Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 117

This page is archive 117 of Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Community Portal Archives

Archives (oldest first):
1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10
11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20
21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30
31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40
41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50
51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60
61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70
71 • 72 • 73 • 74 • 75 • 76 • 77 • 78 • 79 • 80
81 • 82 • 83 • 84 • 85 • 86 • 87 • 88 • 89 • 90
91 • 92 • 93 • 94 • 95 • 96 • 97 • 98 • 99 • 100
101 • 102 • 103 • 104 • 105 • 106 • 107 • 108 • 109 • 110
111 • 112 • 113 • 114 • 115 • 116 • 117
Unfinished discussions

Talk page inactivity

I have noticed in the past few months that very few edits have been made to talk pages across this wiki. This includes the Community Portal, where there has been a two week gap between edits, and a week's gap between this being posted and the last revision. The number of active users has not decreased massively (78 at the time of writing), so are users less interested in posting on talk pages, or might the welcome page on talk pages be often overlooked? There might not be an actual reason for talk page inactivity; these are just some theories.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 17:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the reason is no one is interested in talking is because they just don't want to go through the effort of checking the talk page for replies when they ask a question for an article. For example, I had sent a message on some talk page about half a year ago, and I didn't get replies after two months so I just did the edit. Most people just prefer to edit it and let other people revert/undo it if it shouldn't be there.

The Diccustion Invitation page exist but then most people see the invites after the discussion has been finished by two people. Thing is, no one is encouraged to make talk page edits. I remember there was this user who edited 90 percent main pages, and they were congratulated for having all mainspace. There was also a user who only had 7 userspace edits [they left the wiki], the rest were all mainspace and talk pages, but no one recognized them for it.

I think people would edit talk pages more if we gave them a incentive to check talk pages.

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 04:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Another theory involving talk page inactivity, even though it might be a bit like a self-fulfilling prophecy, might be that they become less visible/abundant in Recent Changes through a first major decrease, then resulting in an even higher decrease in posts.

Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 08:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

(another addition) Some proposed changes to articles through the talk page would are becoming more difficult to implement due to this phenomenon, due to needing the agreement/consensus of multiple users, which might be more than the unknown number of users who regularly watch talk pages.

Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 08:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

According to what I've seen, there are around 7 people who comment on talk pages.

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 15:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have noticed this, too. I have become much less active due to the lack of talk page activity. The lack of activity makes it hard to get stuff done that needs consensus. It also makes it hard to know what is needed there. So I went to checking the wiki a lot but not doing anything to not checking the wiki at all. I have previously signed up to discussion invitation, but I got removed due to inactivity. The main Scratch website has also seemed to get quiet, too.
-unsigned comment by Ideapad-320 (talk | contribs)

I would say talk page activity is secondary to mainspace activity, for sure. There's a reason we focus on mainspace contributions. S:BRD also defines Discussion (talk page edit) as subsequent to both Bold (mainspace edit) and Revert (mainspace edit).

I think there are a number of solutions to talk page inactivity, each with their drawbacks:

Technological - add Echo or some other method of notifying people when they are replied to. Drawback is that this requires technical effort and possibly an overhaul of the skin.
Cultural - people should use their watchlist more and ideally turn on email notifications if that's their forte. Drawback is that this requires a community cultural shift.
Procedural - start using discussion invitations much more eagerly, perhaps as soon as topics are posted. Drawback is that this may be annoying to some and also puts more burden on those posting on talk pages.
- Perhaps the MassMessage extension and/or a bot could help with the latter. More discussion needed.

Bear in mind also that it's currently summertime. A lot of our activity in general happens during the school year since that's when people use Scratch (at school) and thus the Wiki. Another solution may simply be to wait.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 02:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Quite a few of these ideas seem useful for proposed solutions to increase talk page activity; I have a few comments about a few of them:

For the Echo proposal, there has been an attempt by Jvvg to implement it, although it was eventually oversighted and needs re-implementing again due to 1.39 skin updates.
S:DIS's activity, I think, is starting to slow down, but I think it is still useful to invite participating users into discussions; I think it could be promoted more.
Now replying back to something in my original post, I mentioned in one of my posts that one possible reason for talk page activity decrease could be users oversighting the welcome tutorial (although I do not think anything can really prove it). I think the welcome pages as a whole seem a bit wordy (some content comes from an old Wikipedia tutorial) and some of it could be updated to mention some Wiki procedures, so would a Welcome tutorial overhaul be useful?

Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 08:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Certainly couldn't hurt to overhaul the Welcome tutorial. Please propose it in a separate topic and perhaps make a S:SWP out of it.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 02:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I might think of creating a topic about a welcome re-haul eventually (I might also bring up the inactive Scratch Wiki Adventure and whether it is still feasible).

Another thing regarding S:DIS, I think a promotion of it should be added to the Community Portal help box. I recently added the list of unresolved non-CP discussions (although I think no changes in activity were made).

Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 10:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Search this talk page and it's archives not working

The Search this Talk page and it's archives button on the Community Portal doesn't work correctly. If you type something into the box and press the button, it brings you to a search page that says 'Only searching in pages whose title starts with "Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal#"'. However, there are results outside of the Community Portal.
Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 16:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that box hasn't worked since several MediaWiki versions ago. If you happen to find a way to fix it I can put the fix in but I don't have the bandwidth for it personally.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

There probably is no longer an option for searching subpages on the search page anymore in vanilla MediaWiki, but the functionality is available in a MediaWiki extension called AdvancedSearch, according to MediaWiki's website, but is requires some extra software other than MediaWiki extensions to be installed along with it.

Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 07:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Why not remove the option for it then? It's just adding to the page size and confusing some wikians (like me).

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 10:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Or at least change the button to say (broken).

Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 23:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

New SDS

Hey, does anyone know what date the new SDS (transportation) was front paged? The API page on the news says July 31st which doesn’t make sense since the studio wasn’t created untiL September 5th. (trying to update the News page)
KangaCoder talk • contribs • profile 01:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

InterwikiBot (also used for Wiki Stats) didn't run since 2020/09/25 18:48

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

The en:User:InterwikiBot by en:User:ErnieParke, which calculates Wiki statistic (see below) among other things, did not work since 2020/09/25 18:48. See e.g.:

Who could fix it?
MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 14:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am afraid that it would not be fixed because Google Analytics, the ultimate data supplier for those statistics, have been dropped a long while ago, due to legal concerns.

ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 19:37, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

As Ahmetlii notes, Google Analytics across all wikis was disabled due to GDPR concerns. The International Stats page, however, does not rely on GA data and should still be running. ErnieParke is the correct person to contact about the matter. I will see what I can do.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 16:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I can look into getting stats back up with IWB. Apologies for not being more active as I've been throwing up for over a year, something that's still clearing up, so I may be slower then normal.

ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

@ErnieParke Great you're back Ernie! :-)

MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 10:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@ErnieParke Did you already start to get Stats back working? It would be great!

MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 12:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ahmetlii + @Kenny2scratch I can't fully understand why the function of the Interwiki-Bot, which is to create interwiki entries and determine the number of pages accessed on our wikis, would need Google Analytics. Shouldn't this be possible without Google Analytics?

MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 10:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, there are indeed alternatives; according to an evaluation done in the aftermath of this, in a certain communication channel which I can't name or link per the Guidelines. However, none of the alternatives were deemed suitable for the Wiki's usecases at that time.

ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 04:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about going \*poof\*. I'm still learning what causes me to feel awful, and that's a conversation I'm having with my PCP. That being said:

IWB Wiki statistics tracking does not use Google Analytics. If anything everything is down right now.

Also, while there are alternative services like @Ahmetlii mentioned, I wrote IWB from the ground up. Interwiki cross linking is an extra problem on top!

p.s. If I miss any commenting conventions please give me a refresher. Thank you! c:
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 13:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

As an update, I've managed to fix the networking bugs in the codebase and am looking to refactor the project next.

ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

@ErnieParke: Thank you for continuing to fix your bot. Have you been able to achieve anything in the meantime?

MartinWollenweber Talk Contribs Directory 17:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Date Formatting on Articles

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

There are 2 used ways to format dates in article titles:

You can write it as (Month Date, Year) like in American English. Example: Studio Update (July 6, 2021)
Or you can write it as on Date Month Year like in the rest of the world. Example: Filterbot Outage on 12 April 2022

But we have to be consistent. Which one should the whole wiki use? In my opinion, the second one (DMY) is better. Either one we pick, we should probably add the prefered date format to the Editing Conventions as there currently isn't a clear guideline on which one.

PS: Well, technicially it's implying that the second one should be used since the EC is saying that American Spelling Conventions are to be used. However, some people (myself included) disagree on it, so we might just discuss it.
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 18:45, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I Do Happen To Like Date Formats ;). I Agree There Should Be Some Consistency And Have Thought About This Myself As Well. For Numerical Formats, We're Currently Using DD/MM/YY (Two-Digit Year), But YYYY-MM-DD Would Be Nice. For Fully Written Out Dates, I Personally Would Prefer The Second One. It's Not Just The "British" Way, It's How It's Written Everywhere In The World Except The US. Though The Obvious Counter-Argument Is That Scratch Is A US Organization. Personally, I'd Prefer It In Order And Without Needing A Comma, But If There's Strong Opposition I Don't Care. What's Most Important Is Being Consistent.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 19:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I have a few opinions on this.

When a full date is needed, YYYY-MM-DD. This eliminates the DMY/MDY discussion and is also more sortable.
Date should come before event name, not in parentheses afterwards or after "on".
Only use the minimum specificity in dates required, but for articles about a specific event always include at least the year.

So the titles given as examples here should, in my opinion, be "2021 Studio Update" and "2022 Filterbot Outage". If there were another outage in May 2022 then we should have "2022-05 Filterbot Outage" and "2022-04 Filterbot Outage".

I'd appreciate if someone with more time than I do could find or create a category for articles about events in time (perhaps Category:History?) and categorize the articles we have, to ease the implementation of the consensus here.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I Can Implement Any Necessary Changes (Except On Protected pages) But You Didn't Share Your Opinion On Written Out Dates. Should It Be:

Scratch 2.0 was released on 9 May 2013

Or

Scratch 2.0 was released on May 9, 2013

Alternatively, If By "When a full date is needed" You Mean That We Should Forgo Writing Out Dates Completely, Would That Be:

Scratch 2.0 was released on 2013-05-09

Please Advise Me On Which You Mean Because I'm Not Sure But Want To be 100% Sure Before Editing Probably Hundreds Of Instances. Thank You!

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 07:31, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

My opinions above are limited to article titles. In the body, I would say as long as the month is named (May, not 5) it doesn't really matter (i.e. is not worth a dedicated edit). Our editing conventions are silent on the matter, which I suppose is why this came up here, but one could interpret the "most used" rule to mean whichever date format is more widely used. But the patriot in me prefers to interpret the requirement for American English in titles to imply it to be the default dialect used in the absence of clarity, therefore including the Month D, YYYY format.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 10:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Announcements like the Wiki Wednesday or this one for server outage all use MMMM D, YYYY. It might be good to be consistent with the Scratch Team here (even though I really want to use DMY

)

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 06:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, Scratch is inconsistent in dates itself sadly otherwise I'd have looked there from the beginning. My Stuff uses DMY, but comments use MDY. It's really weird.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 07:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We've seemed to go off-topic: the topic is about Article Titles, not on Scratch itself or inside articles. Let's leave it for another week for more discussion, and then I'll assume YYYY-MM-DD is the consensus.
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 15:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that off-topic; it's slightly different, but no doubt a related topic. The confusion seems to be on the way dates are written out. Kenny2scratch pointed out that American spellings are to be used in titles, however, that's only for titles and not contents, and it's also unclear if that extends to date formats. You could also argue the "common name" clause would call for D MMM YYYY formatting. Who knows. Either way, I guess just change the *title* since that seems to be clearer and leave everything else on the /Not Done list.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 17:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

"Kenny2scratch pointed out that American spellings are to be used in titles" YYYY-MM-DD is not American.

Either way, I guess we'll have to write the conclusion in the Editing Convention or else someone else will have this discussion someday.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 18:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, American spellings, not date formats. That's different. While numerical formats are YYYY-MM-DD, written formats (i.e. 15 May 2007) still isn't done yet so there is no conclusion to write at this time. That's why I wanted to wait. Is that OK?

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 19:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

OK. In the meantime we can use the Discussion Invititation list.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Some interesting backseat moderation going on here.

I'm not sure if I would call the opinion of one person (me) "consensus", but the few people who have commented here have not dissented from my opinions on titles. I agree that there should be more discussion before we move hundreds of articles.

The editing conventions do in fact specify that American "spelling conventions" should be used in titles, and I would agree with Mrsrec that that leaves them silent on the matter of date formats; anything more is extended interpretation tantamount to speculation. But even under such interpretation, my opinions include the intent that the proposed rules become the new, more explicit conventions.

I also think that while it wasn't the original topic in the OP, this is probably still also the right venue for a discussion on date formats in article bodies at large as well. I've already given my opinion on that matter above. However, the two matters are largely independent (you can't both move an article and make an edit to its text in the same action) so if we come to a consensus on one before the other they can be actioned separately.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 23:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, for article titles, if only the year is needed then putting the date before the event is fine.

For example, 2023 Forum Update. This is because you don't put on after it if the date is moved to the end.

If the month is included, then put the event before the date AND put the name of the month in before the year.

For example, Studio Update on July 2022. This is because it doesn't make any argument about mm/yy or yy/mm.

But if the date is included, then do not spell out the month.

For example, Censor Outage on 2022-4-12. This elimates dd-mm-yyyy or mm-dd-yyyy.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to replace Discussion Invitation System notifications with pings

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Currently, the discussion invitation system uses talk page notifications to notify prospective discussion contributors. Now that we have Echo installed and can ping users, I am proposing that if we want to bring in a DIS user, instead of leaving a talk page message, we ping them using the mention template. This has two main benefits: it avoids cluttering talk pages and it gives a record in the original discussion of who was invited. Any thoughts on this?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting, because the discussion invitation system is a list of users who'd like to be invited to discussions, but theoretically, you could do it any way you want. Some people prefer Scratch comments over wiki talk page messages. I was planning on just changing the page, but since you made this proposal maybe that is better. If there is no opposition I would say it's a good idea to change the page to suggest that people tag them, and possibly delete the template. Though, people would still be able to post to talk pages using their own words.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 07:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather keep a little bit of the formalism - perhaps a new template similar to {{@}} but that specifically highlights that someone is being invited under DIS, so that it doesn't look like an out-of-context ping.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 14:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we can make a template that automatically pings everyone that signed up for DIS. The only downside is that it doesn't respect limits of people. However, adding an argument for the template that excludes some Wikians from getting a ping can help that.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 16:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nice idea! I support this. I wonder if DI Wikians like @Super_Scratch_Bros20 who have no listed limits have different opinions than those who do, like @Scratchgodo.

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 18:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Purin2022 Maybe we can make it ping everyone who signed up for it while respecting their limits if we make a format for the people who want to have limits.

Scratchgodo (Talk|Contributions|Scratch) 19:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

That didn't send me a notification...

@Scratchgodo It is techinically impossible. Some people have their limits per month while others have it per week, per day or even per 2 days. The software only recongizes per month. Additionally, some people also have timezone limits (like 3pm to 7pm IST everyday).

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 20:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Purin2022 That is a shame, I thought it could recognise per week, per day and timezones.
Scratchgodo (Talk|Contributions|Scratch) 20:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Scratchgodo It can but it'd be somewhat complicated to do. It might be better for people with strict bounds to not be added.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 21:58, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind how I get discussion invitations. I don't mind if it's done via pings, my talk page, or even my Scratch profile. I don't mind how often I get invitations either. However, I recognize that many users have set boundaries that should be respected. So here are my thoughts:

Keep the current system for a bit. Don't remove the template. Treat pings as a normal way to send someone a discussion invitation. Simply say, "I wish to hear @User's thoughts on this", or something along those lines. If someone doesn't respect your personal boundaries, they can always be reported as usual.

I say we wait two months. In light of Echo being installed, we can run an experiment and see the most popular way users are being notified once Wikians are more accustomed to using pings on the Wiki. After those two months, we should make our final decision.

Super_Scratch_Bros20 (talk / contribs) 21:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It has been a few months since the proposal was first made. Just in the last few days I came across at least two instances where editors wrote DI should be used instead of pings or simliar. Of course, this proposal never actually got community consensus, so technically they are right. However, like @Super Scratch Bros20, I do think that user's should have the option to ping as a DI as it does save a few unnecessary edits (and therefore clog in RC) and is, in my opinion, more convenient than the original DIS.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 18:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that telling someone not to ping others is "right". While the discussion invitation system exists as a way for people to ask for invitations to interesting discussions, there has never been a rule that you *have to* post on users' talk pages. Also, people are applying this more broadly-- not just to users on that list, but to anyone who is tagged t oa discussion, including ones specific to them. To me, it sounds like an unofficial prohibition on pings, which would ruin the purpose of even having them. So, I support switching the discussion invitation system to pings.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Does a ping on someone's talk page ping them?

Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 20:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I think so.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I don't think a template that pings the entire DI list is workable, because it could bypass limits, as pointed out by others. Custom code to obey limits is more effort than it's worth, and I say that as the only person on the DI list currently with a rate limit.

It's also occurred to me that using pings in the first place makes obeying limits hard. Under the current system, you can obey limits by checking the talk page you're about to use {{Discussion Invitation}} on for previous invitations within the limited period (say the past day). With pings, you'd have to check literally every talk page edited within the past day for pings.

So I think if pings are used for DIs, there should be some tracking that goes along with it - e.g. a manual log of pings done under DI, updated by the pinging user, so that others can see the pings and avoid violating limits. I don't believe that the talk-page-style invitations should be obsoleted in favor of pings, so either pinging users will need to check both the talk page and the log, or they will need to update the log on talk-page-style invitations too.

This somewhat defeats the convenience and RC clutter reduction of pinging. So I'm curious to hear what others would prefer - a) allow pings, check log & talk page when pinging, and update log; b) allow pings, check log when pinging, and update on talk page ping too; or c) keep it to just talk page invitations and officially prohibit pings for pure DI purposes?

(Side note: Separately, I think it's sensible to completely ban DI pings for users who direct DIs to another page. They obviously don't want full-blown notifications but rather to check the page from time to time. Any contention?)
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 00:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Kenny2scratch I kind of wonder why limits even exist in the first place. Obviously that prevents users from recieving too much messages as they can handle, however if people use it sensibly then I don't think it'd break any reasonable limit. Failing that, an alternative way is to make everyone who wants to ping people for DI purposes to list who they pinged in the Edit Summary. Then people can press ctrl+F for 'ping' in RC (+ checking user talk) to certainly if a limit has been broken or not.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 08:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's acceptable to do away with explicit limits, in case someone wants to be on a cadence longer than what a given pinger would consider a "reasonable limit" (say, a month, or a year).

I like the idea of listing DI pings in the edit summary to find in RC. That's a very good idea that I didn't think of. One caveat is that RC only goes back at most 30 days, so limits greater than that would require a more extensive search. But I think that would most likely lead to people simply not pinging those with limits too long to check (especially if we explicitly encourage that, which I think would be wise), which in my opinion is fair... if you want to be pinged less often than once a month, why bother being on the list at all?

As an added bonus, using RC as the log would obviate the necessity of checking the talk page - since a DI on the talk page would show up in RC as an edit to that talk page with the summary "Discussion Invitation: new section".

So to me that sounds like the proposal is to modify DI rules to:

Explicitly allow pinging, as long as users pinged are listed in the edit summary; and
Require pingers to check Special:RecentChanges for previous DI pings and/or talk page DIs within the limit, if present.

Does everyone agree or does anyone have further thoughts?

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 00:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting Browsers when Taking Screenshots

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Recently, Purin2022 (talk | contribs) and I were talking here about taking screenshots depending on what browser. There are some things that differ from browser to browser (like File:Report a project - Selecting Other.png idk how to make the image link but not show up on the page. We already obviously don't take screenshots on mobile devices, so my question is, what do we do in this situation? (The specific issue for this one is the highlighting of the image looks different in Chrome and Firefox)
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 21:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel like Chrome is a better idea because according to websites like this, Chrome is a lot, lot more popular than FireFox or any other browser, and we would add images that are seen by most people. (for example, in an image of the Wiki, there would be a purple nav bar) From the data, we'd reasonably assume that most Scratchers use Chrome.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 22:02, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 — put [[:File:FILENAME]] to make a link to a file (or category) instead of trasncluding them. File:Report a project - Selecting Other.png

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 22:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Purin2022 I'm okay with either, as long as we're still allowed to take screenshots in Firefox if it's the same in Chrome.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Templates in Deleted Category

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

There are 27 templates in the deleted category, Category:Template_Redirects. Would it be okay to remove this categorization from these 27 templates?
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 22:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Admin Panel Imagery...

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

I recently did some (deep) digging and found some archives of now-deleted forum topics... Turns out, in 2014 the admin panel was available for one day (I saw @jvvg did post on one of the topics). Here are the images that I found (one is hosted by me, one is not): https://imgur.com/a/5rKPT https://u.cubeupload.com/han614698/ADMINPANEL1.png Are these something that we want on the wiki and is there a good spot for them?
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 22:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 — Looks like a potential duplicate of File:ST reviewing.png to me. There are some major-ish difference though so I'll leave it to someone else.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Should there be an article for the current explore page and searching glitch?

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Right now, there is a glitch on Scratch with the Explore page and searching page. Basically, projects that have really high IDs in their URL (I'm not sure the exact amount that's high enough), will not show up on the explore page (Meaning it can't get trending, popular, or recent), or the search page (Meaning it won't show up in search results).

What I'm wondering is: Is this glitch notable enough for there to be a Wiki article about it? Or should it be added as a subsection in the Scratch Bugs page?
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 22:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@BrilliantGamer6 — I'm not sure where it should go (possibly a separate article, it's pretty notable), but

Support — I was literally just thinking this, and it makes so much sense.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 02:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@BrilliantGamer6, han614698 — I definitely think that this is extremely notable and therefore

Support. However, unless either there are a LOT of people on the forums saying about this, or it doesn't get fixed for a LONG time (say a month), I think I should just be a section in Scratch Bugs.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 10:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Support This is very important, as it could affect newer projects by a lot

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 13:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Support I think this is caused by the indexer not having index the newest projects.

Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems like nobody is disagreeing with this. However, I'm not sure if it should go in another article or as a Scratch Bugs subsection. I won't add the unresolved template yet, however I am wondering what others think should be done (which is also why I won't create the article or add the bug to the Scratch Bugs page).

BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Okay nevermind, I'm going to add the unresolved template.
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 19:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

About the Scratch Wiki header

Resolved ^{(since 06:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC))}

On Scratch, back on June 28^th, 2023, the Scratch Team added Color Contrast to Scratch. This turned the nav bar color from blue to purple. In the Scratch Wiki forum topic, it says

“

The Scratch Wiki is independently run, and is on different servers and a different domain. To distinguish the main website from the Wiki, the (default) header color is different between the two sites.

”

However, now, since the header color is purple on Scratch, they both look similar (albeit the shade of purple is slightly different, Scratch's being this and the Wiki's being this). Now, the header color shouldn't be changed to another color, such as blue or green, but the shade of purple on the wiki header could be changed to something more distinguishable from the Scratch header.

Note:

I understand that the header color can be changed by logged in users, however I'm talking about the default color.

BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 16:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No support. The wiki can have a similar identity, in fact it may be better.

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 00:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@BrilliantGamer6, what color do you have in mind?

London11gm (talk | contribs) 04:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No support for changing the color of the header - the ST changed the one on scratch to purple to make scratch easier to see for colorblinds, so changing our to blue would kinda make the wiki harder to read. However, our header looks very similar to the scratch header, with the only major differences being "Discuss" and the pencil instead of the mystuff icon, so something about it should be changed. Instead of having "Scratch" on the header, we could have "Scratch Wiki".

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 06:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't there a whole wiki sidebar?

Lovecodeabc Links: talk (new topic) | contribs (815) | directory 12:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@London11gm, I don't really have a particular color in mind, just any shade of purple that's distinguishable enough from the Scratch header color.

BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vdiu, I did say that "The header color shouldn't be changed to blue". And if the header said "Scratch Wiki", where would the link to the regular Scratch page go?

BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 13:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

No support. The color of the header is fine right now, and there's no important reason to change it. I was curious about the color because just how different is the color? That may have impacted my verdict.

London11gm (talk | contribs) 15:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Changing the shade of purple that both distinguishes from the main site purple AND from the text colour (white) is nearly impossible, as the wiki has a darker shade of purple than the main site. The only way it'd work is to change it to a even darker shade of purple, which looks something like this, which, in my opinion, isn't that great.

Changing the logo on the nav bar, of course, is a potential solution. However, we already have the logo on the sidebar already, and anyway the logo is too big to fit to the nav bar, so it isn't great either.

The layout might be something that will distinguish the main site from the wiki. Obviously, this will create some problems, including people not being familliar with the bar, but overall, since when Echo was installed back in December last year, the layout has been very simliar. I have no idea in mind of how exactly it would look like, but please feel free to suggest them.
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 09:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@BrilliantGamer6 The shade of purple on scratch and on the wiki is that shade because it is easy to read for all colorblind people, but if we go out of the range of #855cd6-#7953c4, it gets harder to read the further out of range you go. I know someone who is grayscale colorblind, and I sent them a screenshot of the wiki header in a more distinguishable purple, but they said it was difficult to read and asked me to send one with better contrast. Also, the scratch link could go in the sidebar, because more people jump from a random wiki page to the home page then they do from the wiki to scratch. Also, I know that clicking the logo does this, but you can't see that in the middle of a page.

@Purin2022 The entire logo won't fit, I meant just the "Scratch Wiki" text under the cat globe.

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 06:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The last time we talked to the Scratch Team about the header color in light of their changes, they said that we don't have to change ours but they would appreciate it if we could. That alone means it's an extremely low-priority change and not one we're likely to get around to anytime soon. We also don't really have any good immediate options for colors to change to (as evidenced by the discussion so far). So don't expect anything soon.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 20:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Twitter or X?

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Hi guys,

This has come up a few times recently as many instances of Twitter are being changed to X.

I personally do not think this is a good idea, because it breaks the common vocabulary and introduces confusion. Twitter is both by far the more common name, and also the name used on Scratch (i.e. Scratch always refers to their Twitter presence, and *never* their "X" presence). Pretty much the only use of X on Scratch is used as a means of going around the filter. But, it seems to be somewhat controversial as some have been changing Twitter to X (as well as changing other names that don't even appear on the site, for example retweet became re-X even though the site says repost, not re-X), though I haven't seen a reason for doing so yet. Thoughts?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Han614698

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Many websites are changing to Twitter/X or X, formerly Twitter, but I agree with Mrsrec's point. I think that we should probably switch to something like the above, but we should't use "Re-X", use the actual X website term, like repost or something. Also, Mrsrec, usually standard wiki protocal is to use Discussion Invitations for inviting people to new discussions rather than pinging.

Lovecodeabc Links: talk (new topic) | contribs (815) | directory 18:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Support, this makes sense. X could refer to many different things (as shown on Wikipedia's disambiguation page for X). Lots of people are used to it being called Twitter, so calling it X would definitely bring up confusion.

BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 19:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I pinged han614698 because this discussion concerns them, not because of the discussion invitation. Of course I can follow the discussion invitation, but this is because they were replacing Twitter with X. Hope this shows my point of view :)

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mrsrec I am sorry for not responding quicker, I was out of town for several days. I haven’t logged into the wiki until now. I don’t have too much to say other than that I disagree with keeping it as Twitter. The company is attempting to change their name, and it’s not our place to worry about whether it’s better known as twitter or not, rather to report information as it is. Meaning we shouldn’t call Twitter just because it’s more well known - the website is no longer twitter, it’s X. I think it’s very stupid to make a website called X, but, hey, it’s not my decision, so I think that we need to document what the website owners want their name to be.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 19:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mrsrec A little unrelated, but why did you undo my revision here? You may not agree that it should say X in the article, but it still shouldn’t link to Twitter as that is a redirect and general wiki protocol is to not link to redirects, AFAIK. To be clear I would actually rather people ping me instead of using discussion invitation since it’s a lot less work and link clicking when I’m checking messages.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 19:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Mrsrec one more thing- Looking back at RC it appears you undid every single one of my Twitter->X changes before discussing. That technically doesn’t break BRD but it seems rather unnecessary considering it would just be more annoying to put back. I also want to rebring up the fact that you’re making them all link to the redirect Twitter which isn’t usually what we do. You’re welcome to discuss and disagree with my edits but I think it would be better to discuss before mass reverting changes.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 19:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

No support. While I don't like X as a name, and I wish it was still Twitter, I feel like we are getting opinion in the way. As X is the official name, I feel like we should use that. I understand it could be confusing, but we could refer it as "the social media platform X" or something like that. The challenge of the wiki is to stay up to date, and up to date is X, even though it's not the common name. TL;DR is I agree with @han614698.

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 14:41, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 I reverted them per BRD as you mentioned, but I understand why it might have been a better idea to not do that (as you never know how the discussion will go).

@Co0lcr34t10ns Respectfully, I don't think it's about my opinion. I reverted them because this is the Scratch Wiki, not the Twitter wiki. So there really is no such thing as the "official name" for us-- the closest thing to that would be the name that the Scratch Team uses, which is Twitter. This is a wiki about Scratch, and if the Scratch Team tells people to check their Twitter page for status updates, then there cannot really be a compelling reason to refer to the "X" page based on the "official" name (of whom?). Reporting information as it is would be achieved by calling it Twitter-- it would not be achieved by calling it X, because again, this is the Scratch Wiki not the Twitter wiki. In my opinion Twitter calling themselves X doesn't really matter for the purposes of the Scratch Wiki-- would only for something like Wikipedia, which the Scratch Wiki is not Wikipedia (also, Wikipedia says Twitter as well).

I hope this explains my view in more detail; I'm not just saying Twitter is the "true" name, it's specifically tailored. However, given that it is somewhat controversial and there's not really a sense in withholding information, I added the name X to the Twitter section; I hope this is an OK compromise, and doesn't require two names in every single appearance. Is this OK?

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 20:50, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mrsrec — I am okay with you changing that article to that, but I am still

Not okay with that being it. I really think it's important that we change it to X. Even though a lot of people call it Twitter still, it's still called X. Twitter may be better but it's not the name anymore. As seen here,

“

In March of this year, Musk merged Twitter Inc. into a newly registered entity called X Corp.

”

Twitter doesn't even legally exist anymore, and as far as I can tell the fact that x.com redirects to twitter.com is just because they haven't merged the servers yet (which takes a lot of effort). Also X is not just a "workaround" as it's their new name. It's not us creating a "Twitter Wiki", we're just changing it to reflect what the company is and wants to be called. Even a simple google search for "Did Twitter officially change their name" will overwhelmingly show you that it is no longer called Twitter by anyone other than people that forget or won't change. I strongly feel that we need to follow this and not call a company a name that it (a) doesn't want to be called and also (b) not even the companies name.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 23:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I think the confusion here is Twitter the company vs. the platform. Yes, Twitter Inc is a defunct company whose assets were merged into X Corp. No-one is arguing that. However, that is not an argument for changing instances of the platform name, because that's not the same thing as the company. Another good example of this is Facebook, the platform which is run by Meta. Or Google, the search engine made by Google, whose parent company is Alphabet.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 21:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@MrsrecGive one example where Twitter refers to themselves as Twitter. Go to x.com or Twitter.com and you’ll see everything says X.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 01:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel as though we are going in circles. As I have tried to say before, what Twitter refers to themself as should not be the deciding factor in my opinion. But, since you've asked for it, OK-- a good example would be Twitter's sign in with Twitter page -- this is the page that anyone will see when they try to sign into a site using their Twitter account (or their "X" account)-- when you sign in with an "X" account, you're greeted with a page that is all about Twitter with no mention of X anywhere. However, I'm only providing what you asked for to not come off as avoiding the question-- I believe that this is besides the point-- the Scratch Wiki, its relationship with Scratch (either the community or the Scratch Team) is what really matters-- there isn't really a good reason to go against both the name that the Scratch Team uses and the name that the Scratch community uses in favor of a name that the external site uses. The Scratch Wiki is, still, a wiki about Scratch, and documenting Twitter (or X) should be done in line with how it interacts with Scratch-- and, unfortunately, "X" plays no role in that.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 09:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mrsrec See this page: https://business.twitter.com/en/help/troubleshooting/how-twitter-ads-work.html. It's always called "X", not "Twitter", and I think it's pretty clearly not referring to the corporation, but the platform.

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 18:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I never said otherwise; I was simply addressing the discussion about the business name change.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 09:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I feel this discussion is becoming heated. You both are making good points, but the discussion has ran on back-and-forth for too long, and I'm starting to feel a sense of frustration from the debate. Whether or not you feel the same, I would suggest we wait for another person's opinion. As I said, I agree with @han614698 but that's just 3 opinions here. I think we need at least 2 more opinions before we come to a descision.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 10:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel heated but I'm doing my best to maintain a respectful professional tone and stay cool. Part of it is that I do not feel like what I'm saying is being heard. I said that what Scratch calls Twitter should take priority over what Twitter calls Twitter, and han responded telling me to link to Twitter calling itself Twitter because it only says X. As it happens I was able to complete this challenge but even if I wasn't, wasn't my whole point that what Twitter calls itself shouldn't matter? Also, if we are going by the name on Twitter, then why does han call posts "X's" even though Twitter/X says "posts" and not "X's"? This confuses me. So far we do have BrilliantGamer6 and Lovecodeabc who agree with me, and you and mybearworld who agrees with han. Evenly split so far, however, I think it should be more about the content of the discussion than the number of users. I did add what I believe is a fair compromise; in the abscence of a clear consensus to go one way or another, I would say use both in large presences (like the section about their Twitter page), but in passing mentions, or where places where only one or the other can be used, the default should be the non-ambiguous one (Twitter). That's my take. I don't want to go around in circles forever or hurt too many people's feelings, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone going this far.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 20:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned by someone else, this discussion is more of an argument than a discussion. So the entire point of this discussion was that whether we should use what people calls the entity or what the entity calls itself. I'm entirely aware that S:NOTWIKIPEDIA exists, but in Wikipedia, what people calls it is the way to go. (technically it says that they should use the most commonly used name, but for our purposes that is equalvlent.) According to this survey, 72% of people refer it as 'twitter' in September 2023. Yes it's April 2024, but still, a guessimate would probably be that at least half of the population calls it 'twitter'. You might say that all of this doesn't matter and we should call what an entity calls itself, but take a look this example:

Imagine that Wikipedia renamed itself to "W". I don't think we'd call it W cosnidering that it meant nothing, it's a pain changing all mentions (and instinct) of Wikipedia to W, and anyway it has been Wikipedia for the last 23 years, and is more of a nuisance than helpful. Point being, people usually don't like these changes and would rather you to call it Wikpedia. That all can be applied to Twitter.

Finally, it's still twitter.com and not x.com (although x.com redirects to twitter.com) and there exists a Twitter International Unlimited Company. Overall, I think that twitter should still be called twitter unless the situation changes.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 20:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mrsrec I think where we're disagreeing is how I think we should do what X wants or you think we should what Scratch has referred to. When people have nicknames in real life (or change their name in specific circumstances), it’s not okay to call them by the name that they don’t want to be called by. Obviously X isn’t a person with feelings but it’s still the same principle. The company (and website) has changed their name and it’s obvious that they want others to follow. Frankly anyone that refuses to call them X is just being stubborn (this isn’t an attack on any specific person). I don’t intend to ruin my relationships with anyone over this discussion but I still strongly feel that we need to refer to it as X in articles. The reason that some articles say Xs is because I was replacing tweet with X since that is officially the new term. The almost relates to how we don’t call the ST “ST” in articles even though that is the popular term. Like I said earlier I don’t think it’s reasonable to refuse to change us calling Twitter X just because it’s more commonly referred to as Twitter. It kind of feels like we’re saying “It’s great that you’ve changed your name, but we’ll keep referring to you with your old name”. We’re providing information on our wiki, free from bias of anyone’s opinion including the STs. (I honestly think it’s an oversight if they refer to it as Twitter. I’m more willing to lean of the issue of x.com vs. twitter.com. On one hand X redirects to Twitter, but n the other hand X is shorter and reduces page sizes slightly and there really isn’t a reason to not link to it.

@jvvg, Kenny2scratch I have a proposal that we get some admins involved. We’ve both made points, and I think the admins should read over our points and make an executive decision or have some sort of vote since we’re not getting anywhere. I do think admins need to be involved ne way or another.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 01:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 Fair points. I did originally thought about the nickname problem, but then it's a contridiction towards what people calls the name, so ultimately saying this would lead us to nowhere. Also, offtopic, but legal names exist and you can't get 100% on nicknames. The 'we don't call ST "ST"' thing is different though - ST is an acronym for Scratch Team and it's a different nature then say, Twitter or X. You can put USA in a moderately-professional document. But I'm going to spare the rest of whys and why nots because a) it's probably been mentioned before and b) it's not going to make any difference anyway. It's up to community concensus. Have a nice day/evening/night :)

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Purin2022 — It is true that legal name always exists, but it many cases it is completely unacceptable to you legal name in any circumstance. Also if we want to bring that up you can argue that X's legal name is X. I also wanted to note that I pinged admins in my last post, and missed Banana, who I had forgotten was active. I'll ping them here: @banana439monkey Please see the last paragraph of the post two posts above this one.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 23:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm here to weigh in as an admin, as requested. I think some good points have been made and some bad tone has been used.

First and foremost, as the Scratch Wiki, our job is to explain things related to Scratch in a way that our readers will understand. From that perspective, there will almost certainly be both people who think of the platform as being named "X", and people who think of it as "Twitter"; there will be people searching both names and who may not understand the other name if only one is used. "Twitter" is not a deadname (especially not if its owner considers "cis" a slur^{[obiter dictum]}); the company's preferences aren't relevant here (we would continue to include "formerly Scratch" even if they wanted to henceforth be called "Blockly"). So the first part of my opinion (which is not yet a ruling) is that any initial mention of the platform should include both names.

Second, when it comes to how specifically to include both names, I think there isn't really any evidence or reasonable argument to support anything other than "X (formerly Twitter)" or "X, formerly Twitter". The platform, in addition to the company, refers to itself as "X" - examples on my Twitter homepage include "on X" and "X Premium". "Twitter (aka X)" is an opinion - "X (aka Twitter)" is a fact. I think it's an untenable position to say "X is the company and Twitter is the platform it runs" - the platform is clearly also called X and the wording we use to include its former name must reflect that. This also agrees with similar journalistic practices. It also means that uses of the platform's name as an adjective (e.g. "Twitter account") will need to be reworded (e.g. to "account on X (formerly Twitter)").

Third, there is evidently some contention here as to which name should be used if forced to choose only one. Therefore, I propose we use neither - instead, in addition to using "X (formerly Twitter)" the first time the platform is mentioned in context, all subsequent times we should either say "the platform" or remove the use of its name entirely and let context fill it in. A contrived example: "X (formerly Twitter) is used to report downtimes. [The platform / It] is independently run and thus stays up when the Scratch website is down."

Fourth, we probably should not call posts on the platform "tweets" anymore, as the platform now calls them "posts", which is also a more generic term that applies even if a more brand-specific term exists. For similar reasons, the platform calls retweets "reposts" and so should we. "Re-X" is incorrect because posts on X are not called "X"es - nor were tweets ever called "Twitters". I don't think it makes sense to say "posts (formerly tweets)" since they were already also (correctly) called posts even when the platform still called them tweets.

Fifth, it's the Scratch Wiki's practice to avoid linking to redirects from mainspace. In that light, given that "x.com" redirects to "twitter.com", the latter is the correct domain to use when linking to the platform.

Finally, I don't think this is a big enough deal to warrant systematic community mass editing to update the wording we use. If you disagree and wish to make mass edits individually, I ask that you follow StackOverflow's burnination practices - clean up the rest of each article you edit in the process. Do not make an edit consisting only of X/Twitter wording changes unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the rest of the article is pristine and perfect. In any case, per S:BRD, do not make any such edits until this discussion is resolved.

To summarize, my opinion on the matter, as an admin, is as follows:

Any initial mention of the platform should use "X (formerly Twitter)" or "X, formerly Twitter"
Any subsequent mention of the platform in context should use "the platform" or be removed
"Tweets" and "retweets" should be called "posts" and "reposts"
Links to the platform should use the "twitter.com" domain for so long as "x.com" redirects to it
No edit should only be about this matter

For now, this is my opinion and not an executive decision. I want to hear if this is an acceptable schema for those involved in this discussion. An example of this schema in practice is below:

“

X (formerly Twitter)Twitter

A screenshot of the Scratch Team's ~~Twitter~~ profile

The Scratch Team operates an account, @scratch,^[1] on X (formerly Twitter)~~Twitter, also known as X~~. The account is used for posting announcements, downtimes on the Scratch Website, reposting ~~retweeting~~ feedback, and answering questions by Scratchers. It has over 118,000 followers and has made over 1,500 posts~~tweets~~. It self-describes as:

“	Official account of Scratch, the programming language & online community where young people create stories, games, & animations. Created by @llkgroup @medialab	”
– Scratch's ~~Twitter~~ account

History

The account's first post~~tweet~~ was made on July 22, 2008. It said, "Getting ready for the Scratch@MIT conference." The account has gradually become more popular, now having over 118 thousand followers and 800 tweets. The Scratch Team follows nearly 1,000 ~~Twitter~~ accounts, mostly professors and education-related individuals and organizations.^[2] The Scratch Team has always had have a background depicting the Scratch program, though only visible in the browser and not the ~~Twitter~~ app. The account is still active, and they often repost~~retweet~~ teachers who post~~tweet~~ about Scratch in the classroom or how Scratch has enlightened learning in schools.^{[citation needed]}

Scratch Wiki

The Scratch Wiki has an account on the platform~~a Twitter account~~, @ScratchWiki,^[3] which is separate from the main @scratch account. It is run by the Wiki Administrator MakeTheBrainHappy on behalf of the Wiki administrators. The posts [existing use of "post"!] mainly feature article suggestions, helpful resources, and reposts~~retweets~~ from those discussing either the main website or the Wiki.

References

[note continued use of "twitter.com"]

”

– proposed edit to Scratch on Social Media

Please share your thoughts respectfully without inflaming the discussion by saying things like "starting to feel a sense of frustration" or "I feel heated". I hope this is a reasonable compromise.

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 01:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mrsrec, Kenny2scratch, lovecodeabc, mybearworld, Co0lcr34t10ns, Purin2022I don't have too much to say since I obviously still agree with my former points but I recognize the importance of a compromise. I'll just say my opinion on each of the 5 ideas.
1. Even though I think that it should just say X, I think this is a reasonable compromise although I do think that it should say "X (formerly Twitter)" rather than "Twitter (formerly X)".
2. 100% agree with no objections.
3. Also 100% agree, I don't remember moving anything front Tweets to Xs but if I did, I do remember googling the new name for Tweets and getting the result Xs.
4. I agree as well.
5. I don't have an opinion on this. I personally think that once we come to a consensus all the wiki articles should be edited to reflect such as consistency is very important. Thanks for stepping in and helping with the conversation, Kenny2Scratch. Sorry if I did come of as rude (or make people feel heated) during this, that was never my intention.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 03:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kenny2scratch I completely think that X (formerly Twitter) is a good compromise. But using "the platform" outside of the same paragraph with the Scratch Wiki account is strange, as that point would be separate, no? Or am I missing something? (I always could be missing something, I don't want to sound overconfident.) I would suggest in this case to use X alone, since in this case the reader already knows X was formerly Twitter, assuming they read the article from top to bottom. So here's my opinion: X (formerly Twitter) for the first time in an article, and use "the platform/it" for the rest of the section, then when you move to a new section, call it X (since the reader already knows it's formerly Twitter). Then, use "the platform/it" for the rest of the section, and then repeat from step 3 until the end of the article. If we end up landing on Twitter (formerly X) then just swap the 2 around. (When I said "I'm starting to feel a sense of frustration", I was talking about the back and forth conversation and that it could become an argument without taking precaution. I was trying to slow it down, not speed it up. But if I ended up making it MORE heated because I said that, I'm sorry, I'm still new here at the end of the day, and I just wanna make wiki better, like the million other people who have an account.)

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Co0lcr34t10ns: I don't agree with saying "the platform" or "it" after a statement of "X, formerly Twitter." My personal opinion is that it's awkward. Look at Kenny2Scratch's outline of the article. I think that it will make it harder to follow: when it says "the platform" readers might need to look up at the subheading to see what platform we are referring to.

Lovecodeabc Links: talk (new topic) | contribs (815) | directory 17:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kenny2scratch — I think your opinions are pretty reasonable and I'd not raise an alternative opinion. The only major concern I'd raise is for idea 1 (which ironically is the most important point). Namely, what about article/section headings? Your suggestion stated that either "X (formerly Twitter)" or "X, formerly Twitter" is to be used in the initial mention of the platform. The headings are the initial mentions of it, but using either in the headings would violate S:TITLES rule 6, the title doesn't have punctuation marks/symbols, and clearly none of the exceptions apply to this scanario. So one of the following must happen:

We decide to call an exception for this; or
We just have to decide X/Twitter (which would defeat the entire post's point)

Neither of which sounds great. As well as that, there is a minor concern that wouldn't really matter as a whole, namely:

Saying Scratch's account rather than Scratch's Twitter account sounds a bit unclear to me. The problem with it is that, despite that in most cases context would resolve an issue, it's still going to cause confusion to what platform? especically when multiple platforms are mentioned.

Finally, this topic has now got subsections! The thing is that now when we ping someone the System says that this is the Reference topic, which a exteremely minor issue, but it isn't really helpful. Would you mind if you fix that?

@Co0lcr34t10ns Please do not assume that a reader would read from top to down. Redirects exist and they could send the reader to the SW section, and using only X in it would defeat the entire point.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 18:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

The proposed solution is OK with me.

Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 22:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hear me out: What if the first mention said X (formerly Twitter) or Twitter (aka X), and all subsequent messages said just X of Twitter (depending on what we decide on the first step of my solution, similar to what @Kenny2scratch proposed. This wouldn’t be a huge issue on most articles since it’s usually only mentioned once and a second mention could just say X or Twitter. Thoughts?
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 11:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@han614698: Good idea, but then we will debate on X versus Twitter. In the meantime,

Support.
@Purin2022: While it is awkward, I think that exempting this from S:TITLES makes sense, I see "X, formerly Twitter" headings all the time.
Also, it's probably too late to move, but shouldn't this be on Talk:Scratch on Social Media?

Lovecodeabc Links: talk (new topic) | contribs (815) | directory 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

(note: edit conflict twice while editing)

@han614698 — I'd really only agree to that if it was necessary to make the sentence/paragraph clear. Avoiding mentions of both is a better way that still make sense while not increase a risk of this argument being re-instated.

@Lovecodeabc — It would work, although it's very awkward, for "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules."(source) Also the decision of this discussion will likely affect more than Scratch on Social Media, so it wouldn't make sense anyway.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged into here so here goes:
I say we keep it as Twitter. X is definitely confusing to refer to as a social media platform. Failing this, I would also be amenable to "X (formerly Twitter)", since it's both the best and the worst of both worlds.

banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,483))

08:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion is getting very long, and we need to archive the page soon, so we should start wrapping up unresolved discussions. We need to come up with a consensus. I take it X (formerly Twitter) then "the platform" or "it" is our solution?

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 14:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Co0lcr34t10ns I don't think it really matters how long this conversation gets...

banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,483))

16:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Co0lcr34t10ns What they meant was that archive has nothing to do with the conversation. We just don't archive unresolved topics, as we'd normally do. And the name to be used on headings hasn't got enough opinions yet for a consensus...

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 16:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think we should come to a consensus as soon as possible, since this is getting quite long. I think the best thing to do is to mention both in some way, by saying "X, formerly twitter" or "Twitter/X" or something else similar.
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 16:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I have not participated in this discussion until now, but I have been following it, so I think we should write "X (formerly Twitter)". However, if there are multiple instances of X in a page, only the first should be "X (formerly Twitter)", and the rest can just be "X". The reason for this is that the reader will already know the X was Twitter, so we do not need to repeat it every time. The repetition would also be excessive and unnecessarily increase the page size. @Mrsrec, Lovecodeabc, BrilliantGamer6, Han614698, Co0lcr34t10ns, Mybearworld, Purin2022, kenny2scratch, banana439monkey wow, they're a lot of people involved in this discussion Can we come to a consensus?

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 08:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@vdiu, BrilliantGamer6 It seems like no one read my previous post, so I'll repeat: should we break S:TITLES rule 6 and put "X (formerly Twitter)" onto headings? Now it seems clear as a consensus that "X (formerly Twitter)" should be the first mention of the platform and "X" for the other mentions, but bear in mind that people may not read the article from the top.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 10:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @vdiu, but @Purin2022 brings up good points in their posts. The reader may only read one section of the article. I believe that we could (formerly Twitter) on once every section, but that may be clumsy. For titles we should just use X, as if the reader has any questions about it, they can read the article with the title. And everyone has a good point, so it's getting harder to keep track. People are ending up sticking with their own opinions because they don't know what to choose, so it's becoming a bit of a pandemonium. We really need to come up with a compromise that everyone will be happy with.

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Vdiu, Purin2022, Co0lcr34t10ns — I agree with vdiu. I think that this should be the new change, and the first mention should be X (formerly Twitter), and ALL subsequent mentions are just X. Xs and Tweets become posts. Any other small issues that we have after establishing this can be discussed on THAT ARTICLES talk page. How long should we give this? This discussion has been a month already...

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 12:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I think about these:

@Vdiu — This idea is quite good, however it might still be slightly confusing. Some people might only read certain sections of certain articles, so they might still be confused when they see "X" unless they read earlier in the article, which they might not do. Plus, the text " (formerly Twitter)" is only 19 bytes. If a page mentioned X/Twitter 5 times, that would only be adding 95 bytes.

Note:

I just realized that Purin2022 also said that some people might only read one section of articles

@Purin2022 — I think this is okay. It's not really breaking the rule, since the page says "The title doesn't have punctuation marks/symbols, unless it is a direct name" Although that "X (formerly Twitter)" isn't technically its real name, I think it would still work to avoid confusion.

BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Purin2022, if you agree with @BrilliantGamer6's opinion, does that mean we have come to a consensus? The majority of people who have participated seem to agree with @Kenny2Scratch

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 21:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Co0lcr34t10ns Their ideas seem reasonable to me. So we have come to a consensus! Well, *one more* edge case. All to do with the mention of the platform before the date when Twitter was changed to X. Example:

“	...with a link to the Scratch Team's X Account saying "follow us for updates..."	”
– Development of Scratch 3.0#Final Release

It is clear that 3.0 was released before Twitter was renamed. So technically it is their Twitter account that posted the post...? I believe that in Wikipedia they do use Twitter in this type of situation, although the Scratch wiki isn't Wikipedia. What do everyone think? Is it even a significant edge case to even be notable?
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

This is massive and I haven't read through it all, so I don't know if this has been mentioned or is even still relevant, but https://scratch.love/email-sign-up/, probably the newest content from the Scratch Team, uses "X/Twitter".

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 23:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Purin2022 While it is a mention from the past, most of these are too, so I think X and it's Formerly variants are good. Wait we may be done. No way

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 23:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Purin2022, Co0lcr34t10ns, Mybearworld, BrilliantGamer6, Mrsrec, Vdiu, Kenny2scratch, banana439monkey, Lovecodeabc Alright. There don't seem to be too many major objections, so I propose this:

All instances of Twitter are replaced with X as a rule.
- First mention is "X (formerly Twitter)"
- All subsequent mentions are just X (as we seem to have determined that we can assume people somewhat know what X is)
- This WILL be a mass edit, unlike mentioned earlier (since my proposal of mass-editing didn't get shot down), so all articles mentioning this will be change to reflect these new rules.
- This will occur for ALL mentions, not just the ones that speak of X after its name change.
All links to the X main website will (this is new) link to x.com, because, as of 5/28/24, x.com no longer redirects to twitter.com.

If anyone has any major objections, please object by replying to this thread and {{@}}-ing me BEFORE June 1^st. If there are no major objections by then, everything listed above WILL be done on all pages on the wiki.

Please don't object with small little tiny things that only apply to one or two pages. This can be discussed on that articles talk page, and just makes this massive conversation take longer. I am sorry if this seems harsh, I'm just trying to say things as matter-of-fact-ly as possible, to get this megathread conversation over with. Thanks for understanding.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 00:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 That looks mostly reasonable. There are a few very minor problems that haven't been properly addressed, but:

People don't read an article from top-to-bottom as they may read from a specific section (redirect exists). That said, we can assume that most people know Twitter => X so it should be fine.
There's no definitive conclusion on that 'what to use in headings' thing although it seems like writing "X (formerly Twitter)" in headings is somewhat a consensus. So I propose that to be used. (although there's only one such situations so far, namely Scratch on Social Media, so it can go to another page if someone objects)
Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 11:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Regular Updates for Scratch Website Images that update regularly

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

There are some Scratch Website Images that change every month or so, namely 3.0 Statistics.png, Scratchers Worldwide.png, and Comment Activity.PNG, so we should have some kind of system to update them, either automatic or just some sort of reminder system to update them. These images had remained unupdated for about a year until @mybearworld updated them, which is sad because these numbers change every month.
Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 15:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Vdiu I don't think they should be automatically updated - File:Scratchers Worldwide.png did not get updated, because that section of the statistics is currently broken (the console says topojson is undefined). An automated system would make the image blank — and I'd say having an out of date image is better than having an up to date blank image. Also, that would probably just be generally difficult to implement. I do think a reminder system might be good - but who would that remind?

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 15:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking that we should have similar to the discussion invite system- we get users to put themselves on a list and maybe a bot or something can ping all the users every month.

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 03:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Signatures???

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Many signatures use borders and backgrounds, including administrators. If the signature guidelines say that borders and backgrounds aren't allowed, are people fine with using unallowed signatures?
2tables (talk | contribs) 19:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@2tables Can you give an example? Borders and backgrounds are not allowed, and I don't really see anyone using them.

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 08:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@mybearworld Both me and 2tables have signatures with backgrounds... @2tables' signature has a white background so you may not be able to see it in light mode, and mine has a translucent white backgrounf to improve dark mode visibility. I basically copied my original sig from @LokiBlaster, then changed it about 20 times.

Vdiu | Talk | Contributions | Scratch Profile 05:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. It's still not allowed, but it looks like that isn't really enforced, then.

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@mybearworld

kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory

2tables (talk | contribs) 20:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I have a white background is for dark mode, and dark talk pages.

2tables (talk | contribs) 20:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@2tables I tried removing the background from your signature and the text is perfectly legible even on dark mode. In fact, the blue text passes WCAG AA, so I'm not sure why you have a white background.

Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 23:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@/Kenny2scratch Do you mean that your signature has a border too? If so, then yeah, looks like that just isn't enforced. A background might still be too distracting, though I'm probably wrong on that as well

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 13:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

that was me giving an example with kenny's sig

2tables (talk | contribs) 14:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@2tables Oh! I've removed the ping, hopefully kenny2scratch won't be unnecessarily notified.

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 17:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a "Guidance for young editors" page?

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Should there be a "Guidance for young editors" page on the Scratch Wiki? If so, then it might have the shortcut "S:YOUNG".
RSITYTScratch (talk | contribs) 14:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@RSITYTScratch Short answer, probably not. Long answer: I don't really see any reason why we should have it. Unlike Wikipedia, all content on this wiki should comply with the Community Guidelines, which states "we welcome people of all ages" and "keep personal and contact information private", so 50% of that page's content is obsolete. Also we have many, many ways to let new editors to learn the "guidelines" (including the Account Request System, the Community Portal, the welcoming templates etc.) so that part isn't as useful. Finally 90% or more of the users on Scratch are <18 years old so a guesstimate of that number on the wiki would be reasonable above 50%, so creating a page for that many editors and excluding the rest of them seems weird, if not excessive.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 14:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Purin2022, RSITYTScratch — Maybe I’m making an assumption, but I assume this is for new (young) editors, not based on physical age. I could be wrong, OP, please confirm.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 15:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 The page is not for new editors, rather on physical age.

RSITYTScratch - (talk - contribs - logs) 16:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't really think this matters that much. Unlike Scratch, users on the Wiki have to request an account, meaning editors should already be trusted. Also, what would the guidance for young editors be? There's already the Community Portal, Cheatsheet, etc. And, like Purin2022 said, most Scratch users are young. According to the Statistics page, around 47 million Scratchers joined at under 13 years old, and around 83 million Scratchers joined at under 18 years old.

BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@RSITYTScratch What would the contents of that page be?

mybearworld • Talk • Contributions • Profile 17:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I guess it could be being careful sharing personal information. RSITYTScratch - (talk - contribs - logs) 17:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@RSITYTScratch I'm not sure whether that really deserves its own page — if we're going to include that piece of information I suggest adding it to a page like S:USERSPACE, since really anyone sharing personal info online should take care doing it. Also offtopic but please make sure that in your custom signature has an <br/> before anything else to avoid breaking talk pages.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

what would this page encompass? what about S:WELCOME?

banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,483))

19:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Impose moratorium on new conversations in portal until this one is archived

Resolved ^{(since 06:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC))}

The utter byte count of this page is scary. New conversations should get a moratorium until this is archived, otherwise the page will be too laggy.
MagicCoder330 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@MagicCoder330 I agree. This page has 173 KB (172,953 B) and loading this page took half a minute.

2tables (talk | contribs) 17:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@MagicCoder330, 2tables In my opinion that's a

Horrible, Horrible idea. The reason: what if a new editor wants to ask a question and only then to find out that they can't do that. Also I think it'd be technically difficult to do that, since you have to prevent people from creating a new section manually while allowing people to discuss old topics.

A better solution (in my opinion) is to archive the already-done topics and leave the rest alone, since that would probably cut the byte-count by three-quarters. After all, what's the likelihood of a new Twitter/X topic appears?

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 10:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I say we just wait for the storm to pass. Twitter or X has been possibly the longest discussion ever ^{[citation needed]} and is a part of the moment in time of the CP right now. Keep in mind that the CP Archives could be considered as a historic recollection of past discussion.

Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 11:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@MagicCoder330, 2tables, Purin2022, Co0lc34t10ns It's almost done, I think. Let's just wait it out.

han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 12:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Purin2022 I appreciate that you feel strongly about the matter and I do too, however, I also feel strongly about you calling any suggestion a, "horrible idea". While you can raise any concerns you may have, I feel that calling an idea "horrible" does discourage users from making suggestions that will genuinely improve the wiki (or even other things outside of the wiki) again, in fear of such response.

banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,483))

18:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

@Banana439monkey I appologise for the choice of wording that may lead to the discouragement of a potential suggestion.

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

When this page is archived, some conversations(I think unresolved ones) are left, unless they stay unresolved for a long time, in that case they get moved to Not Done.

Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 14:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

When do these pages get archived?

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Right now, the community portal has a size of around 79 kilobytes, or 79,074 bytes. Currently, this is a decent amount. (this automatically updates)

When do these pages get archived? The help box says "Time to Archive!" whenever the page byte count exceeds 125,000 bytes. Some people have said that it would be when more topics are resolved, but the fact that the resolved topics were archived anyway contradicts that.
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yep, we archive at 125,000 bytes (when it says time to archive), and we do indeed only archive topics marked as "resolved" (which is the vast majority of the size), hopefully bumping it down to below that level. Hopefully the Twitter discussion gets resolved by the next time we need to archive so it should reduce the size further

banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,483))

08:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Wiki "Drought"?

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Little to no edits are being made on mainspace pages. Almost all the edits in "Recent Changes" are for userspace pages. Is it possible that we have documented all there is about scratch, and until the next update/version, it will stay that way? What I mean by that is because a certain feature is well documented, it doesnt get meaningful edits. all just typo corrections and such. The same thing is happening with talk pages, they are very very inactive.
Elithecoder12345 (talk | contribs) 19:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elithecoder12345 Well if a subject is well documented, then there's not really anything major missing from the article (that's what well documented means), so naturally there's more minor edits. There are a couple of active discussions on the Community Portal though. There is potential room for new content though, for example, expanding stubs, making new (good) tutorials, etc. So we haven't necessarily "documented all there is about scratch".

Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Elithecoder12345 I would indeed say that the amount of major edits has gone down, that doesn't mean that nothing needs doing though! As Purin2022 said, there are things like tutorials which still could be made along with minor edits to enhance existing articles.

Adzboy • Talk • Contributions • Scratch Profile 17:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed that too. For me, it is a mix of not knowing what pages need improvement, and just not having time to make edits. I should have more time this summer.

Ideapad-320 | Talk | Contribs | Scratch 14:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 107#Tell users on Wiki Wednesday topics not to spam in replies continuation

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

I am just reviving the discussion mentioned in the title above because it was archived and it did not seem to be completed. Also, on the latest Wiki Wednesday topic, no notice in the first post telling Scratchers not to spam in the topic was put in.

In the discussion linked above, I mentioned some examples of what the notice would mention as being spam. I also think posts only saying 'Hi', 'Hello' or something similar could also be mentioned as being spam.
Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs) 15:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

3.0 updating

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

Note:

before writing please read this

As a result of Scratch 3.0 releasing, we have to update a lot of articles.

Is there anything more to update?
Is it OK to use bots?
When to update?

Updates are:

{{Pen Blocks}} to {{Pen Extension}}
Change {{block}} for 3.0 blocks (it's larger than 2.0!)
Music Extension, LEGO WeDo Extension categorize and put a new template
remove {{unreleased}}
if there's XX (1.4) and XX, XX moves to XX (2.0), and XX (3.0) moves XX
TOC remake
Tutorials remake
Upload blocks' images
Remake scratchblocks
put {{Obsolete feature}}

(everybody can edit this list, with Siggy!)

--
Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,243edit 04:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

We have to delete Fair Use

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

The server is in Germany now. German copyright law doesn't allow Fair Use, so we have to delete all the fair use images. For example, screenshots of games are prohibited.
Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,243edit 08:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Issue with pages

Resolved ^{(since 16:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC))}

There seems to be a giant white space above every page, and you have to scroll down to read the page.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,392) • profile 12:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

[1] ttps://twitter.com/Scratch

[2] ttps://twitter.com/scratch/following

[3] ttps://twitter.com/ScratchWiki

[1]

[2]

[3]

Navigation

Tools

For Editors

Help the wiki!

Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 117

Contents

Talk page inactivity

Search this talk page and it's archives not working

New SDS

InterwikiBot (also used for Wiki Stats) didn't run since 2020/09/25 18:48

Date Formatting on Articles

Proposal to replace Discussion Invitation System notifications with pings

Conflicting Browsers when Taking Screenshots

Templates in Deleted Category

Admin Panel Imagery...

Should there be an article for the current explore page and searching glitch?

About the Scratch Wiki header

Twitter or X?

X (formerly Twitter)Twitter

History

Scratch Wiki

References

Regular Updates for Scratch Website Images that update regularly

Signatures???

Should there be a "Guidance for young editors" page?

Impose moratorium on new conversations in portal until this one is archived

When do these pages get archived?

Wiki "Drought"?

Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 107#Tell users on Wiki Wednesday topics not to spam in replies continuation

3.0 updating

We have to delete Fair Use

Issue with pages