items to find featured images, wouldn't it be harder for the admins? Also, having a dedicated project space is better because it's a) more obvious to Wiki Editors what the page is for, and seems less boring and gruelling than "homepage tasks", which sounds like just a big long list of stuff to do. And b) it would be easier for editors to suggest, because having a clearer Featured Image Suggestions would be more obvious to others what has already been suggested and what hasn't, et cetera. And c) having a dedicated page would make it so much easier to implement into the current WW forum post.
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 08:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

We could have Scratch Wiki:Homepage Tasks and have there be a section for featured images, news things, and any other sections that may be needed. Then it wouldn't be as messy (if there were sections). Then we could make a shortcut called S:FEATUREDIMAGESUGGESTIONS (although that's a pretty long "shortcut") and have it redirect to Scratch Wiki:Homepage Tasks#Featured Image Suggestions. Or we could have Scratch Wiki:Featured Image Suggestions redirect to Scratch Wiki:Homepage Tasks#Featured Image Suggestions. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
If we're talking about shortcuts, how about S:FIS, since S:FI redirects to the featured images?
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 08:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that'd probably be good. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 16:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Support to Bigpuppy's and Drunken's last two suggestions. :) Also are we going to have somthing smilar to this?
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 23:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps even simply add the featured image suggestions to that forum topic's purpose? That saves effort :)
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
02:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Nah, keep it on the wiki. Editors should be the only ones that can propose changes to the front page that are as minor as switching out the images.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 21:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have to disagree to you with that. Just like non-wikians are able to talk on the CP in forums and suggest Wiki Articles for WW, they should be able to suggest for Featured Images. +1 for putting in forum.
Also, is there already a forum topic for Featured Articles? (or is that WW?)
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  00:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

New page for mall simulators

No Not done

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)

Maybe not as a whole page, but as a section in Simulation Projects?
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 16:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Mall simulators, let me explain, are studios where people can register and make projects and add them to the studio. These projects are shops, where people (that are registered in a mall simulator the shop is added in) can buy from. Mall simulators invent their own currency, not tradeable for real money, that is used within the mall simulator itself. So, I don't really think it would fit there since it's technically not a project.
Sti_scratch (talk | contribs) 08:54, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
That's a new kind of shop. Actually, there is no article to write about it, I think.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 12:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it means that we have to create two pages. for the shops and the sim itself.
Sti_scratch (talk | contribs) 03:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't shops in the mall simulators be a sub-section?
Purple_Ember (talk | contribs) 04:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Purple_Ember Yeah, that works too.
Sti_scratch (talk | contribs) 06:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I haven't heard of mall simulators until now, so I don't they're that necessary.
NYCDOT Logo.jpg NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, doesn't scratch ban users that participate in such activities? e.g. Mattcoin
Kritav (talk | contribs) 03:44, 4 September 2019 (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)

It is kinda long, but so is the CP, and do we split this? I realize it's not exactly the same thing, but it's not long enough to truly need splitting.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
in Japanese wiki, we did split it. At that time, "Types of Graphics", "Bitmap Editor", "Vector Editor", "Bitmap and Vector Comparison", "Paint Editor Conversion", "Interaction With Other Programs", "Example Uses", and "Alternatives" section is kept. Others are moved to version subpages, such as Paint Editor (2.0). Guess what will happen next January here, without the change.
By the way, block workaround page is enough big to split, too, I think. It will be good for performance issues.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 08:24, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Currently, Bitmap Editor redirects to Paint Editor#Bitmap Editor. The bitmap editor is a large part of Scratch, so I think it needs its own article.
CrazyBoy826-Icon.png CrazyBoy826 Talk | Contribs | Scratch account
01:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
So Vector Editor too?
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 03:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I merged the previous 'The "Bitmap Editor" Page' topic with this one that I pulled from the archives, as I realize that the original one shouldn't have been archived. If the replies by CrazyBoy826 onwards seem out of context, that's why.
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?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
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.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,154edit 10:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

3.0 updating question

No Not done

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

A copy of the page before I began updating it can be found here.
border=3px Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 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.
God286 (talk | contribs) 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.
998930 (talk | contribs) 01:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Profile Safety

          question:How can I be sure my profile is safe?
      As we all know, online safty is SUPER important. So how can you be sure you are safe on scrath? Well, lets talk about profiles. SOOOO many things can go wrong in a profile. Your picture could be tracked, your username could be a clue to ANYTHING private or secret, or your description could be TO detailed. Sooo... how can we be sure it is safe? First, make sure when you make an account your username is not your address, any passwords or your name. Next, make sure your profile picture is not of you, your house, or anything innapropriate or mean. Make sure if it is copywright or owned by somebody else you GET PERMISSION. Now, when you do your description and what you are working on, no passwords, names, or bad words. If you dont like advertising or spam, mean comments or anything else like that, I suggest you turn off your comments. But do note comments can be nice and kind, and helpful! Lastly, anybody can follow you, so do not tell them to unfollow you or anything like that. 
       I hope this helped! 
Cs1760724 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Cs1760724
I don’t see how this is an unanswered question, this page is for topics to be discussed.
TenType (talk | contribs) 22:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't belong here. Yes Done
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 18:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)