_nix wrote:

Anyway, I'm not really one to speak and DEFINITELY not one to judge, because it took ages and ages before we gave up the Scratch Workaround Guide to the next one (@zispe). But yeah, these threads can get really stale, really quick. And then stay really stale, really long. I don't have suggestions, but I hope @imfh comes back online soon.

I do think if someone made a newer topic imfh would probably understand, my only concern is someone stepping in to make the topic who wouldn't be good at running it (no matter how good they might think they'd be). That's the only reason I usually prefer for topic owners to decide on who should run the next sticky, or at least okaying the decision as you did. I'm just not sure how realistic that is considering inactivity from imfh and the fact that he may be fully capable of running the topic as he sees fit currently. If I had the time to run a sticky as busy as this one I would, but I don't have nearly enough time to do so, I only sporadically update the Workaround Guide as is.

WPONTA wrote:

I created a new topic; go check it out https://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/897059/
Hope I'll be a long journey

I doubt it. I really do think waiting for permission from the topic owner is extremely important before taking over the sticky, many topic owners have requirements you must meet before you can just replace their sticky. Your topic is also not stickied after over a month, so I assume the Scratch Team would agree with me on this one since I'm positive someone has reported your “new topic” to be stickied.

I remember we were discussing possible new owners several months ago and WigglyJoey was pretty well agreed upon, but either way a new topic can't really be made without Scratch Team or owner (imfh) permission.

_nix wrote:

so I'm probably the only person who's interested in what I'm suggesting here, but maybe for the next thread we can also list duplicates or possible duplicates of the main listed threads? that way people can browse similar suggestions and related conversations, which otherwise just get completely lost to time, and hopefully bring back conversation to the main thread… though that may be risky to bet on lol, we could just accidentally support a lot of necroposting

I don't know.. I get the nasty feeling that worse would come to worse in this scenario. At best I think it'd bring more duplicates to the front page instead of letting them get buried (if they didn't get closed). Plus wouldn't a list of “possible duplicates” just spread out the conversation about one suggestion to multipule different threads, if they turn out to in fact be duplicates? Unless I'm misreading what you're picturing, that's just what I'm picturing would end up happening.

dude-with-wand wrote:

necroposting isn't a thing here

In the form of posting on old and dead suggestions that are duplicates? That is in fact necroposting.

zispe wrote:

_nix wrote:

so I'm probably the only person who's interested in what I'm suggesting here, but maybe for the next thread we can also list duplicates or possible duplicates of the main listed threads? that way people can browse similar suggestions and related conversations, which otherwise just get completely lost to time, and hopefully bring back conversation to the main thread… though that may be risky to bet on lol, we could just accidentally support a lot of necroposting

I don't know.. I get the nasty feeling that worse would come to worse in this scenario. At best I think it'd bring more duplicates to the front page instead of letting them get buried (if they didn't get closed). Plus wouldn't a list of “possible duplicates” just spread out the conversation about one suggestion to multipule different threads, if they turn out to in fact be duplicates? Unless I'm misreading what you're picturing, that's just what I'm picturing would end up happening.

I may be speaking from an unusual or uncommon perspective, since most days, I prefer reading suggestions over responding to them. I like to get a good picture of the existing conversation before I add my own perspective, because then I feel more confident that I am actually (as much as one post can) pushing the thread in a constructive direction, and hopefully breaking a little new ground, too. I frequently quote or refer to messages earlier in the discussion which stood out to me—part of that is because I just like reviving old comments from years ago (most suggestions are old), but it's also a matter that I think there really are important points that should be highlighted more than they were at the time, or are still important to the conversation now. Newer readers will probably read only more recent posts, rather than the entire years-long discussion.

Of course, none of that is a response to your criticism. It's just the grounds on which a list of duplicates would be useful to me: I like to be able to review all the conversation, not just that which happened on the main thread. It is fascinating to me (and a little upsetting!) that unique and impactful discussions can be had in all but separate threads, and then never cross-pollenate into a more fully developed idea, suggestion. I can work against that fate by quoting and bringing in perspective from other suggestions, from duplicates, but I can only do this if I am aware of those duplicates. I would like to not be the only person who is interested in duplicates, in broader conversation, this way.

In the ideal world I imagine two acceptable fates for every discussion thread understood to be a duplicate:

• The duplicate is closed, and a notice is posted in the main thread along the lines of: “merge operations (8 posts), suggested by @TheOfficialNussia, was closed as a duplicate of this thread.” These notices would be very easy to “skip” for someone catching up, but would still play a part in the discussion; you can click and follow to the other thread, and see what discussion happened there, that you may want to quote and continue in the main thread.
  
  
• The duplicate is merged with the main thread, so that the replies there are copied or transferred over to the main thread. Honestly, this is a clunky approach that I think no one adores, but it's one of the tools that exist for handling duplicates and centralizing discussions, so I would like its place to be a bit more common, too.
  

These would both play in my hope that others come to care more about the broader discussion, and thus engage constructively and communally, not just posting one's own opinion in isolation then moving on. (Or as is necessary, but not constructive, just bumping the thread for months or years on end.)

It is true that most duplicates are closed / handled by the Scratch Team, but not all. I think it is fair to say that if all duplicates were rightly closed, then listing duplicates would not at all risk those duplicates coming up to the front of the forums, nor dispersing the conversation across duplicates. One cannot post on a duplicate thread if it is closed. I do not think the Scratch Team is “at capacity” when it comes to closing duplicates; anecdotally I do believe most duplicates already get closed. I think encouraging them to go the rest of the way, yes, by (only slightly?) exacerbating what is currently a relatively minor problem, is acceptable.

_nix wrote:

I like to be able to review all the conversation, not just that which happened on the main thread. It is fascinating to me - that unique and impactful discussions can be had in all but separate threads, and then never cross-pollenate into a more fully developed idea, suggestion. I can work against that fate by quoting and bringing in perspective from other suggestions, from duplicates, but I can only do this if I am aware of those duplicates. I would like to not be the only person who is interested in duplicates, in broader conversation, this way.

Hm, when you put it closer to this way I actually do think you have a point, I'd say a helpful link to all of the discussion could be really useful, even if one of thinks is to a closed topic. I think in my first responce I didn't imagine the posts under “duplicates” or “possible duplicates” would be closed, but I'd agree that if the topics were closed and actually had meaningful conversation, then they could and possibly should be linked.

_nix wrote:

The duplicate is merged with the main thread, so that the replies there are copied or transferred over to the main thread. Honestly, this is a clunky approach that I think no one adores, but it's one of the tools that exist for handling duplicates and centralizing discussions, so I would like its place to be a bit more common, too.

Yeah I really wish they'd rework how that's done. I know that the Scratch Team really don't have control over how all of the forums work and things, but I feel as if merging topics could be so helpful if it was actually a more worthwhile feature. I guess that's what I'd wish for in my ideal world, is for the merging system to be better and therefore more useable.
-
I think if a list of duplicates was added under topics, though, it would probably be to the discression of the OP whether or not it's worth adding, like if the conversation on that topic is actually helpful enough to justify adding a link to it. That's just me throwing it out there, because I actually came around to agreeing with your idea and now I'm more curious about the parameters it would work around, though I'm sure that's neither of our decisions.

zispe wrote:

I think if a list of duplicates was added under topics, though, it would probably be to the discression of the OP whether or not it's worth adding, like if the conversation on that topic is actually helpful enough to justify adding a link to it. That's just me throwing it out there, because I actually came around to agreeing with your idea and now I'm more curious about the parameters it would work around, though I'm sure that's neither of our decisions.

Well it is our decision if one of us takes over And still informative to whoever else comes along next, if the idea is of any interest to them. Yeah—I just today went over a whole lot of duplicates or semi-duplicates of “Custom c blocks and hat blocks”. (I only even searched for C-block suggestions, not hat-block ones, oops…) If it were up to me and I were exercising discretion in which threads I think someone should check out, I simply would not link to all of them. Of course, I don't love that approach, because I think everyone SHOULD be able to go find all the duplicates… but it'd already be up to me to recognize which topics are duplicates in the first place, so I think it would ultimately be OK for me to also editorialize which threads I think contribute to the broader discussion.

I think another requirement to get onto the suggestions directory is to have a clear and concise title/subject, so it is easy to search for it, at least when a new suggestions directory is approved, because this one has not been added to for a while now. When I say this I don't mean that it will not be added, but the title should be changed either in the directory, or in the directory and the forum to better match the actual topic when it is added to the directory.

NutOfCoco wrote:

I think another requirement to get onto the suggestions directory is to have a clear and concise title/subject

Well not all topics are always going to have that; doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. They're still important to include in the directory, even if they aren't as easy to search for.

_nix wrote:

Well it is our decision if one of us takes over

Curse life for getting in the way of this. Shaking my fist rn.

_nix wrote:

If it were up to me and I were exercising discretion in which threads I think someone should check out, I simply would not link to all of them.

I'd say you probably could if you made a post entirely for links to duplicates for specific suggestions. That'd be pretty easy to implement if someone took what I did with the Scratch Workround Guide and numbered all of the suggestions in the directory, then simply used the numbers before listing all of the dupes/semi-dupes. Of course that's probably over doing it when you can just link 3 or 4 and keep in all in one place, but that's just one way I imagine it could work. The directory OP could also just kind of crunch down the list you made (or the list for any other duplicate suggestions) and make it take up much less space, if that's something they were interesed in doing.

Just a thought to help.

_nix wrote:

but it'd already be up to me to recognize which topics are duplicates in the first place, so I think it would ultimately be OK for me to also editorialize which threads I think contribute to the broader discussion.

That's also true, so I assume most topics would probably only have 2-4 links in the first place. Of course they could still make the ‘other’ page for suggestions with a ton of duplicates just to list them all, but it is mostly just up to the man upstairs (OP) to decide which ones actually need to or should be linked as duplicates.

zispe wrote:

NutOfCoco wrote:

I think another requirement to get onto the suggestions directory is to have a clear and concise title/subject

Well not all topics are always going to have that; doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. They're still important to include in the directory, even if they aren't as easy to search for.

Did you read the rest of my post?

NutOfCoco wrote:

When I say this I don't mean that it will not be added, but the title should be changed either in the directory, or in the directory and the forum to better match the actual topic when it is added to the directory.

NutOfCoco wrote:

zispe wrote:

NutOfCoco wrote:

I think another requirement to get onto the suggestions directory is to have a clear and concise title/subject

Well not all topics are always going to have that; doesn't mean they shouldn't be added. They're still important to include in the directory, even if they aren't as easy to search for.

Did you read the rest of my post?

NutOfCoco wrote:

When I say this I don't mean that it will not be added, but the title should be changed either in the directory, or in the directory and the forum to better match the actual topic when it is added to the directory.

I assumed it was already changed in the directory, no? Huh, my b.

butterfinger suggestion
keyword: butterfinger
creator: supercroissants
supporters: butterfinger CEO

Do we remove suggestions from here if they’re rejected? If yes, then there is a new rejected suggestion:

The Informal and Unofficial List of Rejected Suggestions wrote:

8.11 “British English” language
Adding more languages to Scratch takes time and expense, so the Scratch Team avoids adding variations of existing languages unless there are sufficient differences to make it hard for speakers of one variant to understand the other. The spelling differences between American and British English generally aren't sufficient to cause such problems, so British English is unlikely to be added.

You still have this in post #9:

Add “British English” option in language selection by PrincessPanda_test_ – 367 posts Jan '26
Description: Add British English translations for the site, such as “colour.”