Seems like a cool article to feature
Is it too new though?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Suggestions
I suggest gathering opinions from other members of the community about this topic. There are controversial practices that would need to be addressed but marked as controversial (e.g. spamming). In general, this should include different points of views rather than a neutral point of view. For example, you could state things like "Some people think that X, others think Y". Also, getting input from other community members would make this article a well-known place to go for advice rather than looking through forum archives. You could also link to projects like this one http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/OJY321/28914 Andresmh (talk | contribs) 18:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
75% of users are NOT active on the forums
I just remembered this article. :P The new stats thread in Announcements (go find it yourself. :P) said that a much smaller percentage is active on the forums. That section has to be rewritten; but I still thinks its easier to get known there than on the main site. Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Fixed. Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The very bottom is written like a forum topic...
The part that says "Remember, popularity isn't everything..." should i change it? Coinman (talk | contribs) 13:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Change anything you want; this is a wiki, after all. Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Opinion
The topic above me from over a decade ago talks about saying "remember popularity isn't everything". This article still has a sentence near the beginning like that. I feel like it shouldn't be there, but since it was obviously removed at one point, then added back, I wanted to ask before removing it. IMO it's an opinion, because some users might think it's the entire point of Scratch.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,605) • profile 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
- @han614698 — I'm kind of leaning on change it on this one. While it's true that this is not an actual fact and it's written like a forum post, then-ST member Za-Chary (and about 90% of Forumers) did said the statement in question, and we really don't want people to do bad things for fame, do we? So I guess we can rewrite that statement in a better way, for example, "It is important to note that Scratch is not designed with the idea of fame: it has been designed to help people to learn to create projects, learning how to code, draw, animate, and more in the process."
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 20:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Citing the Remixing section
The remixed section has potentially opinionated sentences and has been marked with inaccurate. This discussion has already been started at User talk:Scratcher arj and will continue here.
I will @ the people who have already participated or are needed here: @Scratcher arj, Gdxfor Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 19:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- You created the talk page in the wrong place @Co0lcr34t10ns, so I've moved the page over to the correct place (am I going to ping myself?). Anyways, @Scratcher arj added a citation that passively cites his claim. While I'm sure there are better citations, I think this is good enough as is. Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 15:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- whoops. well now it's cited Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 19:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- whoops. well now it's cited
