(Redirected from SWT:CP)
Not done
Not done (this will never been done completely, so don't archive!)
Threads that need "long time and hard work" will not be archived, but moved to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/not done. Actually you can read and continue following threads there:
- S:CPND#Lack of curiosity at Scratch Wiki?
- S:CPND#WikiEditor Extension
- S:CPND#Mobile Device Skin & Responsive Design for Scratch-Wikis ?
- S:CPND#We need your help: Apply for getting "International Scratch Wiki Coach"
- S:CPND#Why is Interwiki not possible in the english community-portal?
- S:CPND#DACH-Scratch-Wiki-Frontpage-Features
- To make sure that your thread will not be archive put the template Not done at the top.
- Don't forget to replace it with the
Done template when the thread is finally finished.
MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 17:44, 30 January 2016 (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)
- +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)
Block Lag on Chrome (revived)
Not done
I was scrolling through Encoding and Decoding Cloud Data recently, and I found that scrolling past scratchblocks is soooo laggy. This reminded me of a now archived discussion mentioning this... so now I want to bring it back up.
Does anyone else (besides Turkey3) have issues with this? It seems to specifically be a Chrome issue.
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 05:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- I don't, It is definitely a chrome issue, I use Firefox and I'm not experiencing any lag on pages. If you can download another workable browser, that's what I'd recommend. If its a Chrome issue, It'll properly not be resolved.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 06:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Me.
Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 10:34, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- Just as Purplewolves said, it is definitely a Chrome problem. I am using a Chromebook, and scrolling through that page normally lags it, or dragging the little bar at the side. I have found that using the arrow keys doesn't make the computer lag as much. --
Phantomsrule4life (talk | contribs) 00:16, 3 March 2018 (CET)
- Just as Purplewolves said, it is definitely a Chrome problem. I am using a Chromebook, and scrolling through that page normally lags it, or dragging the little bar at the side. I have found that using the arrow keys doesn't make the computer lag as much. --
- Me.
Suggestion: a dedicated page for requests for admin/EW action; idea: subpages for each topic instead of sections
Please respond to each suggestion in its own subsection.
Dedicated page for requests for admin/EW action
I propose that we create Scratch Wiki:Requests for Privileged Actions (WIP title) - basically, if something needs an admin or EW to handle it, post a message there instead of on one of the admin/EW's talks or on the CP.
Pros:
- Makes requests for privileged actions more public and easier for all admins/EWs to see.
- Clears up clutter on admin/EW talk pages as well as the Community Portal.
Cons:
- New page.
Thoughts? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Any examples of what would required privileged actions that is not covered by a template (such as {{delete}})?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- I do agree with this. Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 19:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- There actually is a template for protection but no-one uses it - they simply post on an admin's talk.
- As for other actions, it's true that tagging pages with {{delete}} guarantees that it'll be deleted sooner or later... good point. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 07:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- +1 with K2S:Templates aren't very useful forediting protected pages or deleting logs, and some. I asked an admin to add ja-interwiki to the News, but he didn't.--
Apple502j (talk | contribs) 12:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC) - Support. (PS Apple502j the admins are very busy and can't get to everything on time) I think this page will therefore be a nice addition. How are we going to deal with the templates mentioned then?
- KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- @Apple502j: interwiki is only done by bureaucrats (i.e. Scratch Team members) on this wiki.
- @KrIsMa: I think we can just use both - it's always helpful to have multiple points of contact and if the categories for those templates have a large backlog we can post on that page too, instead of here. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 00:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Since I think anyone who wants to voice their opinion has already done so, and everyone seems to agree here, the only thing left to discuss is the name - what should the title of this page be? My initial thought was "Scratch Wiki:Requests for Privileged Action" but that seems too long and too wordy - any other suggestions? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 09:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- Since I think anyone who wants to voice their opinion has already done so, and everyone seems to agree here, the only thing left to discuss is the name - what should the title of this page be? My initial thought was "Scratch Wiki:Requests for Privileged Action" but that seems too long and too wordy - any other suggestions?
- +1 with K2S:Templates aren't very useful forediting protected pages or deleting logs, and some. I asked an admin to add ja-interwiki to the News, but he didn't.--
- I do agree with this.
Subpages for each topic
My idea here is: for each new topic, we make a separate subpage. So this topic would not be a topic - it would be Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Dedicated page for privileged action requests; subpages for each topic. Once a discussion is resolved, it will be "closed" by having the page protected. Once it is old enough to be archived, it is archived, by moving the contents to one of the normal archives (which will remain in effect) and either deleting the subpage (might break links) or redirecting it to that section (better).
To summarize the above novel:
- A user thinks of something that they want to say to the entire community.
- The user creates a subpage of the Community Portal, the title being what would normally be the section title (avoiding slashes).
- Other users respond to the topic in that subpage, and a consensus is reached as to how to proceed.
- Once the consensus has been implemented, an admin protects the page, preventing further discussion, and thereby closes the topic. Other users can ask (at "requests for privileged action", suggested above, or on an admin's talk) for it to be reopened if they think more discussion is needed.
- After a while, any admin can decide that the topic is old enough to be archived (meaning truly locking further discussion and requiring a new topic for revival) and moves the contents of the topic subpage to an archive.
Since a central place for asking questions in general will still be needed, I think, we could create something similar to Wikipedia's "village pump"
- Pros
- Organizes discussion immensely - this frees each topic from being in context of another.
- Requires topics to be more important - it's a waste of space to make a separate page asking "how do you make things bold?".
- Makes it easier to link to particular CP topics - Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/topic name is a lot less ephemeral of a title than Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal#topic name, and also makes it easier to show which topics don't actually exist.
- Drastically decreases load time.
- Cons
- Increases the number of pages drastically.
- Makes flipping through topics more difficult - you can't scroll through them, you have to navigate to a separate page for each.
I understand this is quite a momentous suggestion - please post your opinion. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it is good the way it is. It may make it more complicated for new users then just making a new topic, and is it really needed to protect the page, because further discussion is good sometimes.
- Another thing about the request, is that, it just makes the wiki seem more untidy (in my eyes) and would be annoying to get around. Plus: The users would have to make a new sub page for it, then make it into a talk page, Etc. Excuse me if I missed something here. Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 19:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
- Another pro would be the shorter load time of the CP
- But..I'm going to have to go with purplewolves — in my opinion it's easier the way it is
bigpuppy talk | contribs 02:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- That's true, it would make loading time shorter, but as I said, it would get annoying. Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 03:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- There's a reason I suggested having something similar to Wikipedia's village pump - things that would require easier flipping could be posted there, while momentous things that need separation from each other could go in subpages instead. I know it seems like defeating the purpose of the suggestion, but maybe instead of making a separate page for easy-flipping talk, instead making a separate page for suggestions might work?
- Basically, the major point of this is that suggestions need to be distinct and worth suggesting; questions can be simple questions that wouldn't need such distinction. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 07:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- something like that is mentioned in different recent posts + continued at: #A little reorganization of old topics MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 12:35, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- something like that is mentioned in different recent posts + continued at: #A little reorganization of old topics
- That's true, it would make loading time shorter, but as I said, it would get annoying.
- Another pro would be the shorter load time of the CP
Since this has gone stagnant, and it doesn't seem like as good an idea as it seemed when I proposed it, I'll treat this as Done by rejection. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 10:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
My edit count seems to be out of sync
Not done
If I transclude my edit count, I get 6,127; but on the actual page, the "Total" count is 326 more than the transcluded count! What's going on? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 07:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Werid. If I do it, I get 326 but that is actually a few less than the count on the page.
Duckboycool (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Same here! The only difference is that mine is only 10 behind.
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 14:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
- Is anybody else having the same problem? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 09:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, when transcluded, my Editcount is 25 less than the real count...
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 11:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
- Is this discussion still active? If so, this is happening to me too. My transcluded edit count is 34 less than what it says on Special:Editcount/bigpuppy. bigpuppy talk | contribs 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is this discussion still active? If so, this is happening to me too. My transcluded edit count is 34 less than what it says on Special:Editcount/bigpuppy.
- Actually, when transcluded, my Editcount is 25 less than the real count...
- Is anybody else having the same problem?
- Same here! The only difference is that mine is only 10 behind.
Ah, that makes sense. bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- Done?
bob1171 (talk | contribs) on the Community Portal. 17:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, we don't know how to fix it yet, it's Not done kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 08:04, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, we don't know how to fix it yet, it's
Compliment Tuesday?
Not done
The really good idea about Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_74#Compliment_Tuesday was also introduced and continued until today in the DACH-Scratch-Wiki as de:Scratch-Wiki:Lobtag (see a google-translated version: here ). Wouldn't it be good to have it also here in the english scratch wiki again? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 12:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, that's a great idea! I just joined in on the German side. ;) This should definitely be revived. How about we start this coming Tuesday?
- We will need a system, though. Thoughts? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 14:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Who wants to start it and care for it? Shouldn't we have a kind of "Compliment Tuesday Manager" MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 07:48, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- I think that the EWs could act as the CT Manager :) kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 08:05, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- I think that the EWs could act as the CT Manager :)
- Who wants to start it and care for it? Shouldn't we have a kind of "Compliment Tuesday Manager"
Suggestion: Allow user CSS and JS
I know that user CSS and JS were disabled on the grounds that it would be harder to solve problems if everyone's view of the site looked different... but thing is, userscripts can do the same thing - so what's the harm in enabling a built-in way to customize your view instead of having everyone depend on a browser extension?
As always, feel free to discuss. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 09:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if this is what you mean but JS enabled for users sounds like a huge security issue. If people decide to use a userscript - okay, they do it in their browser and it doesn't affect anyone else. However, if someone programmed some malicious JS directly on the Wiki, that doesn't sound good :( -
LiFaytheGoblin (talk | contribs) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- No, no! User JS is only enabled for the user that makes it - e.g. User:Keny2scratch/common.js is only loaded for me, and nobody else can edit it (except admins). Likewise for user CSS. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 23:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- agree,+1 For Ken. --
Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 08:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Allowing CSS/JS would allow more powerful userscripts that cause an incentive for more userpages to heavily customize their pages, potentially causing them to be annoying to other users. I hope I'm interpreting this question right.
- What are you planning on using JS for?
- KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 13:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I personally was going to move my userscripts to user JS instead, and maybe experiment around a little more.
- However, I think that you're incorrect when you say this would cause an incentive to use it. Enabling it does not mean that it is advertised or encouraged - if you recall custom signatures are discouraged but what do you know, people use it anyway. Enabling user JS does not mean promoting it - it simply means easier customization, for yourself and yourself only.
- You also seem to think that the JS would be loaded for all users - but no, if you heavily customized your user page with JS/CSS, it would only be customized for yourself, not for anyone else.
- Hope that clears things up! kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- agree,+1 For Ken. --
- No, no! User JS is only enabled for the user that makes it - e.g. User:Keny2scratch/common.js is only loaded for me, and nobody else can edit it (except admins). Likewise for user CSS.
I really like this idea, especially the user CSS.
-Vuton- (Talk | Contribs | Pages) 16:36, 25 January 2018 (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."
Not Done doesn't get enough attention
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.
- 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)
- I think putting {{Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done}} is better - we can still put them here, and no problem for page size. Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 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 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- (Talk | Contribs | Pages) 22:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- I also vote for the last option. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 07:42, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- ^
banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 12:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Something like that is mentioned in different recent posts + continued at: #A little reorganization of old topics MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 12:39, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- Something like that is mentioned in different recent posts + continued at: #A little reorganization of old topics
- ^
- I also vote for the last option.
- This is something that definitely needs to be addressed, I personally think the last option is the best, but it is a hard one.
- 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.
VisualEditor extension
Everyone knows that wiki markup is difficult to understand, and frankly, it disconnects users from the actual content. Though previewing is possible, it's annoying to do frequently, and some people don't even use it at all.
Therefore, I propose we get VisualEditor. This allows editing of pages without having to interact with wikitext at all - select some text, press Ctrl+B, and it becomes bold right in front of your eyes! Type in {{, and a menu will pop up asking which template you want to add.
I feel like this would help a lot for new users who might not feel like learning a whole markup language.
There is a prerequisite - I need to make sure that the SWS is compatible with it. But otherwise, I think this would be very helpful to install.
Thoughts? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 10:16, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- +1 very good idea! MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 10:24, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- After looking at the extension, It's a big +1 from me.-Vuton- (Talk | Contribs | Pages) 11:04, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- I definitely like this idea.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 05:54, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- There is a large prerequisite I didn't notice before: This requires Parsoid to be installed. This may pose a larger challenge - especially for FTP backend people, Parsoid can only be installed via command-line. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 05:58, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- I‘m not sure if Parsoid will be possible at our webspace. We have to ask akhof. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 08:11, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- I‘m not sure if Parsoid will be possible at our webspace. We have to ask akhof.
- There is a large prerequisite I didn't notice before: This requires Parsoid to be installed. This may pose a larger challenge - especially for FTP backend people, Parsoid can only be installed via command-line.
- I definitely like this idea.
- After looking at the extension, It's a big +1 from me.
+1 I think that having an editor similar to Wikia would be nice. 
S-zhangcha (talk | contribs) 02:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Privacy Policy
The Privacy Policy page is linked at the bottom of every page, but currently shows just a copy the Scratch privacy policy. Since we are no longer managed by the ST, should we look into changing up this page?-Vuton- (Talk | Contribs | Pages) 11:47, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- I think we should
asqwde talk | contribs 13:43, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- +1 MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 14:43, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- I made: User:Apple502j/Sandbox Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 23:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Apple502j: Thank you very much for making that first draft that looks good to me.
- @Admins+EWs: Please have a look at this important issue and comment, if there is a need for improvement. We should put our private policy in effect asap. I would like to add something about email-adresses because you already could add it in your scratch profile, what helps you to get informed about changes of articles and to reset your password. We are planing to make eMail-Adresd mandatory for new users, like we have it slready in the other international scratch wikis. So it must be mentioned in the Privacy Policy. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 07:42, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- I made: User:Apple502j/Sandbox
- +1
- I think we should
IMPORTANT:Ken made a very big edit. Please check again!
Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oh wrong time Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 10:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Some things...
Not done
Why is Recent Changes visible when not logged in?
Should the second word be capitalized for Recent "changes" and Random "page"?
Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:50, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- What is this CET in the signature? Why is Edit Summary not able to be written when starting to post on the CP?
Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:53, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- Why does the OP come in one font and replies in another?
Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:54, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- I think CET is the timezone, although it used to be UTC... bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:57, 17 February 2018 (CET)
- I think CET is the timezone, although it used to be UTC...
- Why does the OP come in one font and replies in another?
Customhacker 1st post: Recent Changes were always visible when not logged in, what are you talking about? Also the recent changes are normally not capitalized; in fact, the system message dictates what that text says, and it's not capitalized by default.
Customhacker 2nd post: CET is the timezone that the new server is in; it used to be UTC because it was in the US. I think CET and UTC have no actual difference besides name. Also, what do you mean the edit summary isn't available? I have it just fine...
Customhacker 3rd post: Argh, the font for <dl> elements is the same as the footer font; I didn't realize indenting used dls.
Customhacker 4th post: Same reason as 3rd.
I'll fix the skin soon. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 05:46, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- Wait, I don't see any different font? [1] kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 08:02, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- Actually, there is a difference between the Time Zones. UTC is the time standard for the world, and is basically GMT but without Daylight Saving Time. CET is Central European Time, which is UTC+1. It is used in countries like France and Germany, which is why, as it is hosted in Germany by MtWoll, CET is the Time Zone used by the Wiki. Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 12:38, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- @Kenny2scratch Maybe it only shows for certain browsers? I see a different font for any indented text. bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:23, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- Actually, I'm not sure if there's a font change in bold text. bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:26, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- By the way, GMT does not involve daylight saving time (that's stuff like BST). The time in UTC and the time in GMT is the same. UTC is technically not a timezone; instead, it's a time scale designed to approximate GMT[2] independent of the Earth.
Jokebookservice1 (talk | contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- @Bigpuppy, could you "inspect" the indented text and look at the computed styles of the
ddto see what its "font-family" is? Thanks kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 10:15, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- @Bigpuppy, could you "inspect" the indented text and look at the computed styles of the
- By the way, GMT does not involve daylight saving time (that's stuff like BST). The time in UTC and the time in GMT is the same. UTC is technically not a timezone; instead, it's a time scale designed to approximate GMT[2] independent of the Earth.
- Actually, I'm not sure if there's a font change in bold text.
- @Kenny2scratch Maybe it only shows for certain browsers? I see a different font for any indented text.
- Actually, there is a difference between the Time Zones. UTC is the time standard for the world, and is basically GMT but without Daylight Saving Time. CET is Central European Time, which is UTC+1. It is used in countries like France and Germany, which is why, as it is hosted in Germany by MtWoll, CET is the Time Zone used by the Wiki.
It says multiple names of fonts, is it supposed to? (I might not have found the right thing though?) bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:45, 20 February 2018 (CET)
- What it's supposed to say is
"Helvetica Neue", "Helvetica", Arial, sans-serif. Is that what you're seeing? (actually, screenshot that panel for me?) kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 08:26, 20 February 2018 (CET)
- Well, that's what I'm seeing. bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:09, 20 February 2018 (CET)
- Hmm, it looks like it's specifically Helvetica Neue that's acting weird on some devices: [3]. I guess a switch of font might do the trick; but I'm hesitant to do that because it would further distance us from the main site's style :/ kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:29, 21 February 2018 (CET)
- Actually, when I use the vector skin, I don't see a different font. Are you using the vector skin? bigpuppy talk | contribs 00:03, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- No, I'm using the new SWS. Could you look at the "computed styles" pane again and scroll to the bottom? It'll tell you there what font is being rendered. So could you please see what font is being rendered for
<p>elements and<dd>elements? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 04:42, 4 March 2018 (CET)
- No, I'm using the new SWS. Could you look at the "computed styles" pane again and scroll to the bottom? It'll tell you there what font is being rendered. So could you please see what font is being rendered for
- Actually, when I use the vector skin, I don't see a different font. Are you using the vector skin?
- Hmm, it looks like it's specifically Helvetica Neue that's acting weird on some devices: [3]. I guess a switch of font might do the trick; but I'm hesitant to do that because it would further distance us from the main site's style :/
- Well, that's what I'm seeing.
Removing the "EW" usergroup
Let me give you some background on the EW usergroup first. It was created for two main reasons:
- All the bureaucrats were Scratch Team members - the Wiki didn't have control over its own usergroups. So EW was created to be the equivalent of "admin" in a bureaucrat-less wiki. Basically, EW substituted admin and admin substituted bureaucrat.
- There were a lot of account requests, so EW was made to help the admins process them all.
The first thing is no longer true. We now have our own bureaucrats (*cough cough* yours truly *cough cough*).
The second thing, though still true, is not as pressing. Now that we have active bureaucrats, we can confirm accounts just as quickly as we did before with EWs. In fact, there are very few EWs now that are not also bureaucrats.
So some of us have proposed that we get rid of the EW usergroup entirely. Then elections would be for admins, not EWs; and (I guess?) any current EWs would become admins.
Thoughts? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:32, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- I always saw the EW role as a way to gain trust in users, before giving them full admin permissions, however, I do mostly agree with you.-Vuton- (Talk | Contribs | Pages) 14:37, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- Support! Here are some ideas upon what we could do:
Unlike Cazzy's server, we shouldn't get rid of one of the EWs for no reason at all. We should have admin in place of EW and per election, those admins would be upgraded to bureaucrats. Ernie told me that we'd have admins for a few months, then upgrade them to bureaucrat. I prefer this idea. It's not necessary and confusing now. banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 16:38, 18 February 2018 (CET)
- Good arguments, but perhaps it's still a good idea to have a "two stage way" to admin rights? The important thing would be to have a acceptable difference in rights between admin and EWs. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 09:04, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- But really, I don't see the point in EW. banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 12:29, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- I agree with Martin. The only major right EWs have other than admins is
protect, so EWs can't edit pages that only some more experienced users such as admins can edit effectively (such as the front page). I also think EWs should get all other perms such asundelete, etc. so they can maintain the Wiki as stated in their position description. But then there wouldn't be an acceptable difference in rights between admins and EWs. - My thoughts:
- Delete EW role and promote directly to admin.
- Protect admin only pages (such as the FP) as bureaucrat only. This means adding that protection level.
- KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:38, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- I feel like protecting admin only pages as bureaucrat only would be editlockedpages all over again - but hey, the FP is protected for a reason, so it's not too big of a deal. Support. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:32, 21 February 2018 (CET)
- Support! This makes sense as the roles aren't really different. EWs could definitely serve better with more adminship positions. I also support the idea of new protection level.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 15:21, 3 March 2018 (CET)
- Support! This makes sense as the roles aren't really different. EWs could definitely serve better with more adminship positions. I also support the idea of new protection level.
- I feel like protecting admin only pages as bureaucrat only would be editlockedpages all over again - but hey, the FP is protected for a reason, so it's not too big of a deal. Support.
- I agree with Martin. The only major right EWs have other than admins is
- But really, I don't see the point in EW.
- Good arguments, but perhaps it's still a good idea to have a "two stage way" to admin rights? The important thing would be to have a acceptable difference in rights between admin and EWs.
- Support! Here are some ideas upon what we could do:
Just note: this would likely re-introduce an "editlockedpages" equivalent and also promote every current EW to admin. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 15:25, 3 March 2018 (CET)
New page idea: Scratch Wiki:Community Projects
Not done
I have an idea for a new page, which is Scratch Wiki:Community Projects. This page would be for, well, "projects" the wiki community is working on. Each "project" would be in a subpage of Scratch Wiki:Community Projects.
An example of something that could be worked on using this is the in-progress privacy policy. After the project is done, it would be moved to the correct place.
I'm suggesting this because when working on stuff like this at the moment, we mostly use personal sandboxes (I think). This works, but a downside is that you need to give permission for other users to help edit, as it's a personal sandbox under userspace. I don't think we could use the main sandbox, as WikiMonitor clears it (and I don't think it's really intended for this kind of thing). This new page would be specifically used for community "projects" that anyone can help work on.
On the main community projects page, there would be...
- An explanation of the page
- A list of current "projects"
- A list of finished "projects" that used the page
So, what do you think? Sorry if I'm not explaining my idea that well, so feel free to ask questions (and give feedback). bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:40, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- That sounds like a great idea. Although, couldn't we not use our sandboxes to house these articles and just put it in mainspace with the {{In Progress}} template?
- KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:45, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- +1 This sounds like a great idea. It'll also help users interact with the community more, as well as allow for better collaboration on large projects and pages. Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 20:32, 19 February 2018 (CET)
- @KrIsMa True, but this could also be for stuff like the privacy policy page that is currently being worked on, which wouldn't be a mainspace page. Although, I suppose we could just put it under "Scratch Wiki:" and put that template on it... bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:34, 20 February 2018 (CET)
- But this is for community projects, so maybe {{stub}}? I still think we should have a page for it though.
bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:51, 20 February 2018 (CET) - Yeah that was what I wanted to say. So, I am not sure. Maybe the reason why people start articles in their sandbox is because they don't know that inprogress articles can also be put into not their subpages, I have no idea.
- KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:20, 20 February 2018 (CET)
- I apreciate introducing something like projects and projectpages very much. But I would‘t like to have a separete (project) list, I had to look for additional to CP, to know „everything discussed in public at the wiki“. I think this Community Portal should stay the general List to get an overview about all this matters. And CP is also the location where new projects „grow“ that have no project-status at first. So why not combine all the issues:
- Community Portal often gets to long
- „not done“ does not get enough attention
- let‘s start with project pages
- We could "allow" or "suggest" to make a (project) subpage for each CP-issue that gets "to long + to old" and let only a header with an introduction (not longer then a teaser) here in CP. We could this header give a marker „this is a project“ (instead of „not done“). Fineshed projects go to the CP-archive. So the whole Project-Ideas could be introduced simply as an enlargement of this Community Portal without disrupting attention of the community in to much different locations. What do you think? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 07:22, 20 February 2018 (CET)
- + As the result of a project mostely is a new article, but the project-page where you move a discussion, started in CP, is always a talk-page, there could be always this combination: Projectresults go to an article-page, project-discussion goes to the talk-page of this article. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 07:32, 20 February 2018 (CET)
- + continued at: #A little reorganization of old topics MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 08:40, 21 February 2018 (CET)
- + continued at: #A little reorganization of old topics
- I apreciate introducing something like projects and projectpages very much. But I would‘t like to have a separete (project) list, I had to look for additional to CP, to know „everything discussed in public at the wiki“. I think this Community Portal should stay the general List to get an overview about all this matters. And CP is also the location where new projects „grow“ that have no project-status at first. So why not combine all the issues:
- But this is for community projects, so maybe {{stub}}? I still think we should have a page for it though.
- @KrIsMa True, but this could also be for stuff like the privacy policy page that is currently being worked on, which wouldn't be a mainspace page. Although, I suppose we could just put it under "Scratch Wiki:" and put that template on it...
- +1 This sounds like a great idea. It'll also help users interact with the community more, as well as allow for better collaboration on large projects and pages.
Please note: I know I said in the first post that I think we use personal sandboxes for the most part now, but I noticed we also use other stuff under people's userspace (at the moment). bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:41, 23 February 2018 (CET)
A little reorganization of old topics
So, MartinWollenweber has been suggesting this for a while, but nobody's thought to bring this up as a topic of its own, so I thought I'd take the liberty of doing so.
The suggestion is: if a topic remains "not done" (or anything other than "done") for a long time, move it to its own subpage of the CP. This would remove the need for S:CPND, and would likely reduce loading times. Of course, there would be something at the top of the CP showing all the current "long time + hard work" topics.
Once the topics are finally "done", they should remain in their subpage, but the subpage should be protected to prevent further editing. That way, previous links to that subpage won't break or have to be redirected.
This would likely transcend the need for any of these suggestions or any of these suggestions, and would be a lot smoother, too! But there may be something I overlooked. Thoughts? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:12, 21 February 2018 (CET)
- We are moving to the right direction, but let‘s also include S:CP#New_page_idea:_Scratch_Wiki:Community_Projects. There you see that making the „long + old not dones“ a „scratch wiki project“=SWP could help. As there seems to be many SWPs that are the “creating or overworking of an existing article” but also others, that have no article in the mainspace I suggest:
- Introducing SWPs = Scratch Wiki Projects
- Let‘s make some SWP-templates: One is a SWP-marker+data template you use as a the head of a SWP. This SWP-marker+data holds the projectname, projectdescription, projectowner (=responsible!!!), project team members, project status, start+end date and so on. Also a project numer cold help to organize and reference to the projecs.
- This SWP-marker+data gets in the only-include section of the projectpage. A second SWP-reference-template (or simple “SWP-box”) can be used, to represent the SWP-marker+data at an other location, specially here at the CP but perhaps also at other locations like a project list page or when you want to reference to SWPs at other discussions. :*Because this projectmarker can include categories its possible to have projects automatically be listed and sorted by category.
- I would prefer that every SWP has a separate SWP-article and SWP-talkpage. The project article can, but must not be an article in the mainspace. It can also be an article in a “project sub space” but it always has a talk page for the discussion and a result-page, that can be the article itself in case its located in the mainspace.
- The SWP-reference templates (you can have multiple, depending how detailed the cited projectdata shoud be shown) can also include links to the project resultpage and the project talkpage.
- If a thread here in the CP gets to long, to old, or should better move to the artile discussion, you are free to set up a SWP by choosing or creating an article where the SWP should take place and putting a new SWP-marker there with yourself as the projectowner
- As there will also be a status and list for “rotten projcts” you should only start projects you really feel responsible for because else you get the reputation of “the owner of the most rotten projects” ;-) this helps to avoid “project inflation” that could be caused by the thought “I cearate many project, but will not do the work”.
- After the SWP-marker is set up, the SWP can be presented at the CP discussion by using one SWP-reference-template that gives you a nice box with the projectdata. Later the CP thread itself can be moved to the SWP-talk page, so that only the SWP-representation-box stays in the CP until the status of the project project is "finished" or "rotten".
- SWPs could automatically get “rotten” if nobody edited their result-page or their talk-page for a certain amount if time.
- Thoughts? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 08:30, 21 February 2018 (CET)
- I think the SWP template could be something like this? (That's an old template idea of mine.)
- So if I'm getting you right, you're thinking of something similar to the CP but for things that specifically need "long time + hard work"? And each project is in a subpage, instead of as a section? That seems like a good idea - for example the ScratchSig extension's discussion could go in one subpage?
- I'm not sure what you mean by "each SWP should have a separate SWP-article and SWP-talkpage", though - isn't each SWP a discussion? Or am I missing something? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:38, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- Your suggestion for the SWT.template looks interesting. Originally I thougt it should look a littel bit like the round boxes used in FAQ-answers (e.g. What is SEO spam?) because additional to the different fields it must contain a teaser-like Projectdescription and the SWP-box will be the last that stays in CP when a CP-thread is moved to a talk-page of a project. So perhaps better have something that fills the complete row, not just a box on the right.
- To explain better what a SWP would be: Any article in mainspace, but also in any other space can get the status to be a project, just by adding the SWP-marker+data template at the top of its talk-page. If an article in mainspace is declared as a project the project-resultpage is the article itself: So it's very easy to say: "I want to work myself and am searching people to help me with this article": Only put a SWP-marker+data template at the top of the articles discussion page and put the SWP-reference-box in the CP.
- Good examples in the actual CP where you could use that kind of projects are the threads:
- Naturally there will be projects, that have no article in mainspace and that are "just projects": But also for this "just projects" its helpfull to have two pages: The result-page where you find all generell information an decissions in a brief form and the talk-page where you find and can talk part in the discussion that has lead to this results. Fo this "just projects" we should define a space where we can collect them.
- It's even possible to create a project at a subpage of your userpage and invite others. Here I made a example to show how it could roughly look like (just how it would look like!!! Doing it with templates would be much more spophisticated) :
This is the description of my test project
| project data | project data | project data | project data |
- In this case I put the SWP-box also at the project results page because it helps with navigation. We should discuss if this is acceptable in generall, specially if the project is an article in mainspace.
- I think with this realively easy concept of projects we are fast, flexible and easy to understand, if it's transfered to templates that are looking good and very handy to use.
- Do you now understand what I tried to explain above? What do you think? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 15:59, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- Ah, that makes more sense! So you mean any page can be converted into a SWP just by adding the template, and then discussion for the project will be on the talk page? And there will be a link to the project from the CP as well? That sounds like a great idea!
- I think we should wait for others to comment on this discussion; then once we know everyone's ok with it we can proceed to design the template and then get this started!
- How about the idea of moving "long time + hard work" topics to subpages of the Community Portal, though? I think that would still be a good idea to keep, since it still does make the CP more organized and reduces loading time a bit. Thoughts? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 17:06, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- more sense: Yes, now you got me right!
- Waiting for others to agree: Yes, in any case. Hope they also like it and add more ideas...
- moving "long time + hard work": You could do that with exact the same technique, if there is no fitting article to put the project in, e.g. you could use:
- or
- MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 17:31, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- I like the template! A +1 from me. I have some questions:
- How exactly will the template work? Will it be like this?
{{SWP|link to talk page|link to project page|link to Community Portal section|project #}}
- Will there be a main page with a list of projects and their numbers (and possibly a description of each one)? bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:52, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- There will be at least two templates, one top at the project page like:
- *
{{SWPdata| projctnumber |projectname |projectdescription |projectowner |projectstatus | projctstartdate | projectenddate |...}}and - *
{{SWPbox|projectpagename}}(used in CP, no other parameters needed) - Any not finished project should have at least a SWPbox in CP. Additionell there could be other articles that list projects, but if the SWPbox-trmplate could also include categories, list of projects could also easy generated automatically MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 18:18, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- I like the template! A +1 from me. I have some questions:
Okay. Should we make a page with an explanation and a list (automatically updated like you said)? Or the template(s)? bigpuppy talk | contribs 18:26, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- Maybe Scratch Wiki:Projects? bigpuppy talk | contribs 18:27, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- An additional listing of SWPs at an own page is always possible, but never essential as project will always be starting in a CP thread and the SWPbox stays there , after the duscussion of that thread was moved to the projects talk page, until the project is finished or rotten. A lists of projects can be automatically created by categories. A page with a separate manual listing of all projects is somewhat artificial and tends to be unmantained. But it can be done by somone who is interested. I supphose that the projectowners will not care for that separate list themself, because for them it‘s enough to put the SWPmarker in the project and the SWPbox in the CP thread. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 23:18, 22 February 2018 (CET)
- Or maybe we could have a page that has an explanation but only links to the category so it doesn't need to be updated? bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:42, 23 February 2018 (CET)
- Yes, that‘s a good idea! The concept of SWP has to be explained somwhere in any case, and to present the SWP-categories there is the best place. We can have multiple SWPcategories e.g. sorted by projectstate and by projectspace, because the category inside the SWPdata-template could be conditional and dependent of data or space. So with your suggestion we have a place to explain the SWP-concept and to jump into the „list of all active/finished/rotten project“ all projects in „mainspace/projectspace/userspave“ and so on. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 07:15, 23 February 2018 (CET)
- Okay, I have a prototype of a template, here. How's it look? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 15:40, 23 February 2018 (CET)
- Looks good, but do we understand each other right concerning that the SWPdata should only be defined one time at the top of the SWP-talkpage? The SWPbox in the CP and anywhere else should only be a template that shows the same data, but does not include the data itself in its parameters (the only paramter would be the pagename of the SWPdata). Its a littel like the Translate-template at the Test-Wiki ( tw:Eng:Scratch_Wiki_Home/translate ). To have multiple SWPbox-formats e.g. small and big ones (SWPbox1 , SWPbox2 ...) the SWPdata could be in <onlyinclude> so you don't see it at it's page and it delivers only the parameterstring that than goes into a SWPbox within <noinclude> that does the visualisation on that page. You could than put the {{page}} within any SWPbox-template, that can visualize that parameterstring. That's really a bit of sophisticated template programming but I think you are familiar with that. Right? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 16:28, 23 February 2018 (CET)
- Looks good, but do we understand each other right concerning that the SWPdata should only be defined one time at the top of the SWP-talkpage? The SWPbox in the CP and anywhere else should only be a template that shows the same data, but does not include the data itself in its parameters (the only paramter would be the pagename of the SWPdata). Its a littel like the Translate-template at the Test-Wiki ( tw:Eng:Scratch_Wiki_Home/translate ). To have multiple SWPbox-formats e.g. small and big ones (SWPbox1 , SWPbox2 ...) the SWPdata could be in <onlyinclude> so you don't see it at it's page and it delivers only the parameterstring that than goes into a SWPbox within <noinclude> that does the visualisation on that page. You could than put the {{page}} within any SWPbox-template, that can visualize that parameterstring. That's really a bit of sophisticated template programming but I think you are familiar with that. Right?
- Okay, I have a prototype of a template, here. How's it look?
- Yes, that‘s a good idea! The concept of SWP has to be explained somwhere in any case, and to present the SWP-categories there is the best place. We can have multiple SWPcategories e.g. sorted by projectstate and by projectspace, because the category inside the SWPdata-template could be conditional and dependent of data or space. So with your suggestion we have a place to explain the SWP-concept and to jump into the „list of all active/finished/rotten project“ all projects in „mainspace/projectspace/userspave“ and so on.
- Or maybe we could have a page that has an explanation but only links to the category so it doesn't need to be updated?
- An additional listing of SWPs at an own page is always possible, but never essential as project will always be starting in a CP thread and the SWPbox stays there , after the duscussion of that thread was moved to the projects talk page, until the project is finished or rotten. A lists of projects can be automatically created by categories. A page with a separate manual listing of all projects is somewhat artificial and tends to be unmantained. But it can be done by somone who is interested. I supphose that the projectowners will not care for that separate list themself, because for them it‘s enough to put the SWPmarker in the project and the SWPbox in the CP thread.
I created a page with an explanation of Scratch Wiki Projects here; feel free to add to it and edit it. bigpuppy talk | contribs 18:29, 23 February 2018 (CET)
- I fixed up my template (again, see here). Also, I will demo the CP-topic part:
- @mtwoll: is this what you had in mind? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 07:45, 25 February 2018 (CET)
- Yes, looks good! You saw my idea below that would enable us to have all projectdata at one page? You already said „it‘s to much“ but it has some advantages... MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 08:09, 25 February 2018 (CET)
- I got the impression we have been a little bit stucked with this matter...so perhaps the best is to give one version of SWP a try and see how it works?
- I would prefer that the first version of the SWP-box looks the same everywhere to get used to it. I', mot sure if my last idea to have all SWP-data at one page with the help of section-transclusion is best, but it would help to always find the last number and have a section with an existing PWC-data-definition to copy from if you create an new one...also you could reference the PWC-data with the section-headline that could be year+PWS-Nr (starting with PWS 1 every year again,(e.g. PWS2018-001..PWS2018-038 and PWS2019-001..PWS2019-033). But perhaps also having the data in each separate PWS-discussion-page is best...we will see..
- Better let's start now somehow and learn if it works than waiting much longer. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 17:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I got the impression we have been a little bit stucked with this matter...so perhaps the best is to give one version of SWP a try and see how it works?
- Yes, looks good! You saw my idea below that would enable us to have all projectdata at one page? You already said „it‘s to much“ but it has some advantages...
Section_Transclusion AddOn
I would like to have:
It has many advantages, specially it would be helpfull for #A little reorganization of old topics:
- you could put every SWPdata in a section of an article at the same page (that could have the name of the year) and reference it by transcluding only that section. The sections could have the Numbers of the SWP's so you could have a SWPbox just by using the project-number like {{basepage/SWP-2018#033}} (that would give you the SWPbox of the SWP number 33 of the year 2018). Am I right? What do you think? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 18:50, 24 February 2018 (CET)
- shouldn't it be "{{#lst:page|section}} Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 23:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think that that's a little too much. I like your previous idea of something similar to the Test wiki's "Translate" template! That seems a lot more concise, in my opinion. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 05:50, 25 February 2018 (CET)
- Independent of the decision if we use Labeled_Section_Transclusion for SWPs, I would like to have it at all scratch wikis, because it expandes the possibility of template design very much and makes it easier and also more readable: You can use it to have a very readable and enlargable case structure in complex sub templates. It‘s also stable and used in many established Mediawiki projects (see https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:LabeledSectionTransclusion ). Espesiallly it is enabled on all Wikimedia wikis, naturally including Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version ). MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 08:03, 27 February 2018 (CET)
- Wikipedia uses it for the same reason that they use Scribunto - they actually have a need for it. Can you show me some templates that would benefit from this extension? But I would think that this would be better for transcluding sections of mainspace pages, not templates, since templates don't involve sections. Why do we actually need this extension? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 03:16, 28 February 2018 (CET)
- I tested it here: de:Benutzer:Mtwoll/s1 perhaps the advantages are more understandable when having a look. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 17:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
- I see how it works, but I don't really understand why we need it... is there something we could use this for here? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 01:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Naturally we would need it for the SWP-design I sugested: Only with that method you could have all SWP-data of a year at one page and so could profit from better overview e.g. for incresing SWP-number and easier creation of new SWPs by just copy&paste+change an existing section. Further on you could separate conditional branches of complex templates, e.g. if a template produces different content, you could easy separate this content in sections, to make it easier to be understood and mantained. It keeps order for small Mediawiki-snipets that belong together, and that without had to be separate unoverviewable pages or had to be unreadabley integrated within the calling template. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 06:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Naturally we would need it for the SWP-design I sugested: Only with that method you could have all SWP-data of a year at one page and so could profit from better overview e.g. for incresing SWP-number and easier creation of new SWPs by just copy&paste+change an existing section. Further on you could separate conditional branches of complex templates, e.g. if a template produces different content, you could easy separate this content in sections, to make it easier to be understood and mantained. It keeps order for small Mediawiki-snipets that belong together, and that without had to be separate unoverviewable pages or had to be unreadabley integrated within the calling template.
- I see how it works, but I don't really understand why we need it... is there something we could use this for here?
- I tested it here: de:Benutzer:Mtwoll/s1 perhaps the advantages are more understandable when having a look.
- Wikipedia uses it for the same reason that they use Scribunto - they actually have a need for it. Can you show me some templates that would benefit from this extension? But I would think that this would be better for transcluding sections of mainspace pages, not templates, since templates don't involve sections. Why do we actually need this extension?
- Independent of the decision if we use Labeled_Section_Transclusion for SWPs, I would like to have it at all scratch wikis, because it expandes the possibility of template design very much and makes it easier and also more readable: You can use it to have a very readable and enlargable case structure in complex sub templates. It‘s also stable and used in many established Mediawiki projects (see https://wikiapiary.com/wiki/Extension:LabeledSectionTransclusion ). Espesiallly it is enabled on all Wikimedia wikis, naturally including Wikipedia (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Version ).
For presenting different content depending on a parameter, you can use a switch statement:
{{#switch:{{{theparameter}}}
|option1=
content for option 1...
|option2=
content for option 2...
|option3=
content for option 3...
}}
I don't see how an increasing SWP number would help? There's no way to keep track of the number automatically, even using this extension.
Out of curiosity, what does Wikipedia use it for? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 08:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- Switch statement: Exactly! And so you could have all options orderd at one page, so someone who don't want to get into the complex bracket structure of the template can have a look at it and mantain it.
{{#switch:{{{theparameter}}}
|option1=
{{#lsth:optionpage|option1}}
|option2=
{{#lsth:optionpage|option2}}
|option3=
{{#lsth:optionpage|option3}}
}}
- SWP-Numbers: If you had all SWP-data in one article and just add a section for each new project you only have to copy the last section, change the data and increase the Project-number by one. If not you have to find the last number somehow somewhere, and ask yourself how and where to write the your projectdata...I‘m wondering if the SWP-idea will get sucessfull by that way...by having a page for each year with all projectdata it seems more likely to me, that people will adopt it...I‘m aware of that this is in opopsite of my first suggestion, to have a „projectmainpage“ for each projet (normally it‘s discussionpage) with the SWP-data at it‘s head to be transcluded...it‘s more „back to the roots“ of bigpuppys original idea in #New page idea: Scratch Wiki:Community Projects .... MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 17:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
A Reform Package
I've been mulling over some new ideas for the Wiki, and proposing them to Kenny2Scratch to see what he thinks about them. He seems to have forgotten about them already :P, so it seemed like a good time to speak to the community. Here are a few of the ideas which I thought of as reforms.
1.) Wikian Level's I, II, III, IV. These would be earned through daily activity. Level I would be earned after fifteen days in which you make at least one mainspace edit. Level II would be earned after thirty days, Level III after 60 days and Level IV after 120 days. This would promote daily activity and involvement in the community. Your rank would be displayed in your signature. Inevitably we will be asked "But what if I miss one day." Well an appeals process will be set up and you can apply to have a specific edit count for two or three days of credit. If you created a new page on your own, added a major component to another, or turned a stub into a real page, then those may be eligible for this. Overall the program looks to increase the quality and frequency of logins as a way to have more engagement in the community. This program does not force there to be a higher quantity of edits, because clogging up the RC one day does not help your chances of gaining these merit ranks. We could also set up protection levels around the different ranks as a way to incentivize this program. For example, maybe you could only begin to edit the help pages after you have reached Wikian Level II.
2.) https://scratch.mit.edu/tips. I do not see the Wiki anywhere on the Tips page. We should encourage the Scratch Team to add a link + icon to the 9th empty tutorial box as a way to fill the space and promote the many tutorials which are present on the wiki.
3.) Suggestions with Connections. This idea may seem to be the most far-fetched but it is certainly another way to build a connection to the community. It would involve the creation of a new "Opinion" space which would house different opinion pieces written by members on the Scratch community. These would need to be high-quality suggestions which prove (sort of like a professional OP-ED) an interesting point. We would have a new stickied forum in the Suggestions page encouraging users to submit different articles. This would encourage high-quality writers to join the wiki after there opinion piece has been accepted. We would display these opinion pieces at the bottom of the front page (it would select five at random each time the page is refreshed).
These ideas overall increase the connection between the community and the wiki and encourage participants to come back time and time again to improve our community. I look forward to the discussion generated by these ideas. Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 14:22, 3 March 2018 (CET)
- 1) Sounds complicated but could work. Not sure if I would support that.
- 2) Good Idea! We should try that!
- 3) Sounds even more complicated ;)
- MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 14:53, 3 March 2018 (CET)
- What convincing evidence is necessary? Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 15:18, 3 March 2018 (CET)
- I think only doing it could proove that it works. To start, there shoud be more likes of others and somebody who can and wants to do the work ;-) Also the (1) seems intersect with #"extended confirmed" usergroup. Perhaps we should concentrate on (2)? BTW: As one of the translators for german language, I realized that we can make links to wiki-pages in the process of translating even if there are noe in the original, but that's not official and doesn't help for the english original. Separate Threat for (2)? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 15:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't support 1) because a help page was the first page I edited back then. That people trusted me really encouraged me and gave me self confidence. Who knows. If I wouldn't have been able to edit the page, maybe I wouldn't be here today? Anyway, maybe two-layer system that isn't so strict (you have to log in every day or so - that just isn't possible for some people) would work. Quite like New Scratchers and Scratchers. For 2) Good idea! It was in the old help page. I think at "Questions" it would make sense to add the Wiki! 3) I am not sure if I understand - Opinion pieces about what exactly? Finally: Hey, thanks for thinking about all these things and bringing them up! - LiFaytheGoblin (talk | contribs) 17:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't support 1) because a help page was the first page I edited back then. That people trusted me really encouraged me and gave me self confidence. Who knows. If I wouldn't have been able to edit the page, maybe I wouldn't be here today? Anyway, maybe two-layer system that isn't so strict (you have to log in every day or so - that just isn't possible for some people) would work. Quite like New Scratchers and Scratchers. For 2) Good idea! It was in the old help page. I think at "Questions" it would make sense to add the Wiki! 3) I am not sure if I understand - Opinion pieces about what exactly? Finally: Hey, thanks for thinking about all these things and bringing them up! -
- I think only doing it could proove that it works. To start, there shoud be more likes of others and somebody who can and wants to do the work ;-) Also the (1) seems intersect with #"extended confirmed" usergroup. Perhaps we should concentrate on (2)? BTW: As one of the translators for german language, I realized that we can make links to wiki-pages in the process of translating even if there are noe in the original, but that's not official and doesn't help for the english original. Separate Threat for (2)?
- What convincing evidence is necessary?
Bug with [wiki] in forums
It doesn't go well if the page name has colon such as Community Portal or ja:Main Page. I think it's due to the redirecting from old wiki to new one.
What should we do? I have two ideas now.
- Let ST change the [wiki] tag's code
- Make an extension/script to decode %3A and redirect correctly in the search page
Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 06:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting, I would beileve that you could make an extenstion to decode it. Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 07:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- The ST is planning to update the [wiki] links and footer wiki links sometime soon (though we didn't get an exact ETA), so I'd say just leave it for now. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 07:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Script to fix (tampermonkey). Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 03:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not done Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 11:54, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
- TEMPORARY fixed. Ken merged my colon checker code to SWS. Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 05:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, so this can be counted as...
partially done? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 05:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, so this can be counted as...
- TEMPORARY fixed. Ken merged my colon checker code to SWS.
- Script to fix (tampermonkey).
- The ST is planning to update the [wiki] links and footer wiki links sometime soon (though we didn't get an exact ETA), so I'd say just leave it for now.
New page for intro/outro
I think this is a big thing right know so should we have a main space article about intros/outros on one page or on two pages? Also will anyone help we write it? asqwde talk | contribs 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hmmmm, are you talking about a intro/outro to a project?
NYCDOT (talk | contribs) 20:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Scratch Jam
Not done
Who of you is interested to take part in an international Scratch Jam? See: Scratch Jam 2018 - Topic is "Evolution" (Submission open from March 13th 2018 at 9:22 PM to April 15th 2018 at 11:59 PM)
The organizer of this regular Scratch Jam is our DACH Scratch Wiki member de:user:frodewin. Beside his devotion for Scratch he is Professor for Computer Science at the University of Klagenfurt in Austria. You can ask him for more information at his Scratch Profile https://scratch.mit.edu/users/frodewin/ . We have an entry about this Scratch Jam in the German Scratch News here: https://scratch-dach.info/wiki/Vorlage:News
Do you think we can also put it in the english Scratch Wiki news? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 19:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm also planning on participating (though I'm not sure what to submit yet :P); I'm not sure about having it in the English news, it's technically a S:NOSP violation and isn't about English wiki meta stuff. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 12:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Submission Deadline is: April 15th !!! I think we don't get in conflict with S:NOSP when not mentioning the organizers (one of them is also LiFayTheGoblin from the Scratch-Team) at the Wikis-Front-Page. It's a lot of work to organize this regulary Scratch Jams and it could be lot of fun for those who take part. So I think it would not be fair not to mention it. I would appriciate to feature this and the following Scratch Jam at the Front Page. What do you others think? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 19:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- I did ask to not have my name in this, that was also the reason why I wanted Martin to ask for it in the forum. All I asked for was a neutral posting like in the German Wiki news with "The Scratch Jam 2018 started, you can submit a game about evolution until April 15." I don't see how this could be S:NOSP, furthermore a ST member is involved as one of the organizers. Also if it is S:NOSP I would ask to have the news removed in the German wiki as well.
Frodewin (talk | contribs) 19:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Frodewin, NOSP is an enwiki rule, the dewiki has no such restriction (you have your own "featured projects" for goodness sake). Having it in the dewiki news is fine (unless I'm missing something), but in the enwiki all forms of user-generated content (not just mentioning users!) is not allowed. With Lifay's part in it, it becomes a little more official, but Lifay isn't the entire Scratch Team - i.e. this is not actually a Scratch Team-organized event, so it still counts as user-generated content, and therefore doesn't really warrant a news item. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 03:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I appriviate that our admins stick to the rules. But because we are independent now, we can think about each rule and its targets and effects. In this case - where a Scratch Team member and a Professor of Computersience invest lots of efforts to organize a regular event, that gives all Scratchers the oportunity to take part in a challange to prove and mesure their programming and creative abilities in a fair competition, I think the strict inforecement of S:NOSP leads to really negative effects and disadvantages for the community. So I suggest to:
- Create a consensus about featuring the Scratch Jam at the Frontpage very fast, as viewing it as "user generated content" is subjective, will demotivate the organizers and will prohibit advantages for the Scratch Community (see below for more arguments)
- Start a process to rethink about rules like S:NOSP and create and democratic process, where the rules don't come from "above" but are made by the community itself. This will not be an easy and fast target, but Wikipedia, and many other democratic systems show, that it is a much better way to make rules than any other system. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 05:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- The NOSP rule dates back to when the wiki was transferred to wiki.scratch.mit.edu, it was put in place to prevent people making pages about their projects or about specific users (there is a Griffpatch article on the original wiki to this day). I'm not completely opposed to featuring this, I'm just worried that other people might think badly of a wiki that has for so long not involved anything by users that suddenly features a jam organized by users ("why do they have a Scratch Jam but not my project")... kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 05:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kenny2scratch: I think you are completely right to act carefully here, but I hope that we can make a fast consensus that the "Scratch Jam" is something different than just some "user generated content". We also lots of articles about entities that could be viewed as "user generated content" in some way, but are connected to Scratch in a Way that it should be mentioned in the Scratch Wiki like e.g. BeetleBlocks, BYOB, Alternatives to Scratch, Scratch Books and manny more. If we where strict, we also had to delete all that stuff too. That would be a real loss for the community. MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 06:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Kenny2scratch: I think you are completely right to act carefully here, but I hope that we can make a fast consensus that the "Scratch Jam" is something different than just some "user generated content". We also lots of articles about entities that could be viewed as "user generated content" in some way, but are connected to Scratch in a Way that it should be mentioned in the Scratch Wiki like e.g. BeetleBlocks, BYOB, Alternatives to Scratch, Scratch Books and manny more. If we where strict, we also had to delete all that stuff too. That would be a real loss for the community.
- I appriviate that our admins stick to the rules. But because we are independent now, we can think about each rule and its targets and effects. In this case - where a Scratch Team member and a Professor of Computersience invest lots of efforts to organize a regular event, that gives all Scratchers the oportunity to take part in a challange to prove and mesure their programming and creative abilities in a fair competition, I think the strict inforecement of S:NOSP leads to really negative effects and disadvantages for the community. So I suggest to:
- Frodewin, NOSP is an enwiki rule, the dewiki has no such restriction (you have your own "featured projects" for goodness sake). Having it in the dewiki news is fine (unless I'm missing something), but in the enwiki all forms of user-generated content (not just mentioning users!) is not allowed. With Lifay's part in it, it becomes a little more official, but Lifay isn't the entire Scratch Team - i.e. this is not actually a Scratch Team-organized event, so it still counts as user-generated content, and therefore doesn't really warrant a news item.
- I did ask to not have my name in this, that was also the reason why I wanted Martin to ask for it in the forum. All I asked for was a neutral posting like in the German Wiki news with "The Scratch Jam 2018 started, you can submit a game about evolution until April 15." I don't see how this could be S:NOSP, furthermore a ST member is involved as one of the organizers. Also if it is S:NOSP I would ask to have the news removed in the German wiki as well.
- Submission Deadline is: April 15th !!! I think we don't get in conflict with S:NOSP when not mentioning the organizers (one of them is also LiFayTheGoblin from the Scratch-Team) at the Wikis-Front-Page. It's a lot of work to organize this regulary Scratch Jams and it could be lot of fun for those who take part. So I think it would not be fair not to mention it. I would appriciate to feature this and the following Scratch Jam at the Front Page. What do you others think?
Scratch Books are sponsored by the Scratch Team; all of the others are extensions, and we already decided we wouldn't make any more extension pages, specifically because of NOSP. Extensions are also not complete violations of NOSP the way pages about projects are, so we didn't delete the pages, but we forbid making any new pages about extensions as the extensions should document themselves on their own websites. Scratch Jams are on about the same level as extensions - they shouldn't be added but if they already exist they shouldn't be deleted. Anyway, I also doubt that featuring the jam on the Wiki would help increase the number of partcipants - I would recommend making an Announcements post instead, or even featuring it in the Scratch News. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 07:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ken, don't you forget we can make exceptions after our discussion...? In WP, rules which prevent you from good editing can be ignored. Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 08:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Exceptions require some kind of official ST involvement - Kaj was made into a legend by the ST; the Removed Pac-Man Project was literally removed by the ST; Scratch in the Media/SpaceX Falcon 9 Lander was officially referred to by the ST as the cause of a site slowdown. However, there is no Scratch Team involvement in this jam.
- As for your second point, Wikipedia rules are not Scratch Wiki rules. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 09:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should shift this discussion more from "how to interpret the rules now and in the past" to "how should the rules be renewed and interpreted in the future", because we have more freedom and can act independent now. I am mostely an "inclusionist", so I think more information helps more, if it doesn't harm anybody. I don't like the "exclusionistic" bias the german Wikipedia has and like the more "inclusionistic" way of the english Wikipedia. I hope the english Scratch Wiki will not get (or stay?) too "exclusionistic" (see also Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies). We also should involve more people in the discussion. What do you think? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 10:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- With LifayTheGoblin, there is Scratch Team involvement in this Jam. Frodewin (talk | contribs) 10:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- @mtwoll: we have always had the freedom to change our own rules; our only restriction was we previously did not have technical control over our backend, and no ability to block. If you wanted a rule change, you should have proposed it before, IMO. If we're referring to in/exclusionism, I'm probably rather exclusionistic - I would prefer a small amount of very accurate and unopinionated information over a large amount of only "adequate" information. As for involving more people, anyone can join the discussion but it seems they're being scared off by my ferocity .
- @Frodewin: that is incorrect, with Lifay there is a Scratch Team member involved in the jam; Lifay is not acting on behalf of the Scratch Team, however, so there is no Scratch Team involvement. Only when there is an announcements post or/and a mention in the Scratch News is there actual Scratch Team involvement (because for that to happen, the Scratch Team needs to discuss it, instead of one person acting individually).
- Again, I think there should be (at least) an announcements post (or something with equal notability) before it's featured in the Wiki news. If you can persuade Lifay to get another (few) ST members to give it the OK for posting in announcements, I'll gladly allow it to be added. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have proposed a rule change which would favor a more "inclusionistic" policy. Standby. Also nice markup @Ken. Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 13:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have proposed a rule change which would favor a more "inclusionistic" policy. Standby. Also nice markup @Ken.
- @mtwoll: we have always had the freedom to change our own rules; our only restriction was we previously did not have technical control over our backend, and no ability to block. If you wanted a rule change, you should have proposed it before, IMO. If we're referring to in/exclusionism, I'm probably rather exclusionistic - I would prefer a small amount of very accurate and unopinionated information over a large amount of only "adequate" information. As for involving more people, anyone can join the discussion but it seems they're being scared off by my ferocity
- With LifayTheGoblin, there is Scratch Team involvement in this Jam.
- I think we should shift this discussion more from "how to interpret the rules now and in the past" to "how should the rules be renewed and interpreted in the future", because we have more freedom and can act independent now. I am mostely an "inclusionist", so I think more information helps more, if it doesn't harm anybody. I don't like the "exclusionistic" bias the german Wikipedia has and like the more "inclusionistic" way of the english Wikipedia. I hope the english Scratch Wiki will not get (or stay?) too "exclusionistic" (see also Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies). We also should involve more people in the discussion. What do you think?
I think this classifies as user content; it doesn't have ST discussion. I agree that putting it on current events might cause other users to wonder why their projects aren't up there. Basically opening up news to this event would open up a lot of grey areas as to what can be put in the news page. For example if a new rule was put in NOSP about user content being able to be posted in the news page it would cause a lot of debate with admins and end up in a stalemate.
Apologies if I missed out on some information because I didn't fully read this discussion.
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, the Jam, given that the deadline is over in 4 days, does not need to be announced anymore. Nevertheless, I'm quite concerned about the discussion here. The Wiki should be an extension to the Scratch Website, not a summary of its contents. Some things, like the Scratch Jam are not on the frontpage, because it contains an external link and might not be suited to the average Scratcher. However, the Wiki should be more inclusive here, for example in answering the interesting question how a Scratch game can be packaged and put on a game site. Other examples are robotics or didactic concepts. On the other hand, I agree very much with you that we should not open the Wiki for everybody to advertise his/her user-generated content, but having something discussed and agreed on in the Scratch club could be such a quality indicator. Frodewin (talk | contribs) 10:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- So far as the NOSP rule has existed, the condition for exceptions to it was: Was it endorsed by the Scratch Team? Featuring user-generated content, even if the basis of the feature is quality, is going to cause strife and spite among the Scratch community - even if people know that a project was featured and not theirs because the other project was good, they will still complain that their stuff wasn't featured and somebody else's was. Have you seen the hateful comments on FPCs' profiles? Or the despicable comments on featured projects? Hopefully not, if the Community Moderators have been doing their job well. Point is, no matter what way we feature user-generated content, it will cause a bad reaction from those who were not featured.
- Explaining how a Scratch game can be packaged and put on a game site (specifically itch.io) is actually explained in How to Publish Scratch Projects on itch.io, by the way. I think robotics is partially explained in the WeDo pages, but I get the feeling that we avoid making things that are too complicated for the average Scratcher (though there is the anamoly here and there). kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 10:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think we have loads of articles about subjects that have no formal official backing of the Scratch Team, examples can be found in links above, lets take How to Publish Scratch Projects on itch.io. Here the question is more, if an entity can be viewed as "user generated content"...it can not, because itch.io is not organized by Scratch users but made by an independent organization of a certain importancy. So the question about the "Scratch Jam" (as the example that started the discussion) is, if it can be viewed as made by an an independent organization although two Scratchers created it (Although one of them is a professor for computersience and the other one a member of the ST). As the "DACH-Scratch-Wiki" is an independent organization of a certain importancy, I would sugest to solve that problem by granding frodewin and lifay the "godfathership" of the DACH-Scratch-Wiki as backing organizer of the Scratch Jam (I'm sure I can convince the DACH-Scratch-Wiki to do so ;-). No other user could argument that he want's an entry in the news or an article about his content, as long as there isn't a organization of a certain importancy behind it. As the Scratch Jam is a regular event (I hope frodewin and lifay are not so demotivated by this discussion to discontinue it...at least they continued it in the past ;-) this view could help us in the future and motivate everyone. So if enough people agree upon this point of view, we could say: Problems solved and everybody happy! :-) Who does agree to that solution? MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 14:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- +1 ;-) MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 14:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Since I believe the original point of this topic is now moot, I'll open up a subtopic here.
- +1 ;-)
- I think we have loads of articles about subjects that have no formal official backing of the Scratch Team, examples can be found in links above, lets take How to Publish Scratch Projects on itch.io. Here the question is more, if an entity can be viewed as "user generated content"...it can not, because itch.io is not organized by Scratch users but made by an independent organization of a certain importancy. So the question about the "Scratch Jam" (as the example that started the discussion) is, if it can be viewed as made by an an independent organization although two Scratchers created it (Although one of them is a professor for computersience and the other one a member of the ST). As the "DACH-Scratch-Wiki" is an independent organization of a certain importancy, I would sugest to solve that problem by granding frodewin and lifay the "godfathership" of the DACH-Scratch-Wiki as backing organizer of the Scratch Jam (I'm sure I can convince the DACH-Scratch-Wiki to do so ;-). No other user could argument that he want's an entry in the news or an article about his content, as long as there isn't a organization of a certain importancy behind it. As the Scratch Jam is a regular event (I hope frodewin and lifay are not so demotivated by this discussion to discontinue it...at least they continued it in the past ;-) this view could help us in the future and motivate everyone. So if enough people agree upon this point of view, we could say: Problems solved and everybody happy! :-) Who does agree to that solution?
Changing S:NOSP
In the topic above, most of my motivation for opposition was because S:NOSP disallows featuring user-generated content on the Wiki. However, after the transfer, I believe this should be changed a little bit.
Last night, I realized one crucial flaw with the rule after the transfer: the Wiki itself is now user-generated content. Therefore, technically the page Scratch Wiki itself would break it if it weren't for the Scratch Team involvement occasionally (cough Wiki Wednesday cough). Because of this, I propose a rule change that might satisfy everyone (and the now-moot topic above): Instead of requiring official Scratch Team sponsorship, I think that if something deserves a place on the Wiki, it only needs to have either at least one Scratch Team member involved or be directly related to Scratch. For example, the above Scratch Jam fits both of those conditions - it's a Scratch Jam and it had Lifay involved. However, Scratch Jams would not get a Scratch Wiki: page because they are not directly Wiki related. As to my previous argument that user-generated content would provoke spite, I believe now (though I didn't before) that a single Scratch Team member or a clear relationship with Scratch is enough to quell such hatred.
What do you think about this rule change? Are there unintentional side effects I failed to mention? Or is there some extra advantage you know about? What are your thoughts?
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 02:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- First of all thanks for driving this! The least one Scratch Team member involved or be directly related to Scratch is a good start. Where would that sentence go in? There is already a point in S:NOSP: Topics that have been considered important/notable enough in Scratch's history by a majority of wiki editors that they deserve an article. (ex. Kaj, Removed Pac-Man Project, etc.).
- I would also suggest to add the Scratch Club decisions here, since they are results of a discussion of several responsible people, all results are documented and Martin is typically taking part. The Scratch Club meeting originated from the German wiki, but many decisions of the Wiki transition have been discussed there. There is also an english-speaking international version of it, all thinks related to a non-german Wiki should be discussed there. The reason why I want to have Martin in is that he is the official main reponsible of all Wikis now and the guy carrying all the financial and legal risk. Note that this would be just a seat in the council, not a dictatorship.
- So my suggestion is to extend the point as follows:
- Topics that have been considered important/notable enough in Scratch's history (e.g. endorsement by a ST team member, a documented Scratch Club decision, or a majority of wiki editors) that they deserve an article. (ex. Kaj, Removed Pac-Man Project, etc.).
- For the second part, I don't fully get the requirement of wiki-related. After all most of the articles are about Scratch and not related to the Wiki. I think the main criteria should be being Scratch-related and being notable. For example the Scratch Jam, in its current form, should not get its own page because it appears to get not too many submissions and therefore is most likely smaller than many studios on Scratch, however if, let's say, a Scratch becomes more popular in the gamedev scene because of this or some notable YouTube or Switch streamers cover the event (just wishful thinking :-) ), it would be notable and could have its own page. To give another example, if Snap! would not have its own page it would deserve one because of its importance in teaching and as a follow-up language for Scratch, despite being not directly related to the Scratch page or the wiki. Frodewin (talk | contribs) 06:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- There's an English-speaking international Scratch Club?? Where do I join??
- I think it would be better to adapt the point like this:
| “ | Exceptions to this rule include topics receiving endorsement from a Scratch Team member, documented Scratch Club decisions, topics enormously important to Scratch culture (e.g. Kaj, Removed Pac-Man Project, etc.), or other topics agreed on by a majority of Wiki editors. | ” |
- The related-to-Wiki requirement is about getting pages in the Scratch Wiki namespace rather than the mainspace, don't mind it - I shouldn't have brought it up, as it's a topic for another day. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 07:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- A slight modification.
- The related-to-Wiki requirement is about getting pages in the Scratch Wiki namespace rather than the mainspace, don't mind it - I shouldn't have brought it up, as it's a topic for another day.
| “ | Exceptions to this rule include topics receiving endorsement from a Scratch Team member, documented Scratch Club decisions, topics enormously important to Scratch culture (e.g. Kaj, Removed Pac-Man Project, etc.), or other topics agreed on by a majority of Wiki editors and administrators. | ” |
- Also I hate the be the naysayer here: but can we clarify the phrase "endorsement from a Scratch Team member"? Wouldn't that mean that every person followed by a Scratch Team member would be notable enough to deserve an article?
- Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 12:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- A follow is not an endorsement. A follow simply indicates that the ST member likes the user's content and wants to see when they release more - it does not indicate that the ST member is "sponsoring" the user, like they are when they help organize a Scratch Jam. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 12:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah. The never-ending Internet debate about whether a like = endorsement. RT != Endorsement! Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ah. The never-ending Internet debate about whether a like = endorsement. RT != Endorsement!
- A follow is not an endorsement. A follow simply indicates that the ST member likes the user's content and wants to see when they release more - it does not indicate that the ST member is "sponsoring" the user, like they are when they help organize a Scratch Jam.
Lol.
Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 00:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
English Scratch Club
Not done
The Scratch club is a weekly meeting among a group of Scratchers which are contributing actively to the Scratch Wiki and to Scratch in general. The meetings are used to discuss important issues, most notable was the discussion if the transition of the english Wiki should take place. Currently, the weekly meetings are held in German, but we used to have an international Scratch club following after the German one. An alternative could be to make it alternating every week between German and English. As a start, who of the English and international Wiki administrators would be interested in it and able to join? And what would be better: weekly every Monday at 9:00 PM CET or bi-weekly at 8:00 PM? Once I get a tendency about the if and when, I will bring it up at the next German Scratch club, perhaps already next Monday. Frodewin (talk | contribs) 20:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- Aw man! I wish I was a admin. Well, I am pretty sure someone (Cough cough Kenny2scatch Cough Cough) NYCDOT (talk | contribs) 22:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- I would definitely like to join, but neither 8 or 9 PM CET work for me - I'm in Hong Kong, and 8PM CET is 3AM HKT... Best would be on weekends, since everyone's time is likely to be more flexible - on weekdays, we have work and school, but on weekends times that would normally be during work/school are usually ok. Would 2PM CET on Saturdays (or Sundays) be workable? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 02:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
New SDS
New SDS but news is not updated Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 08:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 10:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
New pop-up
This past week I have noticed a new message at the bottom of the edit page. This is what is says:
"Please note that all contributions to Scratch Wiki are considered to be released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! "
Does anyone have any information about this? Thanks! 
PrincessFlowerTV (talk | contribs) 14:25, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Its license changed from PD to CC BY-SA, because Mtwoll decided that in order to use Scratch's things under CC BY-SA.
- According to the license, fair use might be allowed in USA, but not here. (It's no longer in USA!) Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 21:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Question
Though wiki.scratch.mit.edu redirects to this domain, there is not a page saying that you are leaving the Scratch website, as we promised. Should we make index.html say that, with SWS?
<offtopic> Bliddy eck, this formatting highlighting is confusing, how do you disable it? </offtopic> banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 15:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- <offtopic>press the colourful wheely button thing I think.</offtopic>
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 22:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- <offtopic>yes, the colorful wheel thing next to "advanced", I pointed it out in the topic about it.</offtopic>
- We were not exactly promised that there would be such a page - we were informed as such because wiki.scratch.mit.edu was originally going to redirect to scratch-wiki.info, which would have such a warning on it - but as of a week or two ago, the ST were allowed to directly redirect it without having to have such a warning. I guess there was a change of heart at MIT.
- TL, DR: we don't need the warning because MIT doesn't require it. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
How do you upload a file?
I want to load an image into my user page, but I don't know how to upload an image! Could you help me?
Thanks in advance!
Mrbumppo (talk | contribs) 20:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Mrbumppo
Template for questionable content?
I want to make a template for Questionable content, Template:Questionable. The create page says that I should get approval before doing so, so please reply if you approve or disapprove.
Mrbumppo (talk | contribs) 23:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC) mrbumppo
- First off, thanks for reading the warning on the creation page! Surprisingly few people read everything before acting.
- As to the question: could you make a mockup of what you're proposing? Maybe in your sandbox? That'll give us a better idea of what you want to make. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Suggestion
We should update Featured Images. That's all. banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 17:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- You got any ideas for what images to put in there? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 23:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
- Naw. banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 06:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- Naw.
Userscripts - Discuss again!
There is a policy to ban advertising userscripts. Is that followed in this wiki?
- Yes, because the ST promised us not to have inappropriate things.
- Yes, because the Community Guidelines still apply here.
- No, this wiki is ours now, no longer the ST's.
- No, there is a disclaimer.
- I don't know.
- <offtopic>By the way, did you drink some apple juice yesterday?</offtopic>If you're bored and want to answer the 6th, do it at my talk.
What I know:
- One of ST member deleted a page related to userscripts without any notice last November
- The server was transferred last February
- There are still some articles with userscripts such as kaj
Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 12:02, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- If CGs apply here (and they do), then we should not show any userscripts on the Wiki. No matter whether the Wiki is ours or not, whether we can be advertised on the main site ourselves is under the control of the Scratch Team.
- The disclaimer does not cover userscripts - it only says nobody can be held responsible for inaccurate information here.
- I believe that in accordance with ST policy, we should not have any advertisements for userscripts.
- HOWEVER. On the Wiki, I plan to enable "user js/css" sometime in the near future. It does something similar to a userscript, but limited only to the Wiki. They are not as dangerous as real userscripts, though, because:
- The source code for user JS and CSS is available for anyone to see (but only the owner and admins can edit it)
- It only applies to the Wiki.
- As for the script on kaj, that's actually only something to paste in the console (although that is also discouraged, it's not banned as completely outright as userscripts are because the source code is public).
- So my opinion is we Should not advertise userscripts on the Wiki, but that that will not apply to user JS/CSS should we choose to enable it. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 12:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- == Not done topic archived ==
Hello, one of my Not done topics were archived. Can i get it back? asqwde talk | contribs 16:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- If a topic is archived but you still have more to say, you are welcome to repost it. Just copy-paste all of the existing discussion from the archive and put it here. jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
- Which topic in particular? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 00:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Indenting mistake? нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 00:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, that was deliberate - it indicates I'm also replying to asqwde rather than replying to jvvg. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- No, that was deliberate - it indicates I'm also replying to asqwde rather than replying to jvvg.
- Indenting mistake?
- this one asqwde talk | contribs 14:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ahh, I didn't reply because your last reply didn't make sense - what is "change the unage with the studio for 2017 thrn it is the same one"? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 14:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for my spelling. You said not to give the link of the studio so there is one image in 2017 that gives the link of the studio so could you change that please. Understood? asqwde talk | contribs 15:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Ahh, I didn't reply because your last reply didn't make sense - what is "change the unage with the studio for 2017 thrn it is the same one"?
More articles?
Does somebody have an idea for an article I could write?
Mrbumppo (talk | contribs) 12:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- about 3.0? Apple502j (Sleeping) Talk/Activities 1,472edit 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Featured Images
https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Scratch_Wiki_Home/Featured_Images
Are the Featured Images going to change?
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hah, likely not in the near future, unless we think of some new images to put in there. kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 13:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Can I change them? I have a few in mind. (I wasn't expediting a reply from you as you are on the other side of the world form me.) Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- You can't change them directly, but I (or another admin, I'm about to go to bed) can change them for you - what are the images you have in mind? (I'm on at strange times lol) kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- You can't change them directly, but I (or another admin, I'm about to go to bed) can change them for you - what are the images you have in mind? (I'm on at strange times lol)
- Can I change them? I have a few in mind. (I wasn't expediting a reply from you as you are on the other side of the world form me.)
Welcoming Committee or Scratch Welcoming Committee
Hello. I left this post on its talk but no one answered. Should it be scratch welcoming committee or welcoming committee here.
Reasons why welcoming committee
1. That is the name for the project submsissions studio
2. Name of private forum
Reasons why scratch welcoming committee
1. Often abbreviated as SWC not WC
2. Name of main studio
So what should it be? asqwde talk | contribs 14:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Updating featured article
Could a admin update the featured article please? asqwde talk | contribs 14:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
![[1]](http://i.cubeupload.com/AMKuh9.png){kind=link}