Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!

Shortcuts: SWT:CP S:CPORTAL S:CPTALK S:PORTAL S:PORTTALK S:CP We recommend that before you ask a question, you search the archives first to make sure it has not been answered before:   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 If you do not think a discussion is done, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done. Size of Community Portal: 115,701 bytes. Click the button below to leave a message! Make sure it has a descriptive title so people can see what you're talking about in a glance.

How to edit on the Scratch Wiki

We recommend that before you create your question, you read these tips to editing on the Scratch Wiki. Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) after your post. To do various text formatting, follow the following rules, rather than using any other text-editing methods: Make text bold with '''text'''. Make text italics with ''text''. Make text bold and italics with '''''text'''''. Make a link to a page outside of this wiki with [http://www.example.com link text] or {{plain link|1=http://www.example.com|2=link text}} if you don't want the symbol to appear (remember http:// prefix). Make a link to an article on this wiki with [[Page name]] or [[Page name|Link text]]. Make a link to a Wikipedia article with [[Wikipedia:Page name]] or [[Wikipedia:Page name|Link text]]. Indent a paragraph by putting a colon (:) before it. For more, see the help page on formatting. Put new text under old text. Always remember to be polite and respectful, assume good faith, and be welcoming, while following the Scratch Community Guidelines.

Bulletin Board for Not-Done Topics

Not done (this will never be done completely, so don't archive!)

Threads that need "long time and hard work" will not be archived, but moved to S:CPND.

Here's some things that we need your help for.

Are these done?

• S:CPND#Lack of curiosity at Scratch Wiki? - articles are made
• S:CPND#Should "Griffpatch" become a wiki article? - seems rejected

Other Topics

Topics that are not listed above.

About Scratch 3.0

• S:CPND#A Thorough Discussion on Thinking of the Past, Present, Future, and Organizing them All
• S:CPND#3.0 updating
• S:CPND#What should we call the Scratch 3.0 player?

About Wiki Management

Backend

• S:CPND#Mobile Device Skin & Responsive Design for Scratch-Wikis ?
• S:CPND#Embedding of Scratch Projects
• S:CPND#Things We have to Do

Rules

• S:CPND#custom signatures
• S:CPND#We have to delete Fair Use

Interwiki

• 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?

To make sure that your thread will not be archived put the template Not done at the top.

Don't forget to replace it with the Done template when the thread is finally finished.

Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 11:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(I have edited this topic a little from its original version)
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Help:Contents Is missing some help pages

Not done
There are a few help pages which aren't in Help:Contents, for some reason.
We need to fix that.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 14:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

+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)

bump
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 14:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I think some of the articles in the Help namespace actually don't belong in Help:Contents. They should be linked to from other help pages instead.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  10:51, 15 November 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)

With Safrai on iPhone I can't even browse that article: scrolling down leads to a permanent rendering error. Like some other articles. Like mentioned and discussed with kenny2scratch monthe ago. The Blocksplugin sometimes seems to cause to rendering errors, that some browsers can handle, some need more rendering time and some can't
 MartinWollenweber  Talk  Contribs  Directory  16:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

On MS Edge, this doesn't seem to be a problem. I feel no lag on Edge and there is no crash. Chrome remains laggy. Could someone with Firefox or Opera test out that page too?
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I could've done it on my school's computer today! drat. Will you mind waiting 2 months?
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 02:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

I agree with KrIsMa — and also, if we don't have a template, we could always create a new one, right?
bigpuppy talk | contribs 02:04, 9 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)

We could with "Scratch Wiki: Privileged Action Requests"
Bla-Games (talk | contribs) 18:35, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

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:

1. A user thinks of something that they want to say to the entire community.
2. The user creates a subpage of the Community Portal, the title being what would normally be the section title (avoiding slashes).
3. Other users respond to the topic in that subpage, and a consensus is reached as to how to proceed.
4. 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.
5. 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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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 6,743; but on the actual page, the "Total" count is 362 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 329 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)

Mine is 3 less, and I think I found the problem: Uploads of new image versions are not counted in the transcluded count, but they do in the real page.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 11:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘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)

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."

I don't think that's too much, is it?
bigpuppy talk | contribs 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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 (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 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)

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ +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 (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘IMPORTANT:Ken made a very big edit. Please check again!
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 23:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh wrong time
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 10:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

DoneReason: Fixed in a later CP Post.
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 16:40, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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 as undelete, 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:

1. Delete EW role and promote directly to admin.
2. 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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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)

so can remove the usergroup now?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘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:

• #Privacy Policy and
• #We need to have a disclaimer

• 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) :

SWP 001 - My Test Projects Name

This is the description of my test project

project data

project data

project data

project data

project discussion project results location of my testproject in CP

• 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:

• Scratch_Wiki:Community_Porta/sectionname_of_not_done_section for result and
• Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/sectionname_of_not_done_section for discussion

or

• Scratch_Wiki:Community_Porta/notdone/sectionname_of_not_done_section for result and
• Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/notdone/sectionname_of_not_done_section for discussion

 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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ 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:

SWP 001 - Make SWP template

Description	Status	Owner	Started	Links
This template will eventually be the template used for Scratch Wiki Projects.	Not done	Kenny2scratch	23/2/2018	Project results
				Project page
				Project discussion

@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)

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)

Yes i am
asqwde talk | contribs 16:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Changing S:NOSP

Not done

In the Scratch Jam topic, 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.

“

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)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘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)

Hey, I noticed where I live, that 8/9 PM is 3 PMEST(end of school day!), but 2PM CET is 8AMEST which is not good.
NYCDOT (talk | contribs) 11:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Userscripts - Discuss again!

There is a policy to ban advertising userscripts. Is that followed in this wiki?

1. Yes, because the ST promised us not to have inappropriate things.
2. Yes, because the Community Guidelines still apply here.
3. No, this wiki is ours now, no longer the ST's.
4. No, there is a disclaimer.
5. I don't know.
6. <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 (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 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:

1. The source code for user JS and CSS is available for anyone to see (but only the owner and admins can edit it)
2. 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)

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)

Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, why "download this project"? I'm good with the other two, but I'm just curious why a 1.4 image.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  01:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

It is a nice bit of history. :D Also thanks for the gallery tag. Didn't know I could do that.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 19:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Updated
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  01:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks should they chagne about every wiki wednesday?
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We have no set schedule for the featured images :P

Essentially, they're updated whenever someone (like you) realizes that they haven't been updated in a while.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  14:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

I believe it should be "Welcoming Committee". Here's my rationale.

For as long as the Wiki has existed, it has been about documentation of Scratch. Therefore, Scratch is its mainspace; all articles are related to Scratch in some way. Where Wikipedia's mainspace is literally everything, or the Meta-Wikipedia's mainspace is Wikipedia itself, the Scratch Wiki's mainspace is Scratch. Because of that, I think a "Scratch" in the title is redundant for all pages, except for cases like Scratch, (where omitting "Scratch" would cause an empty title) Scratch Team, (because "Scratch Team" is a proper name) or Scratch Wiki (because we're not just called "Wiki"). In my insistent opinion articles like Scratch Trends should just be called "Trends" (I'll be opening up a new topic about this), but I'm holding off on moving such articles until we have more consensus; meanwhile, "Welcoming Committee" is ideal, and should not be moved.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  01:14, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I do see what you are saying, Kenny2scratch, but then again, couldn't you argue that "Scratch Welcoming Committee!" is the name of the studio (kind of you like how you said "Scratch Wiki" is the name of this wiki)? However, I do see what you are saying.
bigpuppy talk | contribs 22:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yay, Clickable Links!

Links to Scratch Wikis (not only English) are clickable in Scratch Website! Yay! :D
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 08:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Bug: links to the German, Russian, and Indonesian wikis are not yet clickable (i.e. scratch-dach.info, scratch-indo.info, scratch-ru.info - basically scratch-*.info)
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Just use workarounds. https://de.scratch-wiki.info https://indo.scratch-wiki.info https://ru.scratch-wiki.info
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 08:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

They don't redirect the full path, though: https://de.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Special:Random https://indo.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Special:Random https://ru.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/Special:Random
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  09:15, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

https://ja.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/de:Special:Random
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 08:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

That's an unnecessary redirect, though. It would be much nicer to directly link. Anyway, I've opened up a GitHub issue for it, and it's marked as "feature", so I guess they'll be fixing it this month.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  10:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

S:NOSP for Extensions

Below this, the word "extensions" excludes the browser extensions banned by ST.

We have a lot of pages about user-generated extensions.

• Android Scratch Player
• An extension - may violate the rule
• ScratchBB
• sb2.js
• Python - should be redirected to Programming Language
• Scramble - may be "Mod of Scratch"
• Phosphorus Player - may be "Mod of Scratch"
• Sulfurous Player - may be "Mod of Scratch"

Are they allowed?
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 08:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Scramble is one of the Scratch Extensions that were grandfathered in when we introduced the rule against extensions - i.e. it still exists because it existed before the rule existed.

Phosphorus and Sulfurous Players are notable enough that they should be kept out of general interest. They don't break any CGs, so we don't have to immediately remove them like we do for userscripts.

sb2.js seems large-scale enough that it should be kept.

Python could have more in relation to Scratch, but I think it also deserves an article of its own.

I've added {{NotUseful}} to Android Scratch Player and ScratchBB.

That oldid link is invalid - did I delete it?
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  11:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you deleted it.
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 23:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A slight spinoff of an above topic: subpages for each Not done topic

Hi all,

I have a small idea that loosely ties in with an idea suggested above: instead of having all of the Not done topics be on one page, move each topic into a separate page. I think this would be beneficial for the Not Done page, since if a topic has stayed alive long enough to be moved to Not Done it's usually pretty long.

Pros

• Organizes Not Done topics much better
• Decreases loading time

Cons

• Requires more clicks
• Potentially harder to browse through

Thoughts?
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Have you noticed how little activity appears in that page? Separating it into more subpages will further decrease activity... We might as well just scrap the not-done page altogether and just solely use the community portal.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Nuh-uh! Scrapping the not done page would clog up the CP a LOT. I also seriously doubt that separating it into subpages would decrease activity: the same way that every CP archive has a TOC of other archives, each not done page could have a TOC of other not done pages, using this:

{{Special:PrefixIndex/Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done}}

I've also just added a link to the not done page in the sidebar. Hopefully editors will notice that and use it :)
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  00:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Keeping a TOC is a good idea, but if we separate all the pages, editors who don't rely on the TOC and scroll to see other discussions (like me..) will have a hard time, further decreasing the activity of discussions. The "requiring more clicks" issue is also an important one, IMHO.

But if anything I don't think there will be much activity in any case. Maybe there isn't a surefire way to increase user input for any of those discussions and the Not Done page is turning into a dusty cabinet lost in the attic or something.. Not what we want.. I think we should just leave it as it is.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:16, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Renaming the "move tool"

I think the move to should be renamed to "Rename" to help resolve confusion. I didn't know that is what it did until I had all ready made a duplicate page when trying to rename a misspelled title.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 15:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Done
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  03:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

New Featured Images

Here are my ideas for featured images: https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/File:Pen_Extension.png Because scratchers should know in scratch 3.0, the pen tool is know an extension. https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/File:Surprise.png It is an old feature removed in scratch 2.0 coming back to 3.0 https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/File:Scissors_Tool_Deleting.png Not many scratchers know about this tool. Thanks!
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 15:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your suggestions. In my opinion i am alright with all of them except the surprise button.

“	However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be in the 3.0 official release...	”
– Paddle2See, Scratch Team member

asqwde talk | contribs 11:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference? I'd personally be okay with the surprise image since it's effectively confirmed by its inclusion on thisandagain's orders, but that image doesn't look like anything at all - it's just a few stars on a green background, it's unclear that that's the surprise sprite button.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  13:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reference is here and I do get what you are saying. It is just stars and you can't tell what it is. Maybe this instead?

asqwde talk | contribs 15:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I also chose it for what you just said K2S it is new and mysterious and it will have a caption under it anyways but if not, how about this: https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/File:2.0_Define_().png Not many new scratchers know about custom blocks and if it is on the fount page of the wiki scrathers will pay more attention to it. Also what do you think of when you click on the image it leads to an article about the image? (I put alot of thought in what images I chose :P Maybe too much
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

1.0, 2.0, 3.0

I've been going around Wiki pages, and realized some articles have 1.0 and 2.0 in their names, yet some just have 1.0, instead of both. I think EWs and Admins shoul revert all the names applicable to have 1.0, 2.0, and when it comes out 3.0. Any thoughts?
NYCDOT (talk | contribs) 17:29, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

If it only has one version of Scratch listed in the title, it usually means that the feature was only in that version of Scratch.
Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 17:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that I saw a Wiki page (which I forgot the name of) that had one in 1.0 and 2.0 but still didn't have 1.0 and 2.0 in the name.
NYCDOT (talk | contribs) 19:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Did you notice this is duplicate? S:NOSP#A Thorough Discussion on Thinking of the Past, Present, Future, and Organizing them All
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 09:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Compliment Tuesday! June 5th 2018

Welcome to the first^† Compliment Tuesday! June 5th 2018.

What is Compliment Tuesday?

Compliment Tuesday is a way of showing appreciation to other Wikians. Feel free to congratulate someone for finishing a large page, or even just give minor thanks for a minor edit. Just remember to keep everything positive!

How to Compliment

We have a whole wiki page on it! You can find it here: Compliment Tuesday

Compliments

The Compliments are *drum roll please*

• jvvg: You're great at being admin. Thanks for making and operating WikiMonitor and for making ConfirmAccounts! Wish you well as code monkey this summer ;)

• Kenny2scratch: Thanks for helping me so much while I was learning how to edit the wiki. You answered all of my questions and didn’t even sigh at me

Thank you so much for this awseome CT wiki page here! Already formated and everything. This will make compiling compliments a breeze!

• Bigpuppy: You find the grammar and spelling mistakes in everything! It keeps the wiki looking nice! Thanks!

The next CT is June 12th 2018! See You then!

If you weren't complemented this tuesday, you are still recognized for all your help on the wiki this week. :)

^†This isn't actually the First CT, but the program hasn't been active in a while and we are starting it back up again.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 11:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

YAY!
asqwde talk | contribs 17:17, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Done
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Copy Right Question

Are profile pictures under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license, or the fair use license. As they are automatically made the same as your scratch profile.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 13:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Scratch Terms of Service cover this, here is the relevant extract. Please, though, note that this is not legal advice and that I am not a lawyer.

“

4.3 All user-generated content you submit to Scratch is licensed to and through Scratch under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license

”

That means it's licenced under CC-BY-SA 2.0, which happens to be compatible with CC-BY-SA 4.0, so you can pick the one you want.
Jokebookservice1 (talk | contribs) 15:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes but the wiki severs are in Germany now, not in the U.S.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

It depends. Some wiki users have their signatures uploaded to our server and others allow it to be pulled from the scratch profile page. That was my understanding of the process but it may have changed when jvvg updated the system to fix the profile photo bug a few months back.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 22:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why would it matter where the Wiki servers are located? Scratch Terms of Service apply globally, and so does the CC licence I believe. (not a lawyer; not legal advice).
Jokebookservice1 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

German Copyright Law.
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 22:03, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

German laws do not apply to a server located in the U.S. like Scratch's servers. Scratch profile pictures are all under CC BY-SA 2.0, no matter where they appear. Their use on the Wiki is governed by CC BY-SA 4.0, which is compatible with 2.0. Those who use scratchsig have the pics under 2.0, while those who use custom sigs have it under 4.0.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  02:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Question about References

For references, should it be an official source, or can it be something that's a forum post or comment? Because I found something that might be able to be a reference for something on a page, but it's a post by a user. Am I allowed to use that as a reference?
Ziggy741 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Of course! Most of our references (I would say) come from comments or forum posts. References to them usually show a community response to something, for example giving a reference for why many users are against the removal of the discuss button.
Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 20:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay thanks!
Ziggy741 (talk | contribs) 23:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Just piping up here and saying that posts by normal users are perfectly fine in most situations, but for things like confirmed new features (cough Scratch 3.0 cough) you need a Scratch Team post or comment. It really depends on what you're citing for. If in doubt, ask with specifics.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  05:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay.
Ziggy741 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 22:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Compliment Tuesday! June 12th 2018

Welcome to the Second Compliment Tuesday! June 12th 2018.

What is Compliment Tuesday?

Compliment Tuesday is a way of showing appreciation to other Wikians. Feel free to congratulate someone for finishing a large page, or even just give minor thanks for a minor edit. Just remember to keep everything positive!

How to Compliment

We have a whole wiki page on it! You can find it here: Compliment Tuesday

Compliments

The Compliments are *drum roll please*

• WikiMonitor, InterwikiBot, and TemplatesFTW: Most useful and active users.

• jakel181: For organising compliment Tuesday

• Hellounicorns: You are very active and helpful!

• Scratchtwins-691: You are always keeping up the the curent SDS Curators! Thanks!

• Kenny2scratch: You do so much behind the scenes! Thanks for helping to keep the wiki runing!

The next CT is June 19th 2018! See You then!

If you weren't complemented this tuesday, you are still recognized for all your help on the wiki this week. :)

Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Woah I got a compliment :o
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 20:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! You desevred it :)
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 22:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

 ;)

• jvvg: Your continued dedication to the scratch wiki is admirable and serves as an inspiration for us all as we look for ways to improve the wiki. The development of Wiki Monitor, the wiki culture and much more can be attributed to your careful supervision and guidance. Your legacy envelops us all and your presence helps us all strive to be more productive individuals.

• KJYoshi07: If I could, I would give you the curiosity award. You constantly communicate with others to teach yourself new techniques. You will certainly become a better wiki editor as time progresses.

• Bigpuppy: Thank you for being a conscientious and present Experienced Wikian. You are there for all problems in a way that I can't hope to match. Every time I log on, the pending account requests queue is empty. While there are many who I must thank for this, you are certainly one person! :)

• ErnieParke: Words cannot express what the InterWiki bot provides for this wiki. Our ability to track progress in real time is truly a wonderous feat. Your lasting spirit is a model for all editors.

There are many more people on this wiki who deserve these comments just as much as those who received them. :) Everyone is special and brings there own ideas. The more of us there are, the better the community spirit. Sadly, I must sign off now-
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 01:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

So true! To be honest everyone who owns an accounnt on the wiki together desevres a compliment for being on the Scratch Wiki, and offering their time to help make a difference in the community.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 01:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You should post those compliments on the CT page itself so they'll be in the next digest :)
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  05:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow! You guys and gals are soo postive!
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 18:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

MTBH I will add those into the main post next week!
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Done
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

About removing the footer

So, there's been an IMO rather heated discussion over on GitHub.

The footer contains links, such as "Privacy Policy", that could be interpreted as the Wiki's privacy policy, so a proposal was to remove the footer from the Scratch Wiki's skin.

I immediately objected to removing the footer, as doing so would be yet another disruption of the similarities between the Wiki and the Scratch site. However, LiFay made a good point - the legal links could cause trouble if someone clicks on a link that says "Privacy Policy" and thinks it's the Wiki's privacy policy. As a compromise, I immediately removed the entire "Legal" section from the footer, but I think my original proposal of simply prepending "Scratch" to sensitive links is still valid.

There are a few options at this point:

• Keep the footer the way it currently is, with the Legal section removed but otherwise no changes made
• Re-add the Legal section, but prepend "Scratch" to the text of all the links in that section
• Remove the entire footer
• Prepend "Scratch" to the text of all links in the footer

Since none of those options are fully ideal (though out of bias for my own ideal I would prefer the 2nd), we wanted to get more opinions. This is where you all come in - discuss away! Any more ideas for how to disambiguate sensitive links? Any opinions about the current options? Got an additional option to suggest? Post your thoughts!
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  09:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I personally prefer the second however I would prefer to see a mix of it and the 4th one (discussion forums etc.)
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 10:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a fifth option: Replace all of the links with their Wiki equivalents (except for perhaps the Scratch Family links). That could actually encourage further navigation around the wiki which is probably what we want considering we here haven't seen the google analytics stats for the wiki.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 11:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The Google Analytics stats for the Wiki are available here: User:InterwikiBot/GA Stats
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  12:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Prepending all with Scratch.
banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 12:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

just use vector, problem solved
Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 16:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘hi! I'm not Ken, but the Wiki Team (Ken and Mtwoll) decided to change like this.

• Rename Credits to "Scratch Team"
• Rename Jobs to "Scratch Jobs"
• Add "Community Portal" under Community
• Link FAQ to Wiki Article
• Add "Help" under Support
• Remove "Contact Us"
• Rename Donate to "Donate to Scratch"
• Add "Scratch Website" under Scratch Family
• Change Legal's links to ours
• Add "About Scratch Wiki" under About

The pull request is available on GitHub. Thank you!
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 08:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

^ Indeed, the changes have been decided on now. Thank you for all your input! I think a little of everything was incorporated.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Apple @Ken I'd like it so we actually rename Contact Us to Contact the Scratch Team, or something like that.
banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 15:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

In the pull, I'm removing Contact Us entirely - it's too misleading.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

When will the new footer be in place?
asqwde talk | contribs 12:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It will be in place once the pull request Apple linked above is merged.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  09:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Done see it now!
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 12:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Change the colour of Template:Welcome

I think it's time for a change. The reason we chose this specific colour was because it was the colour of the navigation bar. Now it's changed.
banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 12:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Support.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 03:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The color was made to match the navigation bar? Huh! I never knew that!

Semi-support in that case, I guess. On the pros side, it'll match the header; on the cons side, it may look a little more foreboding - to me, the header purple is an "angry" purple, while the Scratch blue is a "welcoming" blue.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I never new that as well, but i agree with ken
asqwde talk | contribs 12:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Moar

Add more archive spaces to the list of archives - We have 98. We need *moar*.
banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 15:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I think we'll deal with this when we actually have 100 archives.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Compliment Tuesday! June 19th 2018

Welcome to the Thrid Compliment Tuesday! June 19th 2018. First off sorry for the delay for writing this week's post we are expriceing a heat wave and our wifi was out most of today and yesterday. Secondly this it the lagrest CT yet! Whoop! Finaly I have Decided to leave the signatures on the the original compliments.

What is Compliment Tuesday?

Compliment Tuesday is a way of showing appreciation to other Wikians. Feel free to congratulate someone for finishing a large page, or even just give minor thanks for a minor edit. Just remember to keep everything positive!

How to Compliment

We have a whole wiki page on it! You can find it here: Compliment Tuesday

Compliments

The Compliments are *drum roll please*

• NYCDOT: Thanks for being such an active Scratch Wiki editor, and thanks for your edits!
  bigpuppy talk | contribs

• Drunken_Sailor: Thanks for your mainspace edits and thoughtful responses in the Community Portal!
  bigpuppy talk | contribs

• Makethebrainhappy: Thanks for designing the Wiki Wednesday posts; you're great at making them!
  bigpuppy talk | contribs

• LiFaytheGoblin Thanks for posting the Wiki Wednesday posts; Wiki Wednesday is amazing!
  bigpuppy talk | contribs

• Kenny2scratch: You are an AMAZING Scratch Wiki editor; I can tell how much you care about the Scratch Wiki from how much time and effort you put into it!
  bigpuppy talk | contribs

• KJRYoshi07: Thanks for being awesome and thinking of Slatch Siggy
  NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ]

• Bigpuppy: Thank you for being the most active EW besides yours truly! You're also very friendly when dealing with account requests, more friendly than I sometimes can be.
   kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 

• CrazyBoy826: Thank you for making all of those helpful redirects! Although we've had our frictions, and some redirects had to be deleted, I still admire how much thought you put into where people might look for information, and how to redirect them to existing information.
   kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 

• jvvg: Thank you for being a great EW/Admin. You were very great when trasfering the domains.
  NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ]

Also I whould like to a few more complements that MakeTheBrainHappy posted on last week's post:

“

jvvg: Your continued dedication to the scratch wiki is admirable and serves as an inspiration for us all as we look for ways to improve the wiki. The development of Wiki Monitor, the wiki culture and much more can be attributed to your careful supervision and guidance. Your legacy envelops us all and your presence helps us all strive to be more productive individuals. KJYoshi07: If I could, I would give you the curiosity award. You constantly communicate with others to teach yourself new techniques. You will certainly become a better wiki editor as time progresses. Bigpuppy: Thank you for being a conscientious and present Experienced Wikian. You are there for all problems in a way that I can't hope to match. Every time I log on, the pending account requests queue is empty. While there are many who I must thank for this, you are certainly one person! :) ErnieParke: Words cannot express what the InterWiki bot provides for this wiki. Our ability to track progress in real time is truly a wonderous feat. Your lasting spirit is a model for all editors. There are many more people on this wiki who deserve these comments just as much as those who received them. :) Everyone is special and brings there own ideas. The more of us there are, the better the community spirit. Sadly, I must sign off now- Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 01:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

”

The next CT is June 26th 2018! See You then!

Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Woo! I think next time it would be better to cut-and-paste all the compliments into an archive every week, rather than leaving them on there - it would get repetitive if people saw the same compliment every time. So here's what I think you should do next Tuesday:

1. Copy the entire compliments table into Notepad or some other text editor (minus the example one).
2. Reset the table on the page itself to just the example.
3. Create "Scratch Wiki:Compliment Tuesday/Archive n" with the table you copied into the text editor. I'll make an archive list at some point and add that in.
4. Post the same table in the text editor in a CP post, along with a summary of what CT is and how people can participate.
5. Wait until next Tuesday
6. Repeat!

Seems good?
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool! So the table should be of all the CT post beacuse there kind of is allready https://en.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/User_talk:Jakel181/CT
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Yay! Nice update to displaying usernames under compliments as well!
asqwde talk | contribs 16:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Changing the system of electing EWs

The EWs and Admins have long argued that the current system of electing EWs is fine. For the wiki - sure. It’s certainly fine. But does it maximise potential of what the wiki can do? This proposition improves the system so that elections are held more frequently but do not cause as much drama but rather encourage people to edit more.

Points for keeping the current system and my points addressing them. My points are in italics

• Only elects when required because we don’t need to many people in power this system will have many elections but most will result in no EWs being elected
• Elections cause a month of disruption in editing since people focus on the elections this system will require them to remain very active during the campaign

And that’s about all I’ve heard. Let me know if there are any other points to address.
Here are the points against it.

• No matter what the admins say, having to wait a year to become an EW is extremely discouraging to users (like me) who want to become EWs one day. Full stop. I know that the only reason I don’t make like 25 edits a day is because I feel like there is no reward for it other than the isolated chance of winning an election 12 months away.
• When EWs are only elected when needed. This means a fair while with not enough EWs between EWs becoming inactive and the election results
• The standards for running are too loose and candidates who may not deserve to run can. In my opinion you should have to have been very active and have lots of total edits. I’m pretty sure the current ones are simply that you must have 50 mainspace edits, and you don’t have to be a superhero to get that.
• The elections always elect at least one candidate. In my opinion, we could change this to allow for more frequent elections.

So, here is my proposition.

1. Elections are at least 3 months apart - this is decent enough to not have constant election madness but also not have impatient people (*cough me cough*) going inactive because they feel like they aren’t being rewarded with EW.
2. Elections only occur if at least 5 candidates have expressed interest in running. Otherwise, they continue to get postponed.
3. To run in an election you must have:
   1. At least 200 mainspace edits - yes, that means I wouldn’t be able to run unless I upped my editcount :P
   2. At least 100 actions in the last month (Special:ActiveUsers)
   3. Been on the wiki for at least 3 months.
4. Only candidates who get at least 100/{amountofcandidates}x2 of the vote become an EW, restricting the amount of EWs that get elected. This algorithm can be changed though.

So, what are your thoughts? I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and will be willing to answer and questions and add more detail if necessary . Thanks for reading!
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 22:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Traditionally, we have elected EWs two at a time. Your idea about 100 actions in the last month conflicts with the at least five candidates requirement, though - have you seen Special:ActiveUsers? There are maybe three people with over 100 actions right now, nowhere near enough.

You also don't seem to understand the purpose of being EW. EW is not a reward; it is granted to people whom the community thinks would do well with the tools. When the current admins think there aren't enough people actively using those tools, they get more - the only democratic part of getting new EWs is the choosing. If you're thinking of going inactive because you haven't been "rewarded" with EW, that's unfortunate, but to be a little blunt about it, if you're that power-hungry then good riddance.

Any website administration is oligarchic by nature. A wiki is no exception. Heard the term "bureaucracy"? That's us (exclusive us).

More about rewards. I already mentioned that EW is not a reward; but especially with CT, your reward should be appreciation for your hard work. If nothing else, it should at least be the satisfaction of knowing that helpless New Scratchers are helped thanks to your work.

I don't see us changing the election system any time soon. Remember, it could just as easily be completely oligarchic and not involve an election at all. The election step is just to ensure we don't choose someone everyone despises.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  23:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we the administrators do want people to be motivated, to contribute and to have fun here in the community. The fact that anyone would see this as not being a rewarding spirit means that we as a community should be discussing how we can create that rewarding atmosphere. I certainly want to reward good edits and good editors, and compliment Tuesday has been a great community project to help with this. I would like more the debate to shift towards how we can enhance this part of the community. Election reform is not the answer.

I get to speak from experience here. I'm not sure how many administrators would admit it, but sitting here I don't really feel anymore special than you just because I have a few extra perms. Am I mildly interested in the few extra perms that Ken has over me? Yeah, but being EW has taught me that at the end of the day the permissions aren't what counts- its your contribution to the community. Administrators are people who need to be consistently active in the community over a long period of time. It can't be someone who's looking for a special promotion or rank because they will probably go inactive much sooner than expected. I'm much more proud of my Wiki Wednesday posts than of anything I've ever done with my perms. I'm much happier to help others than to sit in the back slogging through account requests. I truly enjoy speaking to all of you here instead of being in the admin chat. Take this away, there isn't much that you aren't already aware of or opinions that you can't see. We are regular people helping with this large task.

In summary, I would like this conversation to turn towards how we could create a more rewarding atmosphere on the wiki. Perhaps this will drive in a better sense of "community." Please discuss
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 02:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

@kenny2scratch Part of the point is that it encourages people to be very active so that they can run in the elections. I have no doubt many people would become more active if they could see themselves becoming an EW.

That’s what it’s supposed to be but I doubt many people other than EWs and Admins think that way. Compliment Tuesday is great and provides recognition. Things like that can help, but tbh I feel like I would prefer to be able to become an EW over get a compliment to be blunt. If becoming an EW really was like that people wouldn’t want to become an EW and there would be no candidates at any elections. Also, I’m not leaving the wiki any time soon (I’m a pretty loyal person) but unfortunately I doubt I’ll get much more active than I am now. I’m not power hungry, I just dream of a day when I might be an EW. There’s a difference between dreaming and wanting to become one and begging to become one.

tbh that make the wiki seem like a dictatorship :p.

Sure, that’s the way it is, but can’t we be a little progressive and change things up a bit? Things don’t have to stay the same, my point is it would be just as easy to make it properly democratic.

@MTBH to sum up my opinion on your reply, sure, we should be discussing that but that only addresses one of my points...
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 06:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"tbh that makes the wiki seem like a dictatorship" did you see my note about how a wiki is oligarchic by nature?

There's also a security risk involved. If we made a couple of people EWs every few months, soon we'd have a hundred people with potentially Wiki-breaking permissions! I'm surprised you haven't caught on to how other representative democracies do it - there are term limits to any official position.

The only way regular elections could work is if people lost their EW permissions after a certain time. But then the EW position would get as much hate as the FPC position does now, although perhaps on a smaller scale since there's not as many people to give hate.

I mean, if I was to make an analogy, the ST would be the bureaucrats and the FPC would be a term-limited EW - an FPC has the special permission to feature any project on the front page by favoriting it, while EWs have other permissions (see Special:ListGroupRights for an accurate list).

Okay, to make this more organized, I am going to attempt to shoot down each of your points, in order.

• Only elects when required because we don’t need to many people in power this system will have many elections but most will result in no EWs being elected

The point in bold is absolutely correct. We don't need too many people in power. We hold elections when too many EWs are inactive. It also doesn't have many elections at all - we've had 5 elections ever, all of which elected at least two new EWs and appointed at most 1 new sysop.

• Elections cause a month of disruption in editing since people focus on the elections this system will require them to remain very active during the campaign

Yes, they do cause disruption. No system can prevent that. Even if people remain active during the campaign, their edits will still be halfhearted - they'll be following the law to the letter, not to the spirit, so to speak. Halfhearted edits are worse than no edits at all.

• No matter what the admins say, having to wait a year to become an EW is extremely discouraging to users (like me) who want to become EWs one day. Full stop. I know that the only reason I don’t make like 25 edits a day is because I feel like there is no reward for it other than the isolated chance of winning an election 12 months away.

Then take your mind off becoming EW completely! Especially now that we have our own bureaucrats, the chance of us needing new EWs is very slim unless all the admins suddenly disappear off the face of the earth. Look to compliments as being your best reward. I also think we should be promoting CT much more forcefully. I might also propose (later) that every active user must add a compliment - unlike edits, halfhearted compliments can be as good as real compliments.

• When EWs are only elected when needed. This means a fair while with not enough EWs between EWs becoming inactive and the election results

Yeah, if any Senator suddenly dies, I'm pretty sure the Senate goes without that Senator until the next election. Also, you seem to be refuting your own point - regular elections would mean that the time until a new EW was elected to replace the old might be longer, not shorter.

• The standards for running are too loose and candidates who may not deserve to run can. In my opinion you should have to have been very active and have lots of total edits. I’m pretty sure the current ones are simply that you must have 50 mainspace edits, and you don’t have to be a superhero to get that.

That's the requirement to nominate yourself. The requirements to actually run are secret (even I don't know them yet) and it takes considerably more thought on the part of the current admins to decide who out of the nominees can actually run.

• The elections always elect at least one candidate. In my opinion, we could change this to allow for more frequent elections.

...an election would be pointless if it elected no people. Elections always electing at least one new EW is a good thing.

• Elections are at least 3 months apart - this is decent enough to not have constant election madness but also not have impatient people (*cough me cough*) going inactive because they feel like they aren’t being rewarded with EW.

"at least 3 months" is still too fast - the presedential elections are every four years!

• Elections only occur if at least 5 candidates have expressed interest in running. Otherwise, they continue to get postponed.

This is already in place, though the minimum is four, not five. If the election has less than four nominees, it's called off.

• To run in an election you must have:

• At least 200 mainspace edits - yes, that means I wouldn’t be able to run unless I upped my editcount :P

That's too much, though - there are other kinds of pages that are still content pages that are not in mainspace, like the Scratch Wiki: or Help: namespaces. I think 50 mainspace is okay, for nominating at least. The requirements to actually run remain secret.

• At least 100 actions in the last month (Special:ActiveUsers)

This might have some merit, but 100 is actually a lot - there would never be any elections if it was this high. If this is the point that you say should keep people active while campaigning, it's not good enough, though - they could make 100 edits in the span of a day and then do nothing for the rest of the month.

• Been on the wiki for at least 3 months.

This seems excessive - the requirement to become Wikian (i.e. not New Wikian) is 1 month, and I think if you've become Wikian you're almost fit for election anyway.

So that's a bunch of my points.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  08:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess I can’t really make a point against that... Done
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 08:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would recommend opening up a new conversation about community spirit ideas! :)
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 12:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

forced comments?

Can you flesh out your idea for forced CT?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No support. At all. Not in a million years. Ken, the whole point of Compliment Tuesday is that it's optional and voluntary. With the current system, people only write compliments when they really mean it. If you start forcing people to be nice, none of the compliments will be genuine and won't have any real meaning. So stop right now, and get any thoughts of forcing people to compliment others out of your head.
Drunken Sailor [ Talk | Contribs | More... ] 15:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ken begins stroking his beard thoughtfully. (aka can you add a beard to your logo?)
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 19:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Druken Sailor. CT should not be forced, it should be considered an award; and it is not a guarantee that everyone will decide to sumbit a compliment. I also agree that CT should be voluntary, anyone on the wiki who strongly believes that someone deserves a compliment, should have the choice if they would like to or not.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 20:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@MTBH Check discord for the bearded ken
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that 'halfhearted compliments can be as good as real compliments' in a majority of cases so I also don't support.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, it will always be better if you mean your compliments.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 20:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @NYCDOT and MTBH: whut

Just to make things clear, that was a random thought that I put in there. If it was to actually happen, I think it wouldn't be forced so much as aggressively encouraged, and I also think it wouldn't apply to all active users, just those who had done anything that still shows up on default recent changes (though "default" is different depending on your preferences so it might be better to make that standard). The process would be something like this:

1. It's a day or two before CT
2. The CT manager goes through the current recent changes and makes a list of users still on it
3. The CT manager goes through the CT page and makes a list of users who have already complimented people
4. People who are on the first list but not the second get a talk page message saying "Hi! Did you know you can make people feel better by giving them a compliment on S:CT? It would be a nice thing to do :)" or something along those lines

I'm just putting this out here so y'all can give it a second thought - if it still seems detrimental that's fine too.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  01:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Not Done

I know someone already brought it up...
Anyways, Not Done is not getting any attention. I know that Kenny2scratch already added “Things To Do” on the left sidebar, and the TOC of Not Done, yet no one seems to notice it. I think that we should release an announcement to all existing editors about ND, and all incoming users about ND on their welcome page. In fact, I’m going to add that to my welcome right now.
Any thoughts?
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 23:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice idea, support!
asqwde talk | contribs 12:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 15:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Support, I think that is a great idea.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 20:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for support!
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 22:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

CT: Mark CT topics "done" when the next came

^^ Suggestion: see above.
Apple502j (Awake) Talk/Activities 1,637edit 10:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

agreed
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 09:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Done
Jakel181 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Scratch News + Wiki News

Hello. As you know we have the scratch news. How about splitting that up into scratch news and wiki news featuring both on the front page.

Benefits:

• Easy to distinguish between any news in scratch and the wiki
• Will encourage more news ideas to be displayed

Things to feature in scratch news

• New FPC
• New announcement in the announcement forum
• New changes to the website
• New SDS

Things to feature in wiki news

• Compliment Tuesday
• Wiki Wednesday
• Important updates
• Important posts in CP
• Elections

Thoughts?
asqwde talk | contribs 16:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, it would be a good way to distinguish between different news, and I believe more relevant to different subjects. Any other thoughts?
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 07:31, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

(changed your strange diamonds to real bullets, the diamonds didn't act like real lists; also for some reason the colons after the mini-headers acted like indents so I changed it to nonindexed headers)

I think that's a great idea! My only concern is that a new box on the homepage would clutter things up, so I think one of the boxes currently on there should be removed. I recommend removing Featured Images, since we always forget to update them - but what are your thoughts?
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  09:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks for changing it. I agree about removing featured images, support
asqwde talk | contribs 11:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with asqwde, as you mentioned, you always forget to change them; and it is not as important as featured articles.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 20:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Portals

When the Scratch Wiki was small, there were only a few hundred pages, so there were no need for portals. Now that it's large and has 1,158 content pages, 14,552 pages in total, and 203,476 edits, we might need to add portals. One problem is how to maintain them so they look like the Main Page. We might need to add a help page aabout portals, how to use them, and how to add the Scratch Wiki header and content boxes.
CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 20:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no need, because we already have categories. For ex., Mathematics and People is a portal, like how Main pages and Roles is a category. Make sense?
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 22:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As NYCDOT stated, there is no need to introduce Portals, catergories are used for the same round about purpose; and do just fine. Any other thoughts?
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 22:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, portals have been suggested for deletion, the entire namespace of them. Although that proposal ended up being rejected, it should be viewed here as a warning to those who would start them up - look at all the arguments for deleting them, for instance. I've bolded those that would likely apply here.

1. Very few Wikipedians use portals, and therefore very few Wikipedians maintain them.
2. As very few Wikipedians maintain portals, they often contain out-of-date and/or irrelevant information.
3. Many portals on certain subjects are less useful as an introduction to their subject than the main article(s).
4. The time Wikipedians do spend on maintaining portals would (thus) be better spent on maintaining articles.
5. Because they are poorly maintained and have few watchers they attract vandalism and POV pushers, which is not quickly reverted.
6. The only portals with significant traffic are the 8 linked from the top of the mainpage, and these get far less traffic than the corresponding articles

I strongly believe that:

1. Few Wikians would use portals, and therefore few Wikians would maintain them.
2. As few Wikians would maintain portals, they would likely contain out-of-date and/or irrelevant information.
3. Many portals on certain subjects would be less useful as an introduction to their subject than the main article(s).
4. The time Wikians would spend on maintaining portals would (thus) be better spent on maintaining articles.

I seriously doubt portals would be a welcome addition to the Wiki. As others have said, categories already help to group pages by general topic or purpose.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  00:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

NotDone/Done Rules

I have a question. Is there any rules to putting the Not Done/Done templates? Because if there are, then we should add them to the top of the CT. If there aren't, I'm going to propose rules for the templates. Here they are:
Not Done
Must have been at least 1 week before the last comment
First reply must've been before Fri, June 15, 2018 (EST) (Times will change according to the date)
Must be approved by at least 3 other Wikians (No New Wikians, they might not know what ND means)
Done
Must have been resolved already
Last reply must be made by an EW/Admin/bureaucrat
Must be approved by 2 EW/Admin/bureaucrat
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 15:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no current rules for adding the {{done}} and {{not done}} templates. Personally (this is just my opinion) I think adding rules might overcomplicate things; if a section is done, it's done. If a section is not done, it's not done. If someone thinks a topic someone has marked "done" is still not done, they can add the {{not done}} template in a new post.

However, this is just my opinion. Thanks for posting.
bigpuppy talk | contribs 16:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK.
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 16:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Could I move the ND topics into Not Done right now?
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 16:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe so, if you think they fit the requirements at the top of Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.
bigpuppy talk | contribs 19:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Will it matter how many replies or how long it go it was?
NYCDOT [ Talk Page | Contributions | Directory ] 20:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 20:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think adding rules to using the templates would just complicate things. The {{Not Done}} template exists to immediately (i.e. without the archiver having to read it) exempt a topic from being archived. The {{done}} template exists to immediately mark a topic as ready to archive. They have no other significant meaning otherwise.

I think you should only move topics that obviously look like they're going to need "long time and hard work" into S:CPND. Others should remain here, unarchived.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  00:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's change EW stuff moar

Okay, so let's combine my idea, and Ken's idea. The first part of the idea, Ken's idea. It's to completely obliterate the EW group altogether.

• It's no longer necessary.
  • It was created as a placeholder for the inactive ST. We've transferred to Martin's server. All the other wikis, also hosted by Martin do not have this role. From the Scratch Team's perspective (ST = Martin), EW = Admin and Admin = Bureaucrat.

The second part of the idea, my idea. To use the same way for elections.

• Admins are elected, as opposed to EWs
• Bureaucrats are appointed, as opposed to admins.

Thoughts?
banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 20:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don’t agree with the first bit. EW is a way to gain trust in users and is useful for that reason. In my opinion, the EW role should be kept.
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 20:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

But no other wiki has it. The ST added that to make up for their inactivity.
banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 20:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with it either, I think it is important to have something in the middle. I personally think it is fine the way it is.
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect. Back in June 2013, when the Scratch 2.0 account request system was first being implemented, scmb1 created the role so that we'd have people to be able to handle the account requests we were about to get.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Really? Well that also adds to my point. Also, on wikis I have been on, they most likely would have a role like EW, even if not called it (Most likely called a Moderator), to me, I have always thought that "EW" was just like a moderator role on any other wiki. (Pointing at "But no other wiki has it.")
Purplewolves (talk | contribs) 21:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘These changes were going to be part of the plan, but Ken didn't implement them. I don't like to intervene in a discussion where I am may seem biased (i.e. I support this change in order to gain a "promotion"), but there seems to be some misinformation about what exactly EWs are (go look at the roles & rights lists please). There are certainly some role differences between EWs and Administrators, but these actually have to do more with moderation (i.e. EWs cannot "undelete a page" or revise edit logs). It is my understanding that anyone with FTP access (and therefore handling the technical aspects of the wiki) is a Bureaucrat. So the differences are not substantial and actually have more to do with "moderation" than anything else. I don't really like to call it that since we don't really do that much "moderating", its mostly what I would term "maintence" of the wiki community.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 21:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd consider this topic a duplicate of mine, by the way, but I'll consider that one inactive to the point of doneness.

I'm also not so sure about removing EW anymore. Recently MTBH and I were deciding who would be the new ruwiki admins. One of the admins I'm not so sure is fit for the tools - they are definitely fit for the position, but I'm not sure whether they can figure out how the admin tools work quickly enough; I'd much rather give them EW if it existed on the ruwiki.

On this wiki, the original purpose for EWs is now basically moot. We now have our own bureaucrats; the CA extension was originally designed to have requests confirmed by bureaucrats. So we no longer need EWs explicitly for confirming account requests.

However, EW is also a nice in-between normal user and admin - i.e., we trust this user enough to give them permissions like deleting and patrolling pages, rollbacking edits, moving files, and applying arbitrary tags, but we don't trust them enough to give them permissions like protecting pages, deleting revision history or log entries, editing other people's CSS/JS, editing the user interface (i.e. editing pages in the MediaWiki: namespace), importing pages, moving root userpages or category pages, and having higher API limits. (This list was made with heavy reference to Special:ListGroupRights.)

I don't really support removing EW anymore. I do think that we should promote some of our current EWs to admin (especially long-standing ones like Hamish or Galla), but EWs are here to stay.
 kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  00:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Integrating the BrainQuotes Extension into the Wiki

Do you wish to make your conversations more lively, meaningful and inspiring? Should we not all want this for our community? Well then look no further. I propose the integration of BrainQuote, an idea with less (now more) than five minutes of thought and Ken's unwavering support.

BrainQuotes is what Ken classifies as an extension.

This extension adds in a button to the wiki which would allow users to insert wise words from famous individuals. Shakespeare, Lincoln, the Buddha and [Unknown]. You can add these to the end of conversations, userpages, mainspace pages [sometimes], and other relevant places.

Wouldn't it be great? That is why I propose to make this available to all wiki users by integrating it into the main wiki and adding it permanently to our wiki.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 01:41, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to demonstrate:

“	Faith in oneself is the best and safest course.	”
– Michelangelo

“	If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.	”
– Albert Einstein

“	Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.	”
– Douglas Adams

“	The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.	”
– Henri Bergson

“	A leader or a man of action in a crisis almost always acts subconsciously and then thinks of the reasons for his action.	”
– Jawaharlal Nehru

(For more see Ken's talk page)
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 02:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)