Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done

Archives

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

Shortcut:
S:CPND

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"

 Not done

TOC

Click this picture to jump to "ScratchWiki:Watch"

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

• MainThread #We need your help: Apply for getting "International Scratch Wiki Coach"
• SubThread1 #Individual Threads with scratch-wiki-authors that want to help
  • #answer of TheHockeyist
  • #answer of KrIsMa
  • #answer of ErnieParke
  • #answer of Mathfreak231
  • #answer of jvvg
  • #answer of Rumanti
• SubThread2 #Forum Thread: Scratch Wiki in Your Native Language
• SubThread3 #New Idea for the future of international Scratch-Wiki or even more
• SubThread4 #Not Done!

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

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

back to top

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)

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

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

Embedding of Scratch Projects

 Not done

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

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

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

 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?
22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

custom signatures

 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 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 user | talk | contribs | edits 16:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That is what I had said in my post here.
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 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.
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 user | talk | contribs | edits 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Then maybe it might be best to keep it as a rule.
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?
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 user | talk | contribs | edits 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Is the font on mine clear enough? Just wondering...
-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):

---

“

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?
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  (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 talk ▪︎ contribs 17:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 20:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

---

If someone could fix the extra div tag, that would be great.
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  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 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.
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 09:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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  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 [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 21:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with NYCDOT on this. Although custom signatures need to have less restrictions they can still allow small things like background colors and borders. Major text, images, and insane backgrounds could get prohibited. I don't really know what to say on this one, because I'm not really planning to use custom signatures at any point in my life because I don't see the point, but fine - for the sake of people that want this feature but I'm still neutral I think we should give NYCDOT's thoughts a go.
Nambaseking01 (talk | contribs) 13:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

3.0 updating

 Not done

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!)

--
Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,230edit 04:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We have to delete Fair Use

The server is in Germany now. German copyright law doesn't allow Fair Use, so we have to delete all the fair use images. For example, screenshots of games are prohibited.
Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,230edit 08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

What should we call the Scratch 3.0 player?

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

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

Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,230edit 23:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Help:Contents Is missing some help pages

 Not done
There are a few help pages which aren't in Help:Contents, for some reason.
We need to fix that.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 14:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Account Request Notes

 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?
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.
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  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 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

 One of them is done, Not Done discussions are collapsible

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

---

Don't have a separate Not Done page at all and keep the not done discussions on the main CP.

This would be effective but not feasible.

Pros

Great at keeping attention on topics.

Cons

Would likely break links and increase CP loading time.

---

Link to them in a more obvious way

This would be feasible but potentially not effective.

Pros

Saves space, keeps links.

Cons

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

---

Have an entirely separate page for not done topics (maybe "Scratch Wiki talk:Not Done"?).

This would be partially feasible but potentially effective too.

Pros

Wouldn't break links (redirects exist, people), and would remove the feeling of an archive since it's a talk page of its own; would also save space on the actual CP because the content is literally in another page.

Cons

Still needs another click, and still seems too separate from the actual CP.

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

Relax S:NOSP even more

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

• All Scratch-prohibited things remain prohibited (follow CGs, people!).
• Everything else is a go.
• Advertising will be treated almost as severely as vandalism, thrice advertising is a block.
• The entire namespace is treated as non-content pages (i.e. it's not indexed by default and isn't counted in the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} (2,072)) [this rule is open for debate].

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

---

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

Not Done

 Look at the OP

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

Suggestion: Scratch Wiki:Featured Image Suggestions

 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?
Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 15:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

New page for mall simulators

 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)

Split the Paint Article

 Needs doing

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

3.0 updating question

 Not done

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

Articles to update for 3.0

 Won't be done for a long time

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

Observations/Edit Guidance

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

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

Progress

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

Warning:

do not copy articles directly from their 3.0 versions!

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

Note:

Some of the articles listed below need to be created.

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

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

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

Fix typography or other writing issues as you come across them

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

Ask for help when you need it

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

Here's to a good 3.0 release!

kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  05:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

“Secret” Compliments

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

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

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

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

Proposed new method:

• Users suggest compliments on Google Form entering all details as they would before

• End of the month (organizer)s have admin access to the form and gather responses

• Posted in CP

This way:

• Users will look forward to see compliments received and not seeing anytime of the month

• People will be more encouraged by the compliments

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