Is this necessary?

First of all: Don't think I'm biased or anything about RPGs and such - I actually like RPGs; there's one I'm really involved with on the TBG. :)

Is this really necessary? Articles on users, projects, and the like aren't allowed, but what about RPGs? I don't see them directly involved with the Scratch program, website, forums, and so on... and if this article is here, that could lead to making an article on lots of other RPGs, which would be rather silly. This article could also be a hotspot for flames and such (but I doubt it).

I like the article, though - it's nice and neutral. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Also - who wants to expand the article?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I really don't think we should have this article... Anthros Unite is an RPG/group - and it'd be silly to have an article on RPG's and groups, right? (+1 on Chrischb's second paragraph.) :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to represent all the activities that happen in the Scratch, especially those that involve so many people! Whether we like it or not, Anthros and Warrior RPGs are big part of Scratch. I want this wiki to be inclusive and diverse, I want it to be representative of the Scratch community. In fact I would like to have more diversity in the Wiki editors because I feel like the current editors only represent a segment of the Scratch population. We need to reach out to those missing: those interested in art and RPGs (among other groups). I agree with you that this article needs to be expanded. That's another reason to have someone involved in this RPG to add more to it. I think we should have articles on everything that has happened in Scratch that involves multiple people. For example, I have asked MyRedNeptune and Robin7 to create articles about the history of Crank Inc and Gray Bear Productions. I would like to see articles about any group that has involved more than 1 person that has created at least more than 1 project. --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 13:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh... :/ But aren't there LOTS of groups that have made more than one project? Getting them all would be hard; or are we only getting the major ones?
It's okay, though - I'm just anxious about this becoming a content wiki. ;)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but my impression is that there are only a few groups that get to actually projects collaboratively. A lot of the ones I've seen are only one person creating the projects and other people joining the group but not contributing. If there are many groups, it would be great to list them all but we might want to start first with the ones that have been (or were) active for a long period of time and/or the ones that have the most number of people actively involved.--
andresmh (talk | contribs) 18:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Look Andres - I do respect your opinion, but my idea of a Scratch Wiki wasn't necessarily about all of the community, and all of the major trends and RPGs and Collaborations - it was to document Scratch, to help new members, and learn a lot more, as an encyclopedia for Scratch. RPGs and Collaborations aren't very practical - it's basically like letting users creating articles about their projects, and themselves. I don't think when a reader clicks the "Random page" button, they should get some undeveloped collaboration or RPG.
This wiki isn't one of your research things to help you learn more about the Scratch and remixing and stuff by letting the community write about themselves, in case that's what you thought this was an opportunity for - this is a serious thing to help people learn more about Scratch.
One possibility is however to put RPGs on a separate namespace, and Collaborations on a separate namespace (Just like how "Talk:" and "Scratch Wiki:" are namespaces - you can create custom namespaces). They could be "Collaboration:" and "RPG:" (as well as "Collaboration talk:" and "RPG talk:". That, might make things a little more acceptable and organized. But I'm still pretty opposed about this.
Andres - do you understand why articles on Projects and Users are not allowed? No, not because there would be hundreds of thousands of them (even though that's true), or because they wouldn't be important enough to be on the wiki. It's because it can basically cause flame wars (or on the wiki, called "edit wars"), and articles can become very biased and such. This isn't what we want. We want articles with exact info, and not info that is constantly changing, like the history in an RPG - because that can vary from opinion to opinion by viewpoint. And for Collaborations, it can vary from opinion to opinion on who does what, and how much they do, and who contributed to what projects and such, so that can become very biased.
Do you understand? I hope I made that clear...
Also, a comment on what you said about the number of collaborations; "that there are only a few groups that get to actually projects collaboratively" - once again, that is being biased. Some users might think that they are proud of themselves, for doing hard work and such, and working as a collab, but other advanced users looking singly at the big picture like you might think it's not so great.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your views on this. I think I do understand your points of view. It's good to know what you think since you (along with others) have been instrumental in building this wonderful wiki (thanks!). However, those are just your opinions. They might represent the opinions of others as well but they are by no means the only ones. This wiki is "for and by Scratchers" therefore it should represent all the different types of Scratch community members, not only a few. If the only purpose of this wiki was to create a technical documentation site we could have just built it on top of This Wiki is as much about the tool as it is about the community. The Scratch community is as much about the blocks as it is about the RPGs, it is as much about BYOB as it is about artists. Below are my responses to some of your concerns:

  1. You say that you want to prevent some topics because they can cause an edit war. Well, anything can cause an edit war. For example, some people could argue that Alternatives to Scratch should not be listed because it takes attention away from Scratch; others could argue that the information about the Shift-Click-R trick should not be disclosed because it was not intended to be public; others could say that the Types of Projects are not comprehensive enough. One could go on and on arguing against or in favor of each one of the articles and their content but that does not necessarily mean they should not be included. The bottom line is that stating that something should not be included just because it can lead to edit wars is inconsistent with the current content of the wiki (or of any wiki for that matter). In my opinion, a better way to prevent edit wars is by monitoring the edits and locking articles when they lead to an irreconcilable edit war. Given that accounts are created very slowly, I doubt this will happen any time soon. I think the wiki needs to be inclusive. It needs to represent different points of view, not only those of people you or I might agree with. It should include RPG people, artists, programmers, Scratch Team, etc
  2. You say that you do not want information that is "constantly changing". This is inconsistent with the current content of the wiki. For example, Scratch 2.0 is going to be changing a lot. New blocks will be added and others will be removed, but that is no reason not talk about blocks or about Scratch 2.0. Design Studio, Scratch Modification, Scratch Resources and Community Moderators change all the time as well. Only including topics that do not change is arguing against the very existence of the Wiki. Things are in constant change. Instead, you can set etiquette rules for how often things can change. For example, you can describe an RPG or a collab at a high level without going into the details that are changing often.
  3. You worry about things being biased. Well, everything is biased. In fact, this Wiki is currently biased towards the topics that the current editors are interested in writing about and their own views about them. That is always going to be the case. There is no way to prevent bias. I think we should embrace bias by being more inclusive. For example, including the different sides of the same topic and even the controversial areas.
  4. You mention that this wiki is not a part of a research project. This is not true. Everything part of the (and domain space belongs to the Scratch project at MIT which is a research project. It is not a product by a company and it's research nature is one of the reasons why it remains free. One of the possible disadvantages of this is that the Scratch Team has the ultimate word on what is published on our "family" of websites. On the other hand, the advantages of having this wiki hosted at a subdomain (as opposed to at are that the Wiki gets more visibility (featured on the front page attracts more viewers and editors) and more reputation (there are many websites about Scratch outside Scratch but only few that get to be part of the Scratch family).

We are very happy to support the Wiki efforts by providing the hosting and visibility it needs. We are also interested in having the Scratch community decide (for the most part) the content of the Wiki. In exchange, this gets to be part of the Scratch research project and we get to make final decisions.
I agree, there should not be articles about "underdeveloped" collaborations or RPGs. That's why I proposed concrete rules on what defines a "developed" collaboration or RPG. I think the guideline that it has to involve more than 1 person and more than 1 project sets some initial standards. Perhaps an additional rule is that the people involved in making such project(s) need to agree on the collaborative nature of their projects. If more than 1 person agree that they are involved in the making of a project then it is collaborative (for the most part). This would lower the chances of the possible bad scenario that you mention. There is never going to be perfect standard that encompass all cases, that's why wikis are always an under construction.--
andresmh (talk | contribs) 05:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess I see your point andres... :|
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

How about we have a vote? :/ After all, we're a community... and I don't think we should have a leader who chooses everything. Should we have a vote at the Community Portal discussion page?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the wiki isn't a democracy - the primary way of making decisions is by editing and discussion, not voting. Just look here, for more specifically what I mean.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I just want to stay out of this... if a war happens I won't be guilty. :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, a vote would work if the voters were a representative sample of the Scratch population. I think the current wiki editors are not necessarily representative. For that, we would need to have more diversity of editors. Chris: I think everyone here right now is very mature and can have mature arguments :) --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 17:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Which Chris lol? :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll stay then. :D
About the voting: Oh... I agree, actually - the wiki community currently isn't that diverse. :( A vote wouldn't work. Dx
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 07:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
What do we do then? :/ We don't agree if these articles should be allowed or not...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Technically it is. The best way so everybody can hear everybody's opinions is by discussion - even if it means arguing - though it should be polite.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's discuss here, then... :|
Uh... I'm not great at debating, but my opinion is that adding RPGs and such would make this more of a content wiki - people would go around making pages about their RPGs and possibly move on to projects. In that case they would be gently reprimanded or something like that; they would possibly ask something along the lines of "But I'm allowed to make my RPG", and such... it would get all confusing.
And if we can make articles on RPGs, I could just make one on Flag RPG, the one I love in the TBG, with an excuse that it's by far the most popular in the TBG and has made users create art projects for it and a gallery as well.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm against having articles on groups and RPGs... Articles on users, projects and galleries aren't allowed - and groups and RPGs are very similar to those three forbidden objects. Actually, RPGs are very similar to collaborative projects... and articles on projects are forbidden. :P
I thought the Scratch Wiki was supposed to be for articles about the Scratch program and aspects of the Scratch website - did that change?
Okay, a question: How will we settle this and choose if the articles stay or not?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Uh... is anyone going to reply? If not, it's an automatic win for keeping the article, which feels unfair. :/

Anyway, an idea: Put all these RPG articles into one called "List of popular RPGs". :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC) Hey, there are four supporters for not allowing group and RPG articles (me, Chris, Lucario and coolstuff) and only one non-supporter... well? :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 01:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating an article called "List of popular RPGs" where we link to the articles for each RPG. As I mentioned before, the current set of wiki editors is a biased sample against things like RPGs so I do not think counting the number of people against or in favor of something like this has as much weight in making a final decision. I also mentioned that I (as part of the Scratch Team and host for this wiki ultimately responsible for any kind of content hosted here) want to see any important phenomena of the Scratch community represented on this wiki. The site did not come with this type of inclusiveness requirement, but if you're interested in continuing participating in this it is something that you will need to adjust to. I hope you understand. If you do not care about certain areas of the wiki, that is totally fine and you can ignore them. I am hoping to attract people who are also interested in documenting RPGs and collaborations. Thanks! --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 02:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
... >:(
All you care about is the "design and study of on-line collaborative environments" and phenomena like remixing RPGs and BLAH BLAH BLAH. I can deal with all of this - but it just disappoints me that the wiki is going in a weird different direction. Rather than it's original goal of becoming a Scratch Encyclopedia, essentially, it's becoming an index of Scratch RPGs and Collaborations. I would be able to "not care about certain areas and ignore them", but when the time comes that 75% of the articles are RPGs and Collaborations, it ruins the purpose of that magical, "Random page" button, to help Scratchers learn new interesting topics.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently there are only 2 articles about RPGs and none about any specific collabs (I think). Let's make sure it'll never reach a 75% but I think a healthy balance is needed.
I like the idea of teaching people new interesting topics! I doubt many people click on the "Random Page" button but if that's that your main concern I think we should have a "Learn something new" button rather than just any random topic. This button could take show only articles that are focused on teaching something related to building projects (it would ignore anything related to RPGs, Scratch 2.0, Scratch Day, Obsolete Blocks, Scratch Forums, Friend List, etc) --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 03:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
wow, I just noticed how long this talk page is! I wonder how many articles we could have written if we had spent this time actually writing them :D --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 03:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
xD Yeah, this discussion is huge.
About my idea: well, that wasn't exactly what I had in mind; I thought about putting all the RPG articles into one page. :P
I'm sorry... but I'm worried about the percent of article varieties; for example, Spore Wiki (about a video game) is almost all content pages, pages about creations they have made instead of items of the game.
A problem here is that there's a sort of limit to the amount of Scratch-related articles possible; eventually everything will be done, except for new articles on new features. However, articles on RPGs, collaborations, and Scratch modifications will always continue at a faster rate, which would slowly but surely rise in the percentages.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly... :(
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
archmage and others want to write programming tutorials and guides. Is there a limit to how many programming tutorials can be written? I doubt it. But let's say there is a limit. If we ever reach the point where the wiki is so complete and perfect that there's nothing else to add, well, I think that would a good day for the Wiki. For now, I suggest not worrying about it and try to write as much as possible about things you care about. There is almost unlimited space in this wiki and adding articles does not take away anything from the existing ones. --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 04:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay! :D
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Idea. :D :D :D

I have an idea to solve this...

Magnificent solution (sparkling with gold :D): Combine all RPG articles into the super article, titled "List of popular RPGs" or something like that. :)

Why I like this: I think it sort of suits both sides... unless I'm being ignorant. :P

RPG side: It keeps the information about RPGs, even though the articles won't exist - but redirects can be created, so if someone searches "Anthros Unite" they'll be taken to the correct place in the article. Also, for more publicity if wanted, an article on RPGs can be in the list of contents on the wiki's front page, and it can link to the shared article. Non-RPG side: There won't be any fear of a large percentage of RPG articles; the random page button will work okay, and it won't be like a content wiki.

What do you think? :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello? :|
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 02:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is a problem nor that it needs to be solved. I stated above reasons why I do not think this is a problem. I suggest ignoring this issue for the time being and reassesing it if it ever becomes a problem. There's plenty of other things to worry about or work on. Check this for a similar discussion in Wikipedia: --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 02:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry... :(
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I already said that in the forums.BTW I support one SUPER ARTICLE Subh 16:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.