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 it's not been solved in a while, topics may be moved to this page, to keep track of incomplete discussions. Remove the original topic and move it to this page to prevent confusion.

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

 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)

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 2,229edit 04:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We have to delete Fair Use

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

What should we call the Scratch 3.0 player?

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

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

Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,229edit 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)

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}} (2,056)) [this rule is open for debate].

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

---

Which idea would you prefer? What are your thoughts?
kenny2scratch  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

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

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

Split the Paint Article

 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)

List of deleted pages

 Done

(Brought up here after discussion here.)

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

• Mathfreak231's, which is the most comprehensive but is no longer updated in his absence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

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

Advantages

• More organized
• One place for all
• Can be updated by anyone

Disadvantages

None I can think of off the top of my head

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

Block Problems

 Not done, as blocks are still unfinished or broken
Today I started to finish up the script for How to Evaluate an Expression, and things got out of hand. When I first completed it, I realized I did some of the block loops wrong, and it like wrapped around some things that I didn't want to wrap around, while I also couldn't get this one if then else block to wrap around something else — it was all a mess. I cleaned some of it up, but I am afraid I'll make it worse and I already spent more than an hour on it. Also, I have to save it each time I want to check if it is correct, since for some reason the blocks won't load up in Show preview mode (it appears in code) but loads when the changes are saved. Can somebody please fix up the script to match the one in post #19 in this forum topic?
TenType (talk | contribs) 04:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Tinkercad Codeblocks

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

Scratch Wiki Adventure

 Not done

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

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

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

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

Scratch Wiki YT Channel

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

When are we planning to implement the new Flawed Article?

 Not done

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

Constructiveness in Community Portal - An Idea

Hello there!

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

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

• It means that one does not simply post "Support!", "Good idea!", or "+1!" and explain why they like the suggestion, that they provoke discussion, and look for possible issues instead of continuosly leaning on one side, like "I love this suggestion" or "I hate this suggestion"

• It means that one does not simply add one sentence to act as if their post is constructive. For example, "Support, because this might be useful for many Wikians!" seems constructive but it isn't really constructive, because they're not stating how it would be useful for many Wikians or why it would be.

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

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

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

Scratchblocks Plugin not Working

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

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

Require custom welcome messages to be transcluded

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

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

A flaw in the "Random Page" button I see

 Not done

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

Merging Cloud Data Articles?

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

Linking Style Sheets

 Not done

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

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

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

Custom Signatures

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

Naming Blocks

 Not done

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

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

Misdirected Request error

 Moved to Scratch Wiki:Bugs
Sometimes, when I go to the Test Wikis and back on an iPad, I sometimes get a '412 Misdirected Request' error. However, this does not happen on a desktop computer.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 17:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

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

 Not done

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

“

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

”

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

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

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

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

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

How to Connect to the Physical World Is really outdated

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

Tip of the Day

 Not done

SWP 005 - Tip of the Day

Description	Status	Owner	Started	Links
Create a panel that will show one tip for each day of the year.	Not done	bigpuppy ahmetlii Illusion705 Groko13 Filmlover12 Jammum garnetluvcookie jakel181 Dominic305 12944qwerty	8/22/2020	Project results
				Project page
				Project discussion

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

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

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

Allowing borders in custom sigs

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

RfC about the usage of fixed with in ScratchWikiSkin2

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

An idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion: Resolved and Unresolved Templates

 Not done

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

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

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

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

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

Here are answers to some questions you may have:

Don't we already have the  Done and  Not done templates?

Yes. However, those templates don't have all of the functionality that the {{resolved}} and {{unresolved}} templates would provide. If we added this functionality to the  Done and  Not done templates, all of the discussions that were not actually marked  Done but still have the template on them (e.g. if the template was used in casual conversation) would be added to the category.

Would these templates replace the  Done and  Not done templates?

No. Those templates would still be used in casual conversation and in tandem with the {{resolved}} and {{unresolved}} templates (e.g. "is this conversation  Done?"). The {{resolved}} and {{unresolved}} templates would be used more formally at the top of discussions.

Would use of these templates be required?

No. However, it would be recommended, so that the page gets added to the category of pages with unresolved discussions.

Would anyone be allowed to add these templates to any discussion, even ones they didn't create?

Yes. Similar to how the  Done and  Not done templates are used now, anyone would be able to mark a discussion as resolved or unresolved, even if they didn't create it.

The drafts you created look curiously similar to the {{shortcut}} template.

That's because I based part of their code on the {{shortcut}} template.

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

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

GitHub interwiki links

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

Megathread: MediaWiki Version Bump

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

Why upgrade?

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

Timeline

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

Checklist

Extensions and Skins:

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

Bots:

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

Misc:

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

Discussion

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

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

 Not done
i can't explain anything so here goes... I've seen many people getting the "compress every file you upload if it's not under 2 KB" message. Why? These users uploaded files that are like 6 KB. 6 KB!!! That's incredibly small, at least for file sizes. I believe that the minimum file size for compression should be raised to 20 KB because that's a size that's small, but large enough that it's too big. Thoughts?
♥ garnetluvcookie ♥ | ♥ talk ♥ | ♥ contribs ♥ 00:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Tone down the rejected messages on S:BR archives

Note:

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

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

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

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

now my fingers hurt :P

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

make templates like trout

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

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

RfC for Interface admins group

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

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