|
This page is an archive of Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal. Please do not start new conversations on this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives (oldest first):
1 •
2 •
3 •
4 •
5 •
6 •
7 •
8 •
9 •
10
11 •
12 •
13 •
14 •
15 •
16 •
17 •
18 •
19 •
20
21 •
22 •
23 •
24 •
25 •
26 •
27 •
28 •
29 •
30
31 •
32 •
33 •
34 •
35 •
36 •
37 •
38 •
39 •
40
41 •
42 •
43 •
44 •
45 •
46 •
47 •
48 •
49 •
50
51 •
52 •
53 •
54 •
55 •
56 •
57 •
58 •
59 •
60
61 •
62 •
63 •
64 •
65 •
66 •
67 •
68 •
69 •
70
71 •
72 •
73 •
74 •
75 •
76 •
77 •
78 •
79 •
80
81 •
82 •
83 •
84 •
85 •
86 •
87 •
88 •
89 •
90
91 •
92 •
93 •
94 •
95 •
96 •
97 •
98 •
99 •
100
101 •
102 •
103 •
104 •
105 •
106 •
107 •
108 •
109 •
110
111 •
112 •
113 •
114 •
115 •
116 •
117 •
118 •
119 •
120
121
Unfinished discussions
Proposal to replace Discussion Invitation System notifications with pings
Currently, the discussion invitation system uses talk page notifications to notify prospective discussion contributors. Now that we have Echo installed and can ping users, I am proposing that if we want to bring in a DIS user, instead of leaving a talk page message, we ping them using the mention template. This has two main benefits: it avoids cluttering talk pages and it gives a record in the original discussion of who was invited. Any thoughts on this?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is interesting, because the discussion invitation system is a list of users who'd like to be invited to discussions, but theoretically, you could do it any way you want. Some people prefer Scratch comments over wiki talk page messages. I was planning on just changing the page, but since you made this proposal maybe that is better. If there is no opposition I would say it's a good idea to change the page to suggest that people tag them, and possibly delete the template. Though, people would still be able to post to talk pages using their own words.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 07:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'd rather keep a little bit of the formalism - perhaps a new template similar to {{@}} but that specifically highlights that someone is being invited under DIS, so that it doesn't look like an out-of-context ping.
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 14:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps we can make a template that automatically pings everyone that signed up for DIS. The only downside is that it doesn't respect limits of people. However, adding an argument for the template that excludes some Wikians from getting a ping can help that.
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 16:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
- Nice idea! I support this. I wonder if DI Wikians like @Super_Scratch_Bros20 who have no listed limits have different opinions than those who do, like @Scratchgodo.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 18:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Purin2022 Maybe we can make it ping everyone who signed up for it while respecting their limits if we make a format for the people who want to have limits.
Scratchgodo (Talk|Contributions|Scratch) 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- That didn't send me a notification...
- @Scratchgodo It is techinically impossible. Some people have their limits per month while others have it per week, per day or even per 2 days. The software only recongizes per month. Additionally, some people also have timezone limits (like 3pm to 7pm IST everyday). Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 20:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Purin2022 Maybe we can make it ping everyone who signed up for it while respecting their limits if we make a format for the people who want to have limits.
- Nice idea! I support this. I wonder if DI Wikians like @Super_Scratch_Bros20 who have no listed limits have different opinions than those who do, like @Scratchgodo.
- Perhaps we can make a template that automatically pings everyone that signed up for DIS. The only downside is that it doesn't respect limits of people. However, adding an argument for the template that excludes some Wikians from getting a ping can help that.
- I'd rather keep a little bit of the formalism - perhaps a new template similar to {{@}} but that specifically highlights that someone is being invited under DIS, so that it doesn't look like an out-of-context ping.
@Purin2022 That is a shame, I thought it could recognise per week, per day and timezones.
Scratchgodo (Talk|Contributions|Scratch) 20:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Scratchgodo It can but it'd be somewhat complicated to do. It might be better for people with strict bounds to not be added. Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 21:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't mind how I get discussion invitations. I don't mind if it's done via pings, my talk page, or even my Scratch profile. I don't mind how often I get invitations either. However, I recognize that many users have set boundaries that should be respected. So here are my thoughts:
- Keep the current system for a bit. Don't remove the template. Treat pings as a normal way to send someone a discussion invitation. Simply say, "I wish to hear @User's thoughts on this", or something along those lines. If someone doesn't respect your personal boundaries, they can always be reported as usual.
- I say we wait two months. In light of Echo being installed, we can run an experiment and see the most popular way users are being notified once Wikians are more accustomed to using pings on the Wiki. After those two months, we should make our final decision.
Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 21:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- It has been a few months since the proposal was first made. Just in the last few days I came across at least two instances where editors wrote DI should be used instead of pings or simliar. Of course, this proposal never actually got community consensus, so technically they are right. However, like @Super Scratch Bros20, I do think that user's should have the option to ping as a DI as it does save a few unnecessary edits (and therefore clog in RC) and is, in my opinion, more convenient than the original DIS. Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 18:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that telling someone not to ping others is "right". While the discussion invitation system exists as a way for people to ask for invitations to interesting discussions, there has never been a rule that you *have to* post on users' talk pages. Also, people are applying this more broadly-- not just to users on that list, but to anyone who is tagged t oa discussion, including ones specific to them. To me, it sounds like an unofficial prohibition on pings, which would ruin the purpose of even having them. So, I support switching the discussion invitation system to pings. Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Does a ping on someone's talk page ping them?
Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 20:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that telling someone not to ping others is "right". While the discussion invitation system exists as a way for people to ask for invitations to interesting discussions, there has never been a rule that you *have to* post on users' talk pages. Also, people are applying this more broadly-- not just to users on that list, but to anyone who is tagged t oa discussion, including ones specific to them. To me, it sounds like an unofficial prohibition on pings, which would ruin the purpose of even having them. So, I support switching the discussion invitation system to pings.
- It has been a few months since the proposal was first made. Just in the last few days I came across at least two instances where editors wrote DI should be used instead of pings or simliar. Of course, this proposal never actually got community consensus, so technically they are right. However, like @Super Scratch Bros20, I do think that user's should have the option to ping as a DI as it does save a few unnecessary edits (and therefore clog in RC) and is, in my opinion, more convenient than the original DIS.
- I say we wait two months. In light of Echo being installed, we can run an experiment and see the most popular way users are being notified once Wikians are more accustomed to using pings on the Wiki. After those two months, we should make our final decision.
I don't think a template that pings the entire DI list is workable, because it could bypass limits, as pointed out by others. Custom code to obey limits is more effort than it's worth, and I say that as the only person on the DI list currently with a rate limit.
It's also occurred to me that using pings in the first place makes obeying limits hard. Under the current system, you can obey limits by checking the talk page you're about to use {{Discussion Invitation}} on for previous invitations within the limited period (say the past day). With pings, you'd have to check literally every talk page edited within the past day for pings.
So I think if pings are used for DIs, there should be some tracking that goes along with it - e.g. a manual log of pings done under DI, updated by the pinging user, so that others can see the pings and avoid violating limits. I don't believe that the talk-page-style invitations should be obsoleted in favor of pings, so either pinging users will need to check both the talk page and the log, or they will need to update the log on talk-page-style invitations too.
This somewhat defeats the convenience and RC clutter reduction of pinging. So I'm curious to hear what others would prefer - a) allow pings, check log & talk page when pinging, and update log; b) allow pings, check log when pinging, and update on talk page ping too; or c) keep it to just talk page invitations and officially prohibit pings for pure DI purposes?
(Side note: Separately, I think it's sensible to completely ban DI pings for users who direct DIs to another page. They obviously don't want full-blown notifications but rather to check the page from time to time. Any contention?) kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 00:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Kenny2scratch I kind of wonder why limits even exist in the first place. Obviously that prevents users from recieving too much messages as they can handle, however if people use it sensibly then I don't think it'd break any reasonable limit. Failing that, an alternative way is to make everyone who wants to ping people for DI purposes to list who they pinged in the Edit Summary. Then people can press ctrl+F for 'ping' in RC (+ checking user talk) to certainly if a limit has been broken or not. Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 08:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it's acceptable to do away with explicit limits, in case someone wants to be on a cadence longer than what a given pinger would consider a "reasonable limit" (say, a month, or a year).
- I like the idea of listing DI pings in the edit summary to find in RC. That's a very good idea that I didn't think of. One caveat is that RC only goes back at most 30 days, so limits greater than that would require a more extensive search. But I think that would most likely lead to people simply not pinging those with limits too long to check (especially if we explicitly encourage that, which I think would be wise), which in my opinion is fair... if you want to be pinged less often than once a month, why bother being on the list at all?
- As an added bonus, using RC as the log would obviate the necessity of checking the talk page - since a DI on the talk page would show up in RC as an edit to that talk page with the summary "Discussion Invitation: new section".
- So to me that sounds like the proposal is to modify DI rules to:
- Explicitly allow pinging, as long as users pinged are listed in the edit summary; and
- Require pingers to check Special:RecentChanges for previous DI pings and/or talk page DIs within the limit, if present.
- Does everyone agree or does anyone have further thoughts? kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 00:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Wiki "Drought"?
Little to no edits are being made on mainspace pages. Almost all the edits in "Recent Changes" are for userspace pages. Is it possible that we have documented all there is about scratch, and until the next update/version, it will stay that way?
What I mean by that is because a certain feature is well documented, it doesnt get meaningful edits. all just typo corrections and such. The same thing is happening with talk pages, they are very very inactive.
Elithecoder12345 (talk | contribs) 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Elithecoder12345 Well if a subject is well documented, then there's not really anything major missing from the article (that's what well documented means), so naturally there's more minor edits. There are a couple of active discussions on the Community Portal though. There is potential room for new content though, for example, expanding stubs, making new (good) tutorials, etc. So we haven't necessarily "documented all there is about scratch". Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Elithecoder12345 I would indeed say that the amount of major edits has gone down, that doesn't mean that nothing needs doing though! As Purin2022 said, there are things like tutorials which still could be made along with minor edits to enhance existing articles.
Adzboy • Talk • Contributions • Scratch Profile 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have noticed that too. For me, it is a mix of not knowing what pages need improvement, and just not having time to make edits. I should have more time this summer. Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree as to what Ideapad-320 said as, I really don't know what needs editing. But also it seems that the ScratchWiki is not being well presented to the average user on Scratch, there are many posts on the Scratch Forums which could be resolved by looking at Scratch Wiki
WallydogChoppychop (talk | contribs) 08:25, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
- As others have said, there's not much new to do. There is also a problem with general attention. It is extremely difficult to get the Scratch Wiki to appear in Google search for commonly searched questions about Scratch without explicitly mentioning the Scratch Wiki, and the website itself is slow.
CrazyBoy826 | Talk | 8,269 edits | Scratch 05:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)
- As others have said, there's not much new to do. There is also a problem with general attention. It is extremely difficult to get the Scratch Wiki to appear in Google search for commonly searched questions about Scratch without explicitly mentioning the Scratch Wiki, and the website itself is slow.
- I agree as to what Ideapad-320 said as, I really don't know what needs editing. But also it seems that the ScratchWiki is not being well presented to the average user on Scratch, there are many posts on the Scratch Forums which could be resolved by looking at Scratch Wiki
- I have noticed that too. For me, it is a mix of not knowing what pages need improvement, and just not having time to make edits. I should have more time this summer.
- @Elithecoder12345 I would indeed say that the amount of major edits has gone down, that doesn't mean that nothing needs doing though! As Purin2022 said, there are things like tutorials which still could be made along with minor edits to enhance existing articles.
[SUGGESTION] View Source CSS of page without editing
This situation has happened to many editors: They find a page with some sort of fancy mechanisms or code or whatever. They view the source code by pressing edit source, which takes a long time to load. They then exit the editor, satisfied, but then it also takes a long time for no reason. If we kept separate pages with nowiki tags and called them Source pages or Raw pages, it would make life for a lot of editors easier. Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 13:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Co0lcr34t10ns, you mean something along the lines of keeping the «View Source» button in every page (without being protected, of course)?
Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (441) ) 14:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah. The fact you have to go into the editor just to view source isn't great imo Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- But imo, viewing source without the color coding/highlighting is kinda confusing. Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (441) ) 14:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I agree but something is better than nothing Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 15:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Co0lcr34t10ns Ig so, but I kind of rely on highlighting, so it's kind of a nuisance Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (441) ) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Co0lcr34t10ns Ig so, but I kind of rely on highlighting, so it's kind of a nuisance
- Yeah I agree but something is better than nothing
- But imo, viewing source without the color coding/highlighting is kinda confusing.
- Yeah. The fact you have to go into the editor just to view source isn't great imo
- Although this is a great idea, I'm guessing (lucky shot) that this is a MediaWiki thing, and modifying it would be spaghetti code. Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (441) ) 19:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- Although this is a great idea, I'm guessing (lucky shot) that this is a MediaWiki thing, and modifying it would be spaghetti code.
Not like they haven't done it before, check the Scratch Wiki GitHub. Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmdzti_0-0, Co0lcr34t10ns — Edit Conflict If you have proper clean code then there probably wouldn't be spaghetti on the plate. However this looks like it is going to involve a bot or an extension of MW. The bot is going to fail a significant amount of S:BOTNEEDS (it isn't even necessary) so bots are no good. On the other hand the extension isn't impossible but it's not like extension development is easy and I don't think the devs would like to spend hours developing this thing that is unnecessary. So I don't think that is going to be a good idea. Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Purin2022 In that case why not just a view source button that automatically generates? It doesn't have to be a bot. Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- If it was that easy to implement, the wiki would’ve added this already. However, sadly, it is not. Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (441) ) 08:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- If it was that easy to implement, the wiki would’ve added this already. However, sadly, it is not.
- @Purin2022 In that case why not just a view source button that automatically generates? It doesn't have to be a bot.
Should there be a "Guidance for young editors" page?
Should there be a "Guidance for young editors" page on the Scratch Wiki? If so, then it might have the shortcut "S:YOUNG". 
RSITYTScratch (talk | contribs) 14:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RSITYTScratch Short answer, probably not. Long answer: I don't really see any reason why we should have it. Unlike Wikipedia, all content on this wiki should comply with the Community Guidelines, which states "we welcome people of all ages" and "keep personal and contact information private", so 50% of that page's content is obsolete. Also we have many, many ways to let new editors to learn the "guidelines" (including the Account Request System, the Community Portal, the welcoming templates etc.) so that part isn't as useful. Finally 90% or more of the users on Scratch are <18 years old so a guesstimate of that number on the wiki would be reasonable above 50%, so creating a page for that many editors and excluding the rest of them seems weird, if not excessive. Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 14:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Purin2022, RSITYTScratch — Maybe I’m making an assumption, but I assume this is for new (young) editors, not based on physical age. I could be wrong, OP, please confirm.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,591) • profile 15:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @han614698 The page is not for new editors, rather on physical age.
RSITYTScratch - (talk - contribs - logs) 16:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really think this matters that much. Unlike Scratch, users on the Wiki have to request an account, meaning editors should already be trusted. Also, what would the guidance for young editors be? There's already the Community Portal, Cheatsheet, etc. And, like Purin2022 said, most Scratch users are young. According to the Statistics page, around 47 million Scratchers joined at under 13 years old, and around 83 million Scratchers joined at under 18 years old.
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RSITYTScratch What would the contents of that page be?
mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 17:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RSITYTScratch What would the contents of that page be?
- I don't really think this matters that much. Unlike Scratch, users on the Wiki have to request an account, meaning editors should already be trusted. Also, what would the guidance for young editors be? There's already the Community Portal, Cheatsheet, etc. And, like Purin2022 said, most Scratch users are young. According to the Statistics page, around 47 million Scratchers joined at under 13 years old, and around 83 million Scratchers joined at under 18 years old.
- @han614698 The page is not for new editors, rather on physical age.
- @Purin2022, RSITYTScratch — Maybe I’m making an assumption, but I assume this is for new (young) editors, not based on physical age. I could be wrong, OP, please confirm.
I guess it could be being careful sharing personal information. RSITYTScratch - (talk - contribs - logs) 17:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RSITYTScratch I'm not sure whether that really deserves its own page — if we're going to include that piece of information I suggest adding it to a page like S:USERSPACE, since really anyone sharing personal info online should take care doing it. Also offtopic but please make sure that in your custom signature has an
<br/>before anything else to avoid breaking talk pages. Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
