(bot edit hiding)
(bot edit hiding)
Line 328: Line 328:
{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
:Bot edits are hid by default. However, they have to be made by a bot account.

Revision as of 22:33, 3 January 2014

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!

We recommend that before you ask a question, you search the archives first to make sure it has not been answered before:

Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106
If you do not think a discussion has not been finished for a long time, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.
Size of Community Portal: 92,854 bytes.

Click the button below to leave a message!
Make sure it has a descriptive title so people can see what you're talking about in a glance.

If your topic is a request for admin or EW action, please post it at Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Admin Requests.

How to edit on the Scratch Wiki

We recommend that before you create your question, you read these tips to editing on the Scratch Wiki.

  • Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) after your post.
  • To do various text formatting, follow the following rules, rather than using any other text-editing methods:
    • Make text bold with '''text'''.
    • Make text italics with ''text''.
    • Make text bold and italics with '''''text'''''.
    • Make a link to a page outside of this wiki with [http://www.example.com link text] or {{plain link|1=http://www.example.com|2=link text}} if you don't want the Link icon.png symbol to appear (remember http:// prefix).
    • Make a link to an article on this wiki with [[Page name]] or [[Page name|Link text]].
    • Make a link to a Wikipedia article with [[Wikipedia:Page name]] or [[Wikipedia:Page name|Link text]].
    • Indent a paragraph by putting a colon (:) before it.
    • For more, see the help page on formatting.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • Always remember to be polite and respectful, assume good faith, and be welcoming, while following the Scratch Community Guidelines.
  • When creating a new post, mark it as No Not done by putting {{not done}} at the top. Once the conversation has been resolved, replace it with {{done}} (producing Yes Done).

template ranking

I noticed on many pages such as Scratch Days, there are multiple templates. These templates can be put in any order on the page, though. I think this may cause the wiki to not be entirely uniform, and it may seem a little awkward. I was thinking rank the importance of each template so we can figure out where each template would be placed on a specific page. What do you think?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that ""Scratch Days" page looks fine to me. The templates are in the right order. I think we could just decide if a template would be needed, and use it on the page. For example, if you made an article on something related to Scratch 2.0, then you would have to use {{unreleased}}, but it always goes up top of the page. Then {{expand}} (which goes next), THEN that "redirect" template that doesn't have that little box inside it. That's the normal order of the templates. That's what I think about the idea. The page you link to looks fine.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 11:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
while scratch days looks fine, there are definitely other articles that don't.
i do think there should be some standardisation about it but i'm not sure how it should be.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
After all, it is just three templates at the top in that "Scratch Days" article, along with a template with a list of sensing blocks at the bottom. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try this "template ranking" thing. I'm just saying that I like the order of the templates how they are. But it would be okay with me if you changed them at all.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 17:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
as i said scratch days looks fine. other articles vary the order, though, so it should be standardised.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Hm. I think I'll put something like this together in my sandbox. Also, IMO, things for the readers (e.g. about and unreleased) should go before notes for editors (e.g. stub and notUseful).
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) Updated 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I made a quick mockup of what I think. User:Mathfreak231/Template Order Standards. Comment on what you think at its talk page.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
i kind of feel like they should go in the opposite order, since that's how i read them (they're closer to the content based on how related they are to it) but i might just be really weird. plus, i kinda think unreleased should always be on top.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Unreleased at the top? Until 2.0 comes out, good idea.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No Not done We need to re-visit this. Please view my ideas. I updated them slightly.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to reply! I like the page about template order and I think it's great. My only thought would be that the ones which are just text as opposed to graphics should go at the bottom because it somehow seems weird having them mixed in. My main worry though is that if this became the rules who would remember and how would we be able to deal with all the pages that are currently wrong?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 15:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I've seen you and others mass-fix pages. If we divide and conquer, we could get things done really quickly.
And I see this as not about "good looking" but in order of importance. I'd rather want to know why typing in something took me to the wrong page than that the page I'm on is a stub.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I suppose so, I support. If we do this maybe we should make a certain order for See Also, References and External Links?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Image and Category Name Consistency

For categories and images, I think we should have a set of "guidelines" for naming them. As I scam through them, the namings' capitalization is all different and not in sync with one another. For example, there is the category "Scratch Program Images" and "Unsatisfactory images", except the "i" is not capitalized as in the first category. I also see some images with only the first word capitalized, and other images with all words capitalized. So, what is the system? I'd assume it's capitalization on all words (with exclusions of articles like "the" and what not). Maybe we should have some sort of guideline page, maybe in "Category:Help/Naming Guidelines". What do you think?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, but we're not like Bulbapedia's image archives as they require 150-550 Pokémon sprites per game or pair of games and they have strict naming conventions to keep everything organized. There are currently no naming conventions for categories OR files (besides uploading it under a name that makes sense), and I'd like to keep it that way for now.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I was planning on writing something like this up but I don't currently have the time. My personal recommendation and preference would be to make everything sentence case (except for titles of software, etc.), like Wikipedia, including page titles, section titles, categories, etc. This however has been disagreed with by some (including Lucario621, JSO) because most of the wiki is already in title case (capitalised except for some conjunctions, articles, short prepositions, etc.) and it would take a lot of work to move everything. I also would recommend removing the (block) and (Scratch Modification) parts of page titles that do not require them (and it would be only be required in the case of a conflict where the block/value/Scratch mod/whatever doesn't take precedence). I was also going to work on renaming images, but it would probably be more efficient with a bot with admin/EW privileges because images are linked on a lot of pages and all those links need to be changed; it took me like two hours manually to do the four or five on the front page that I did.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
If I knew PHP or whatever, I would maybe turn my ThisIsAnAccount test account into a bot.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
If you could sort me out with a bot account, those kind of changes should be pretty trivial using the mini library I wrote.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Just make an alt on Scratch (or use an already-existing test account), leave a comment saying the account you're going to use, and I'll let it in. Then you can convince scmb1 to upgrade that account to "bot" and let it do its stuff.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot template?

Now that we've got our first bot, I think we should have a template to show they're a bot, how about:
Removed so I can use my Sandbox for something else
I'm not sure I like how large it is and the image is not good (maybe a robot would be better) but I think the message is just about right so what do you think?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That does seem very large, and I was the message is too long, though at least quality. What do you think about this template?
Robot.jpg This user is an automated bot controlled by {{{by}}}. It is used for making repetitive or difficult edits that would be hard for a human to do. Please check its contributions to see if it has been behaving itself, and comment here if you have any problems with it.

ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks (and reads) a lot better, especially the robot picture!
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Sheesh, we only have one bot, and already we need a template?! :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't forget that we'll probably get others in the future, so it's safe to have, and it leads to better organization of the Wiki. Still, maybe it's not really needed. What does everyone else think?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I was somewhat inspired by Wikipedia to change the wording:
Robot.jpg This user is an automated editor controlled by [[User:{{{by}}}|{{{by}}}]]. It is a legitimate alternate account used for speedily making large amounts of edits in place of a human. If it has been malfunctioning, please comment on the developer's [[|talk page]].
Reads even more easily. We need a way better image, though...  :P
@Blob You could be right, unless again I turn ThisIsAnAccount into a bot...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I preferred Ernie Parke's version mainly because it linked to the Bot's contribs. I also don't think a link to the developer's contribs is necessary either and the developer's talk page is linked to at the end so we don't need it repeated.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 08:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
K, I took your advice. I still think mine is worded better.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice, looks good!
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 12:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The Scratch Forum Guidelines

During my moderator checkin, when i agreed to retire, i talked to Lightnin a bit about a problem i've noticed on the forums: Newbies don't follow the rules. Why is this? The simple answer is that there isn't a single collection of the rules. I therefore proposed the Forum Guidelines, written in the style of the Community Guidelines, but specific to the forums. He suggested we work on it on the wiki.

I can think of a few rules to start out with:

Post in the right section. 
Read the forum descriptions to make sure that your topic is in the right place. This helps keep the forums organized and helpful.
Search before posting. 
If you take one minute to do a quick search before making a new topic, this can save many duplicate topics from being created.
Read the stickies. 
The "sticky" topics contain useful information for a specific forum. It is wise to read them, especially the ones called "Read this before posting".
Don't necropost. 
Necroposting is when someone posts an unhelpful message on an old topic (general consensus is over one month inactive).

I know some of them need to be improved. Anyone have any more to add? Remember to keep each item (as well as the whole list) short and concise.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

How about expanding Scratch Rules?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't spam. 
Spamming is posting something irrelevant to the topic or using an excessive amount of smileys and unneeded symbols.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't spam — good one. I forgot about Scratch Rules, thanks. Except i think we should have a separate page for this.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't report problems with other users on the forums. 
If another Scratcher is bothering you, please report them to the Scratch Team. Posting about it on the forums, especially using names, dramatizes the conflict, and is not helpful. These topics are always closed.
^ I know, that's a little long. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the wording of that last one (the title of it) because someone may interpret it as if someone is doing something bad, don't report the problem and leave it alone. It sounds like "if another user is causing a problem, don't report it". I'd change it to "If someone breaks the above rules, report the post".
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think "When reporting users " is a better title, mainly due to how it's shorter. I also agree with Turkey3; the rule does sound a bit like trouble users shouldn't be reported. (though @Turkey, this is if someone breaks a rule on the website, not in the forums)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
When reporting users 
If you have any sort of problem with another user, simply report them. Projects, comments, and forum posts all have a report button, as well as user profile pages.
Sorry about that disappearing act. I haven't been keeping it open, so i *cough* sort of forgot.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

New template?

I think we should make a new template to say why exceptions have been made for certain pages, such as Toki. It could look like:

Yes check.png This article would normally break the Scratch Wiki's guidelines. However, an exception has been made for it because of the decision made.

which is made by:

{{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo|because=of the decision made}}

What do you think?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I'd wait for one other person before creating it though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this something that regular users (as opposed to wiki authors) are going to be concerned with?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Good point there, because non-editors don't know what should be allowed, nor care: they just want info.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, this might be useful in the future with a plan of the Scratch Mentors; it's still being decided and worked on, so the template might not be needed, but we'll see.
Anyway, I support this template. I'd also like to see a parameter field that would allow custom reasons.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
If it doesn't meet the wiki guidelines, one should look on the talk page to see what has been done about it. I don't think the template is really needed.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 11:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Good idea! I also think we should create a page for Andresmh, and add that template.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@ErnieParke There are custom reasons! Change what is after the
in {{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo|because=of the decision made}}.
Also, this template might possibly stop any confusion on why somebody wasn't allowed to make a page about something when there were other articles about user-created stuff.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It could also be better for new editors.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@Joletole There was an idea a while ago to make a page about more prominent Scratch Team members (with perhaps small subheaders with more info). Is there a reason Andresmh merits a page over other Scratch Team members?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@EH7meow Aren't new editors the ones usually breaking the guidelines or, not being very bold, often bringing something up on the talk page too early? I still think it isn't needed, as the info will be on the talk page anyways.
...Then again, it could be one of those templates that is actually put ON the talk page like they have on Wikipedia...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


There was a (now archived) thread about bots. I can't remember what we wanted one for. So, anything need automating?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think there was making category names consistent. Ones that I would want to see would be double-redirect fixing. A slightly harder feature maybe would be if you could make links to redirects link to the actual article.
For example:
would be replaced with:
[[Article Name|Redirect]]
[[Redirect|Lorem ipsum]]
would be replaced by:
[[Article Name|Lorem Ipsum]]
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure Wikipedia has some policy on *not* changing links that point to redirects...
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Really? In any case, we prefer direct links to redirects.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean direct links are preferred -- what you wrote parses as "links to redirects". :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Stupid English. What I meant was we prefer "direct links" to "redirects"; that is, direct > redirect.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It was originally some naming-convention discussion but then it went into the land of talking about bots...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? What needs automating right now?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a greet to new users? I dunno. The most useful purpose of a bot I can think of is if we were to like reorganise all the files into having like consistent filenames and stuff, we'd be able to update all those links for the moved images with a bot super easily.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, what consistent filename scheme do you want? I can do it, you just need to tell me what to do...
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No, i think veggie means if we manually renamed the files, the bot could update the file links.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
That's harder, because then you have to manually specify which file links to update.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
A daemon bot that activates whenever a file is moved, and updates links to the file.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Why ew?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

scratchblocks testing

Hi, wiki people! I'm working on a new version of the scratchblocks plugin. It's pretty nearly a complete rewrite, and I want to make sure I haven't broken anything, so I need your help checking it's the same. Please see here: http://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/21002/ Thanks! :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'll have to push it to its limits when I can. Possibly tomorrow when I'm working on my history homework.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd appreciate that. Lol, "when working" :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, it looks like I forgot about it. The next time I'll absolutely be free is Friday afternoon, when I get "study hall" (aka me and my friend slacking off in the LMC).
EDIT: Oh yeah, that's thanksgiving weekend. Shoot. Well, when I do get the chance, how should I report problems?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll probably have enough bugs to fix before then anyway! And you can just reply on the forum thread I linked. :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Surprise! I have about 18 minutes now. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just pushed an update that fixes lots of things. Please go find more bugs! :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

New template idea: Special stub/unfinished article

Ever have that annoying thought when there's an unfinished sentence at the end of an article, but it's been in progress for too long? What do you do when you can't fix it because you aren't a mind reader nor are you knowledgeable on such a subject? I am proposing a template that will fix this. User:Mathfreak231/Unfinished What do you think? The wording could definitely be improved. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea! Some people just post the template that they're working on an article and never really do definitely not me, though  :—|
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree; I never put up an in-progress template unless I know that I'm going to be working on the article. That's also why I still have Rope Physics under my user domain, because I'm working on it but very sporadically (I definitely need to get that done...).
Anyway, couldn't you simply take down the in-progress template and replace it with {expand}?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
But what if the person who was working on it left a random sentence at the end that they never completed? It's happened.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

New template idea

Should there be a new template idea that indicates a higher level of knowledge of scratch (blocks) to understand a particular article?

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like that might work. But it may also be difficult to determine which topics require "advanced knowledge".
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 21:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Creating_a_Chat_Bot seems hard :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
When I made the article Creating a Chat Bot, I originally had it classified as a How To article. The How to header, however, says it is a step-by-step tutorial for new users. Realizing it was more complex, I brought it up here in the CP, now archived. I was told that if a tutorial is too advance for new users, instead of categorizing it as How to, just name it "Scripting Tutorials". Even more complex is Global High Scores and Checking if a String Contains a String.
Furthermore, I don't support this template, because if a new user is viewing the article and sees that template, they may be discouraged to continue on, and therefore won't learn from the article.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That's true. Yes Discussion done!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
No Not done I Think We Should Have An "Advanced" CATEGORY, Not Template.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Eh, I don't think we really need that; what Turkey3 says above already works for organising what's more advanced.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My page

I am not sure,but is it a good idea to move my page http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/User:KrIsMa/CSS to another article designed to help with formatting? I am still working on it :)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You can merge it into Help:CSS. It definitely could use your lovely chart ;)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that comment ;) The article and my page is a bit off, maybe a page that talks about making custom boxes and other cool things for pages, like your page and the cool boxes :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll merge them. The Help:CSS doesn't even really tell any CSS.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


We Can Do New Years, But Nothing America-Focused. Since The DachWiki Is Released , We Can Assume Everybody Here Speaks English. Australia, England, United States, Pretty Much Everybody Speaks English. So We Can Only Do New Year And Scratch Day, But Others Might Get Upset By This Since ===I Officially Call Scratch Day Logo=== So How Will We Gently End This?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am a bit confused. We did New Years because it is a global holiday, and a Scratch Day one would probably be fine in (what, 5 months or so?). The Christmas one was turned down already because it was religious, and I think we already will refrain from all-American holidays such as Independence Day. New Years is great, though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
That's What I'm Saying.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC) Yes Done

Improvement for the {{Wiki Standards}} template

Currently I am thinking of a way to improve the template {{Wiki Standards}}, as seen below. Currently it looks like this:

Document stub.png This article or section may not have content matching Scratch Wiki editing standards. Please improve it according to Scratch Wiki:Guidelines.

However, since it is for unsatisfactory articles with many possible reasons for applying it to articles, is can be considered analogous to {{Bad image}}. Therefore, an addition to the template could be added, so if an article has poor grammar, it could be marked with {{Wiki Standards|Poor grammar}}, which would produce this:

Document stub.png This article or section may not have content matching Scratch Wiki editing standards. Please improve it according to Scratch Wiki:Guidelines.
Reason: Poor grammar

If no reason was given ({{Wiki Standards}}), it would look like this:

Document stub.png This article or section may not have content matching Scratch Wiki editing standards. Please improve it according to Scratch Wiki:Guidelines.
Reason: Unspecified

Also, it would make it easy for editors to know what the problem with the article is.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 01:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps we could even customize the main part of the template for common issues, so it won't just appear in tiny text as "Reason: whatever", but instead as it's own paragraph.
Of course, that might also just be too much work to be worth it. :P
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 03:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
How about we drop the "Unspecified" default and have it be like most templates are: defaulting to not showing the reason section. Take {{notUseful}} as an example.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'd support that revision of KrIsMa's idea. It adds some more uniformity among templates, and I've found a few times before when it'd helpful.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A couple bot tasks I could do

Several people have created bots to check existing pages for problems. I am considering writing one to check new changes. It would check for stuff like this:

  • Edit warring
  • Excessive small edits to one page
  • Users not signing their posts
  • Bad links
  • Invalid formatting

What does everyone think? I could write a bot to check for these (and automatically notify users for at least some of them) pretty quickly so users don't go on making the same mistake. I also have a server running, so I could put the bot there and have it running the vast majority of the time.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking, if you insert your bot, then the bots that check existing pages can't do anything anymore eventually!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Mine mostly just checks for stuff that should be fixed quickly, like edit warring, repaeted edits, not signing posts, etc. If your bot already checks for bad links and invalid formatting, then I'll just take care of the first three listed above.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok that would be puurfect! (reference to your signature picture :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting work on it now. It's WikiMonitor. (I copied you for the userpage).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure! Good luck on the bot!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh boy, that second one may make the bot not like me. I always edit a page, and just as I'm ready to leave I find something wrong. I hope by "excessive" you mean someone intentionally trying to get more edits.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On the bot's user page, I included the definition of everything I am doing. For "excessive editing", it is "over 10 in 1 hour". If you have any suggestions on better criteria for that, please let me know soon before I start coding that part.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable. Good luck!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
What will happen is the bot will detect KrIsMa's bot because it makes an edit like every 3 minutes. You'll have to program a white list so it can't detect User:VoxBot.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I just tested the part that checks for post signing, and it found 8 people forget to sign posts in the last 500 edits, of which 6 were correct. Currently it defines not signing a post as this: a non-minor edit that adds 50 or more characters to a page that already has other users' signatures that does not contain "(UTC)" anywhere in the part that was added. Does anybody have a better definition I can use? Remember that I need a clear definition that I can turn into code and all I have is the information stated above (what text was added in the edit I am looking at, the size difference between old and new, whether the edit was marked as minor, and the contents of the page).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Good start! Maybe you could make it so it needs to detect (UTC), the RevisionUser.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I added that, but the problem here is not that it's not detecting signatures properly. The problem is that it's not always able to tell what isn't a new post.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You could use the semicolons to check if it is a new post. If something like this happens:

Hi (signed)

Hello (signed)
Goodbye (not signed)
What? (signed)

Then the bot knows. Then,

Hi (signed)

Hello (signed)
Goodbye (not signed)
What? (not signed)

The bot reads until there is a new header or the end of the page, then realizes that those 2 comments are not signed. Also, New posts start from a semicolon


or from the edge


Therefore, new posts are easy to find. For example, you can see where the new post starts in the markup language.

hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post


hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post (signed)

hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post hello this is a test for finding the end of this post (not signed)

hope I helped

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, the colons were helpful. The latest time I ran it, 1/5 of the detected non-signings within the last 500 edits were false positives. The false positive I can't figure out how to get around is this: [1]. My current definition is now this: an edit that adds more than 70 characters to a talk page that already contains another user's signature on it, and at least one of the lines added to the edit starts with a colon or the text "new section" is in the edit comment, and it does not contain <scratchsig> or /sig anywhere in it (case-insensitive).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

vox bot

I have encountered a lot of vague errors from my bot, would you guys want the header "See Also" to be 'See Also' or 'See also'? my bot really wants to change it to 'See also', as it makes more sense (all wikis except ours [like wikipedia] use See also)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally prefer "See Also" because it is a header, so all words besides articles and little things should be capitalized. Lowercase just looks wrong in titles.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
We resolved to keep it capitalized, i think.
Also, could you please not run the bot until you get it in the bot group? Thanks.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I asked scmb1 to add VoxBot and WikiMonitor to the bot user group.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
OK! PS, thanks jvvg and scmb1!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
WikiMonitor and VoxBot are now bots.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

do we allow wikilinks in headers? like User:KrIsMa this?

my bot is getting mad, cause I keep skipping his edits :)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have seen it on a few pages before, but not many. For example, it is on the page Scratch Wiki:Table of Contents/Scripting Tutorials, but I think it looks kind of... Sloppy. Wait for an admin reply, though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Preferably not.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you can, use {{main}} or {{see also}} instead.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll let him know :-)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

bot edit hiding

the Recent Changes link should redirect to http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hidebots=1 to hide bot made edits!

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot edits are hid by default. However, they have to be made by a bot account.