Catscratcher07 wrote:

This was clearly a popular suggestion, so I will add it to the list. See 8.11. Do you think its current wording avoids implying a precedent that any new variant of a language would be rejected? I don't want to imply that something like Quebec French is rejected without sufficient precedent.

I think it's made clear enough. I'm no expert on Quebec French or France French, but from a cursory glance, I suspect @chrisg's statement would also apply to Quebec French (even if her post was originally on a thread about British English). I don't think there's any need to expand on that right now in the list, however.

WigglyJoey wrote:

*snip*
The funniest thing is 8.11 used to be remove the membership, and the membership would have turned one year old today.

Wait, already?

bitmap_caketin wrote:

WigglyJoey wrote:

*snip*
The funniest thing is 8.11 used to be remove the membership, and the membership would have turned one year old today.

Wait, already?

Because the earliest topic about the membership when it actually came out was made that day.
More facts, this topic contained two important messages addressing the membership and I also replied there.

I have a suggestion to improve the List of Rejected Suggestions. You could add a Table of Contents to the General Information section if you want. It could help others find whether their suggestion is rejected faster. For example, someone who is thinking about suggesting a “When stop clicked” hat block, could find the rejection faster if they see that section #1 is about Scratch blocks. Or someone who wants to suggest changing usernames can see that account related rejections are at 9. Account Information.

Table of Contents

1. Scratch Blocks
   
2. The Coding Interface
   
3. Scratch Projects
   
4. Project Pages
   
5. Studio Pages
   
6. Comments and Text Fields
   
7. Scratch Community
   
8. Scratch Website Features
   
9. Account Information
   
10. Discussion Forum Features
    
11. Discussion Forum Restrictions
    

Another Rejected Suggestion (It could be rewritten as using a specific name brand for a sprite)

bitmap_caketin wrote:

Yes, I would remove the remix tree: I don't think that that was a rejection, more of an explanation of the removal.

If I remember correctly, they closed the topic asking for the button back, so IDK

Catscratcher07 wrote:

2.5 Scratch editor for video game consoles
The Scratch Team does not have the resources to put a Scratch editor onto a video game console. This includes making a Scratch editor for any gaming console.

Idk… the grammar on that seems weird. I would do:

“This includes making a Scratch editor Xbox, Switch, PlayStation, Steam Deck, or any other console.”

DeathReviews wrote:

Catscratcher07 wrote:

2.5 Scratch editor for video game consoles
The Scratch Team does not have the resources to put a Scratch editor onto a video game console. This includes making a Scratch editor for any gaming console.

Idk… the grammar on that seems weird. I would do:

“This includes making a Scratch editor Xbox, Switch, PlayStation, Steam Deck, or any other console.”

It seems fine to me, outside of the repetitiveness
Also, do you mean:

This includes making a Scratch editor for Xbox, Switch, Playstation, Steam Deck, or any other console.

medians wrote:

bitmap_caketin wrote:

Yes, I would remove the remix tree: I don't think that that was a rejection, more of an explanation of the removal.

If I remember correctly, they closed the topic asking for the button back, so IDK

I was looking at the linked topic on the list when it was there but you could definitely be right.

bitmap_caketin wrote:

medians wrote:

bitmap_caketin wrote:

Yes, I would remove the remix tree: I don't think that that was a rejection, more of an explanation of the removal.

If I remember correctly, they closed the topic asking for the button back, so IDK

I was looking at the linked topic on the list when it was there but you could definitely be right.

Yeah IDK why though bc the “rejection reason” made no sense since that wasn't a problem with the remix tree itself

The mention of aggravation in 10.10 only appears in the original rejection post. Maybe remove that mention of aggravation or replace the link with the older one.

unisparks8 wrote:

Maybe remove 10.8 because it's not suggested a lot.

I'm hesitant to remove it. I don't know of any other place where it is stated that you can use the normal report button for signatures, and with this being a forum suggestion this list is likely more effective at discouraging it than most suggestions.

CK840 wrote:

I have a suggestion to improve the List of Rejected Suggestions. You could add a Table of Contents to the General Information section if you want. It could help others find whether their suggestion is rejected faster. For example, someone who is thinking about suggesting a “When stop clicked” hat block, could find the rejection faster if they see that section #1 is about Scratch blocks. Or someone who wants to suggest changing usernames can see that account related rejections are at 9. Account Information.

Table snipped

Such a table (albeit with summaries of rejection reasons) existed in a separate post in Za-Chary's topic, and I think it was discontinued at some point due to lack of use, but having it in the main post itself might be more convenient to use. Anyone else want to weigh in?

WigglyJoey wrote:

Another Rejected Suggestion (It could be rewritten as using a specific name brand for a sprite)

Thanks for bringing this up. Could anyone search for other simular suggestions? I think I remember a moderator post a while back to the along the lines of (corporate) collaborations need to be proposed by the collaborator and not the suggestions forum.

medians wrote:

bitmap_caketin wrote:

Yes, I would remove the remix tree: I don't think that that was a rejection, more of an explanation of the removal.

If I remember correctly, they closed the topic asking for the button back, so IDK

If I remember correctly, that topic was made before the remix tree was removed, and a topic suggesting the remix tree to be readded with the bug fixed was allowed to stay up.

WigglyJoey wrote:

The mention of aggravation in 10.10 only appears in the original rejection post. Maybe remove that mention of aggravation or replace the link with the older one.

I'll edit 10.10 to include links to both rejection posts.