Line 658: Line 658:
 
::::@Jay, but thanks aonymousguy for changing your signature !
 
::::@Jay, but thanks aonymousguy for changing your signature !
 
::::{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 
::::{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 +
::No, not Scratch Wiki users I meant readers, just people who read the scratch wiki not edit it, they might not know that scratchblocks exist on the scratch wiki.By the way, I fixed my sig. {{User:JayceeMinecraft/Sig}}

Revision as of 19:55, 20 June 2014


Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!
Shortcuts:

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
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
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: 83,714 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  Unresolved by putting {{unresolved}} at the top. Once the conversation has been resolved, replace it with {{resolved}}.

Mobile theme

This discussion got lost a while ago. AFAICT, adding a mobile MediaWiki theme wouldn't require that much work, and would make mobile browsing a whole lot better (it's not fun right now).
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 03:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I guess. But who actually goes on the Scratch Wiki on their mobile device anyway?
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I do!
Realtheawesome67 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I do too!
spgame05 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I do too. :P
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 02:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Well then. :P
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 19:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
IMHO it should really be responsive. But that would break some of the articles (especially ones with tables, eg. List of Block Workarounds). I wanted to do this ages ago.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. It would be nice to have a mobile version of the Wiki though. ;)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
+1
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

BBCode Article Improvements

A user on Scratch asked me if we could make the BBCode article look more like the BBCode forum topic. Thoughts?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine. We already have the scratch wiki cheat sheet :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
look! S:CHEAT!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
What's so different?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

A newer style on block categories

{This conversation was moved from jvvg's talk page. -sci}

Hello jvvg, I have tried to create a mock-up of some block categories. Would you accept the mockup located here? If so, you could apply it to the original Motion Blocks page. Then, I could do the rest; Looks, Sound, Pen, etc.
Julianthewiki (talk | contribs) 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That actually looks like a neat style! One thing that I'm slightly worried about though is the usefulness of the category image on the right. Would it be really useful with a visual list?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point Ernie. Other than that, I'm all for it!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Should we move this discussion to the CP? I feel like it should be, considering how it will be impacting several articles.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Moved.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Awesome! I've wanted someone to do that for a while :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Art Software Page

I think it would be good if there was a page with a list of good free art software Scratchers could use. Then they wouldn't have to ask a whole bunch of people. I will create it if you give me permission to make it.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

How about first you make it as a subpage of your userpage, and we'll see if we like it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea, but that really doesn't have to do with Scratch. That would be like creating an article with popular websites Scratchers use to get sound effects. But, again, maybe you're thinking differently. Create a subpage for your userpage, and I'll take a look. :)
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Why not just add alternatives to Paint Editor and then maybe a redirect?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I like what turkey3 said. I will create a subpage on my userpage and we will go from there.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we fix autoconfirmed?

No Not done
Like as in an autoconfirmed user needs to edit _ amount of times in a specific time in order to get this user right, like in Wikipedia. Some people get a wiki account t just for the fun of it and end up never editing, therefore they are considered "new" and the others are considered "experienced" soo think the autoconfirmed right should not be given immediately after a user is confirmed.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

therefore, we can use the autoconfirmed protection that actually does something, because autoconfirming right now does nothing :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should let new users earn this right. However, will current autoconfirmed users lose this right and then they have to earn it again?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 21:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I was planning on making it so you earn it, by being active and editing regularly :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's any easy way to do that, though. I can tell you from personal experience that MW extensions are very difficult to work with.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible for the bureaucrats to manually make users who are active to have autocomfirmed users rights?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 22:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it is. However, I think scmb1 already has enough on her hands, given that (I think) she is a student at MIT. We also already throw a lot of Wiki stuff at her (like upgrading bot users, banning people, making software changes, etc.)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── doesn't the mediawiki package include autoconfirmed rights in the first place?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, why shouldn't all registered users have auto confirmed rights?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking, there should be a distinction between people who edit the wiki regularly and people who just join the wiki and not edit
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, but could you give me an example of why that would be useful?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Using this autoconfirmed, we can protect pages better. for example, Archives because we don't want new users to edit it and possibly mess up the content, but we also want experienced autoconfirmed users to fix and issues if possible.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Then again, how often are we going to find issues in archives? I feel that the admins are good enough for fixing small issues like that.
I still feel that not automatically giving Wikians the auto confirmed rights does have potential because I do remember seeing many Wikians do 15 or less edits in their entire career. In fact, now that I look at Special:UserList, there are hundreds of users without user pages, contrib pages, or even talk pages! Some even lack all 3!
Then again, by not automatically giving the rights, we'd be blocking out a huge chunk of potential editors from useful rights. With 800+ Wikians here, there are at least 750 who haven't been devoted enough to make it to 200 edits.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── ok. thanks for all the replies! since editing mediawiki is complicated, i can't say to 'fix autoconfirm for future protection problems'! :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should set a low barrier to earning autoconfirmed rights. Basically, once they've edited 10 times, AND after 1 week. That way it'll actually do something to protect pages against new users who don't know what they're doing.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
If the barrier of entry is so low, why have an additional barrier? Users accept as editors have already proven themselves as Scratchers- is that not barrier enough? Has there ever been a case of a new editor messing up the wiki in a big way?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
if this is the case, why don't we delete that user right? Isn't it the same as users usergroup because it is given when the user group is given?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Scmb1: Here's a link to probably the most interesting Wikian's talk page: User talk:Mrsrec
Although I do agree with KrIsMa. Now that you've brought it up, if a Scratcher has already proven themselves by being a good Scratcher, that does sound good enough. Why have the group then?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Why is that talk page so interesting?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
What happened is a bit personal (I am sure he wouldn't allow us to publicize it) but ErnieParke just wanted to answer scmb1's question on
Has there ever been a case of a new editor messing up the wiki in a big way

– scmb1

;)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for doing some clarification @KrIsMa. I'm still nervous though because no one's left a reply on my talk page, leaving my a bit suspenseful on the issue.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of ways to make the bot messages friendlier

So, the automatic bot messages (like the sig and categorization reminders) are super useful-- but I'm worried the wording of them might intimidate new editors. Sometimes, they seem like punishments rather than helpful tips. I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas for how to reword them to make the tone somewhat more friendly. Perhaps providing a short description of how to add a signature or a category (rather than just a link) might help. I don't want new editors to feel like they're being attacked by robots when they first join! Anyone have any ideas?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The bot messages feel like dry cereal underneath a sofa. They should begin with "Hello! how are you today?" Or something of that sort. If it is also possible, maybe the bots should be able to detect if the user is new or not based on when they joined, and for newer users provide a more helpful and "comfortable" response and for old users just notify them of the mistake they already know how to fix. Forget that, I am good at communicating with new people and could write a new bot message for some of them.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
If someone could draft messages for me, that would be great. With the new online configuration, it's now very easy to change them. For the current messages, see User:WikiMonitor/Configuration.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Turkey3 gave me a nice sample for the categorization message (probably the one that most commonly is sent). What does everyone think? Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the other messages, please say them here or on my talk page.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
On the small ending message, I couldn't get it to link to your talk page.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
That's because you were editing on my talk page and you can't link to the page you are already on (e.g. Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal). :)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
I agree with the sentiment about "being attacked by robots". Really, we should go back to having humans post the messages :-)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, jvvg and I designed a new message that seems much friendlier and even has a pretty blue box around it. It really seems less robotic or at least like a nicer robot.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm liking it! Thanks for the work. Maybe you could add in a (very short) description of what a category is?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We did though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Blob8108, before WM, most times that people didn't sign their posts, nobody said anything about it. They just fixed it themselves (or ignored it) and didn't think to send a message, so the user doesn't know to change. WM changes that, because this way users will be immediately notified, preventing the errors from taking place in the future.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Does anybody have a good message to replace the rapid editing message?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the messages have been updated (thank you Turkey3 for providing them!). Please tell me what you think of them. However, the wording of the messages has changed, so WM can no longer detect when it has already left a message. I will fix this, but expect some downtime.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I've been looking at the messages for the past 20+ minutes, and they look much more friendlier and inviting now! I especially like the new formatting, so good thinking Turkey3!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
This problem should now be resolved. The bot messages leave a "signature" (something like <!--unsigned-5123532-->). This way, no matter how much the wording changes, WM will still recognize them.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are you using a Wiki comment as verification that WM has already commented on an issue? Doesn't WM already leave a signature (~~~~) at the end of every message?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I use the Wiki comment because saving a persistent log locally is not feasible. It stores who's already been notified in the RAM, but whenever I have to restart the program, that is lost.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that was answering my question.
I was asking if you could use WM's signature versus a comment as verification if a problem had been reported or not. I already see a problem with that, and that is differentiating between problem reports. A Wiki comment can store much more information then WM's signature. So if one Wikian rapidly edits two pages, a Wiki comment would allow WM to know the two are different unique situations, but a simple signature would do nothing but make both occasions look alike.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wow, these are looking really good! Thanks for taking this on. :) These messages are starting to sound less like scolding robots, which is great. Actually, now I'm a little bit worried that new users may not know they are bots and will try to converse with them... Maybe they could provide a link to a place to talk to humans? Like "if you have any questions, please ask in the Community Portal," for example.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@ErnieParke, I think I was unclear what I meant by "signature". I don't mean the Wiki signature (the 4 tilde thing), I meant there is a little comment inside the message containing details about the message (the type of message and the affected pages or revids). It uses that to detect previous messages.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
From what I was seeing, I think I knew what you meant be signature. You commented above with: (something like <!--unsigned-5123532-->)
That's also what I was talking about in my last post. I was saying that you could include details about the message in the little comment, but you can't do that with a Wiki signature.
Anyway, this isn't really important. You've got WM handled right now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your idea, I will make WM store information in the edit summaries and use those to tell if users have already been notified. This way, even if a user removes the message, there is still a record available.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
How did I suggest storing information in edit summaries?
Either way, that is a nice idea, especially considering the point you brought up.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
When you said "message in the little comment", I thought that's what you meant. :P
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to when you said: "I meant there is a little comment inside the message containing details about the message"
I'm still glad that we can somehow telepathically send each other ideas. :P
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's implemented now. Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto, part of his violin concerto, and part of his third piano concerto later.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I don't understand? :_)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I was just saying it took a while by the amount of music I listened to while coding and testing.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
lol what a coincidence because while i am typing i am conposing my own piano song with musescore o.o
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Let's have this have its own talk page. I'll make one at User_talk:WikiMonitor/Messages
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
It's better on the CP because this way the community is more likely to see it. Also, please don't create subpages of userpages (even user talk pages) without permission from the user.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Even bots? OK.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 19:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pages in userspace for bots should be treated the same as pages in regular userspace, just owned by the bot owner instead of the bot itself.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Emoticon Template

I feel like the one downside of Wiki talk pages compared to the Scratch forums are no smileys. Why are smileys useful? They help one understand more clearly the purpose one is trying convey with text. Without them it can be difficult at times to see into the emotion such as if someone is joking or being serious or a bit frustrated. And hey, they're a lot of fun!

Could I upload very low-res smileys (the exact same as the forums ones) and then create a template to use them. Like

{{smiley|:)}}

Would make the :) face. I feel like it would just be fun to have. Also, using smileys on new users' talk pages will make stuff less intimidating.moh, and could I make it since I could use some template practicing? :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the images are already present and have templates, just under names rather than symbols. However, at least I think the template would be nice.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I found that out afterwards. :)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that the template would be nice because I can only remember the {Smiley} template, and the other smily names are less obvious. A unified template would be much more comfortable to use.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe even shorten it down to { {s} }.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:) ? Just testing. Sorry. I think there should be a template.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll start making the templates! I'll put the actual template under {s}, but I will create another template named {smiley} that will pass template information into {s}, just in case people prefer {smiley} over {s}. If we decide that we don't want {smiley}, it can always be deleted!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bugs

I finally created the templates Template:S and Template:Smiley, except I'm running into a bug here. Take this nice smiley for example: =)
Forum Smiley - Straight Face.png
For some reason, the switch statement in Template:S isn't catching =D, =), or =(, but it is catching =|. Any ideas on ways to fix this?
There is one interesting behavior to note. Whenever I replace {{{1}}} with =D in the switch statement, I get the correct results. When I keep {{{1}}} but pass in =D, I get this error.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into discussion threading-- your thoughts?

Hi all! :) I've been thinking a lot lately about how we can make the wiki more welcoming for new editors and I've been realizing that a lot of the conventions of communication are difficult to learn at first. One thing that is particularly hard (for me even, and I've been doing this for awhile) is knowing how to participate in discussions, like the ones on the community portal here. It can be hard to know where to put your comment, how much to indent it, and how to sign it. So, I've been looking into extensions that might help. Extension:DiscussionThreading looks like it might work for our purposes. The posts would look a little different (like this, but with our skin and signatures), but it would provide the sig and timestamp for you, and show in the editing window where to post the comment. Basically, it *can* be used just like our discussions now, but it helps you out. There are other extensions that are more strictly formatted, like Extension:Discussion, that I would be more than willing to look into, if you're interested, but that transition would require more effort, both from you and from me. Anyway, what are your thoughts about adding threading? How do you feel about these extensions? Any of the options would result in some changes in the way we have discussions, but the hope is that they will make it easier.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm going to talk about Extension:DiscussionThreading right now. Extension:Discussion doesn't seem great for switching a mature wiki to. (Just showing off my linking skills. ;P)
I'm not sure i like how every message would show up in the entire TOC. There's also the fact that many of us have been doing it this way for a long time now, and while new users might find it a little easier, is it worth it if the experienced people then have trouble responding? Also, 66 CP archives, not to mention all the talk pages, would look wacky.
What do some other people say about this? Looking for input from users both new and old.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Ah, nice links. I'll edit my original post to make it more clear what we're talking about. And thanks for your feedback as well. The responding interface seems pretty clear to me and I don't think it would muddle things up too much for experienced users, but let's see what others think. These are all things to consider.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
the levels may be very hard to distinguish from each other level and when I saw that image it took me a while to understand it, I think talk discussions are ok at this moment :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
New users don't contribute to the discussions because they don't know how. Think of it, on the Scratch forums and on project pages, there is always a very simple text box at the bottom of the page waiting for you to type into it and his "submit". On the Wiki, I don't think they are understanding that you hit "edit" and then scroll down, indent, and sign your posts. I don't like the idea of it automatically being done. Scmb1, all we need is a simple 5-minute tutorial video, professionally done, on how the wiki works and how to edit things and discuss. Until this video is made and is shown to every new user, he or she will have trouble fitting in, feel excluded, lost, confused, and quit.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
A video or Scratch project is a great idea and that's definitely something we should discuss. But I'm still not necessarily sold on the idea that discussions are easy after a little bit of instruction. I'm not sure... Let's hear from some more people. What's the main concern about adding the extension? Is it that you don't like how it looks? Do you think it will make things more confusing? In what way?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, my concern is that we still have the old talk pages and they will look starkly different from the new ones. I also think that DiscussionThreading would not work at all, but Discussion might.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah? What do you like better about Discussion?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I got an edit conflict, so I'm reposting what I have, but it has some ideas that pertain to your new question @scmb1.
My main concern with DiscussionThreading is the amount of emphasis it puts into the title. It not only puts extra buttons up there, but it also states who you're replying to as well as dates. Those features make the page feel cluttered, and besides, it's visually harder to see who is replying to who.
As for Discussion, that looks like it could work. My main question with that is how does comment wrapping work?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
I personally don't think the look is too appealing. This seems more clean-cut.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
true.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Yep. But if discussion threading is something we think would be convenient and make the barrier of entry to the wiki lower, I could look into cleaning up the look-- the extension is open source.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Definitely do something like this. Not only is wiki discussion confusing and a pain, some of us disagree on how it should be done! :P I think Extension:Discussion looks more polished and easier to use.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, Extension:Discussion does look nicer, I agree. Of course, it will involve much more change in the way we have discussion, so we're gonna have to make sure more people are on board.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The only problem I have with Discussion is that it is going to be difficult to archive. DisussionThreading is easy to archive, but as many have already stated, it looks quite cluttered.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
If we take up Discussion, we could try putting {Done} and {Not done} to good use. That would make archiving easier, and would allow bots to archive the CP, though that's a side effect.
Anyway, I found another extension for talk pages. Although its currently experimental, it could be worth looking into: Extension:LiquidThreads
Edit: Good news! I found an entire category of talk page extensions for MediaWiki! Link
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
LQT looks scratchin' boss. The problems it has are that it creates way too many subpages, and makes it hard to track messages.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 1

I like LiquidThreads personally.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it too. But it looks like it hasn't been maintained anymore?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It isn't maintained at the moment, but LiquidThreads stills looks nice.
Anyway, looking through the category of gal page extensions I linked to above, I found another interesting (and maintained) extension: Extension:PageDisqus
The only things I don't like about the extension is how it looks like social media in a way, and how it doesn't have a lot of documentation, but it does look a lot friendlier.
Anyway, the list of extensions so far is:

ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are my comments on each one:
  • DiscussionThreading: Looks really clunky and problematic; in addition, the TOC shows every message
  • LiquidThreads: Looks very nice, even though it isn't still maintained
  • Discussion: Also looks pretty nice
  • PageDisqus: Putting comments directly on the page is probably not a good idea

jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
  • DiscussionThreading: Same concerns as jvvg
  • LiquidThreads looks OK, but i don't really like dead code
  • Discussion might be my favorite
  • PageDisqus: For our wiki, especially considering how we aim for people who don't know what a wiki is to read it, having all of the discussions right there doesn't seem very good.

Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • DiscussionThreading: Clutter. Same concerns as everyone else.
  • LiquidThreads: Okay, but it creates a lot of subpages, is very hard to track and it might flood NewPages.
  • Discussion: Probably the best, but difficult to archive.
  • PageDisqus: Same concerns as above.
    Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 2

I looked into LiquidThreads again and it looks like, while it isn't being maintained anymore, some of the same people are now working on this project: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow But it won't be released for quite a while. They say they plan to make it easy to transition from LiquidThreads to Flow, so I'm starting to think it might not be a bad idea to give LiquidThreads a try. If you want, I can possibly set it up to work opt-in only so some of you can try it out on your talk pages.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know how necessary it is to have some sort of feature like this - my account is less than a day old and I'm having no trouble with the talk pages!
Userlogoaonymousguy.png AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 20:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I think discussion is the best one. But hopefully flow will be better. I will opt in if possible thanks.,!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Discussion is much less well-documented and much less commonly used than LiquidThreads, which is why I'm leaning towards LQT. What do you like better about Discussion, KrIsMa?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the simpler look?
Anyway, although I don't want to submit my main user talk for testing, I would be fine with testing LQT here: User talk:ErnieParke/Sandbox
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote of the Week

I think it would be cool to have a quote of the week on the home page. This would be a quote from any Scratcher likely on the forums or on a project comment that is either very funny or notable enough to read.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh, more Main Page updating. :P
It's a pretty good idea, but I don't think the Wiki is the place for it. It's technically "user-generated content".
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
And besides, who would decide what's notable? And have you noticed how good we are at keeping the FA and FI updated? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the idea but that would make more work for EW's and admins because they would have to keep updating the front page. I mean the featured images were up there for like 1-2 months until I recommended we switch them.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it relates to scratch :(
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not see any point either.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I also disagree with this idea. We would basically be arbitrarily promoting Scratchers (even more arbitrarily than the featured projects), and creating a lot more unnecessary work for the admins in updating it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

We definitely need a tutorial...

...on how to mod Scratch 2.0. We have done it for 1.4...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and please whoever makes it 'use pictures' and make it as understandable as possibly for newer people who do not understand fully. To get the jist.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I don't know how you do. In a 2.0 mod do you add blocks? I don't know. But I agree we need a tutorial.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
A modification of Scratch can contain anything from new blocks to an improved interface to a completely new goal.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok! Thanks Mathfreak! That explains a lot. I know a lot of them add blocks. Does that hurt Scratch?
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
What do you mean by hurting Scratch? If you mean do they surpass the Scratch program in the amount of stuff that can be added, maybe, but Scratch still has a strong community.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought it might like hurt your offline editor. Obviously it doesn't.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes this summer

I am going to be gone later this summer (for up to 6 weeks, early July to mid-August). Because of that, two major changes will occur.

1. This one only applies to admins/EWs: someone else will need to process account requests. Mathfreak231 already reads many of them, but I usually am the one to get to them first. We really need our whole admin/EW team reading them. It's at Special:ConfirmAccounts, so please check it frequently (at least 1 time per day if possible - that way, everyone will get a reasonably quick response).

2. This applies to everybody: WikiMonitor will not be operating. I run WikiMonitor on my Raspberry Pi. When I am not home, I am usually able to control it via VPN. I am also able to check the recent changes to see if anything went wrong, and if any bugs pop up, I can fix them promptly. Worst comes to worst, I can always just use the emergency shut off and fix it when I get home. However, I will not have access to a computer for most of the time I am gone, so I will not be able to control it. Generally, WM doesn't like running continuously for longer than about a week (I routinely manually restart the script), so even if I left it unattended, it would probably stop working after a while. If anybody wishes to continue its operation while I am gone, I will be happy to send you the source code. It should be pretty easy to set up.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, are you going to need any more Experienced Wikians to read the account requests? If so, then I recommend KrIsMa to become one. :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we have enough, we just need to get the ones we already have (*looks at ErnieParke and Mathfreak231*) to look at the account request list more.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That was a funny look. :P
Anyway, I'll try looking at account requests, but I've never read anything on account requests, so I've learned everything by intuition basically. Considering how I didn't know about the "Hold" button last account request for honeyr2, maybe you could post a quick overview on my talk page so that I know there's nothing that I skipped? And maybe repost the info about the "Hold" button too?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll do that later. All there is to know about the hold button is that it doesn't work.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I remember you said I should've used the hold button.
Edit: It was the confirm button! I got the two mixed up right now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind if I ran it? Do I have enough experience on the wiki?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Only Experienced Wikians can accept account requests - you need to be elected to become an Experienced Wikian. Also, jvvg said in this discussion that they don't need anybody else to accept account requests. ;)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I know I can't accept requests. I meant running his bot.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I could run the bot. All I have to do is reset it every 5-7 days? I am on everyday. Could you tell us what dates you are going to be gone? Thanks!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Running the bot entails more than just resetting it every few days. Here is the list of requirements, as I see them:

  • Resetting it every few days
  • Explaining messages to people if they complain or are confused
  • Keeping it running 24/7
  • Having a PHP environment with CLI support and the cURL libraries installed
  • Fixing any bugs that show up (and I should warn you, the code is mostly spaghetti logic)
  • Running it on your own account, as I don't want to give out the WikiMonitor password (I would prefer it if a user who already owns a bot account could run it)
    jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's see.

  • Resetting it, yup I can do that.
  • I'm kinda good with newbies.
  • I keep an always-on in the basement of our house.
  • Sure, I can get PHP up and running
  • Don't worry, I've read the code
  • I'll send in a bot account request.

Sound good?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I will learn PHp so the next time you are gone then I can run it.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't wait to take up your duty of making up very creative rage reasons for rejection. (wow, that alliterated) :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Krett12, I'm ok with it. However, I'm just going to make sure everyone else is. Also keep in mind that once I return in August, I resume control of WM, and you need to provide me any changes you made in the code.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, is everybody ok with me making the account request processing guide a SW page (something like Scratch Wiki:Become a Contributor/Processing Guide) or something?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup! I will request an account now.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 16:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just be aware that I won't respond to it until the rest of the Wiki community voices approval. Please comment your thoughts on this thread.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The one thing that I'm worried about is that I don't see any indication that Krett12 has had any experience with handling bots or PHP code. Plus, Krett12 joined April 28, which is only 58 days of Wiki experience, although I'm less worried about that then the bot experience.
I would be fine with Krett12 handling WM, although I'd like to see that Krett12 has had experience with this type of situation and coding before. Plus, a review of how to handle WM for Krett12 would be nice.
Yes, I would be fine with you turning your sandbox guide into an official SW page.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Guide. I will also give Krett12 the full briefing before giving permission to run WM. For anyone interested, I have published the latest source code (and now I intend to keep it updated) on Github.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
ahh so you are giving wikimon. Temporarily to krett12! Ohh I get it sorry for inactivity I was making music :P anyways have fun krett12 and thanks derpmeup for the nice comment ^^^ !
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm nervous about letting anyone who has less than half a year, preferably a year, of wiki experience. And please do prove that you are able to technically maintain it, krett12. I could do it in theory, but i routinely shut down my computer every night, and have lame internet, so it wouldn't really work...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. I could run WM, too, but I don't really want to. The code is more than a little messy... ;)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be fine, but the code is different than other bots I've seen, mind if I clean it up a little?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 20:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Once we decide it's ok for you to operate WM, you are welcome to clean it up (and I would appreciate that). However, please don't mess with it until then.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Can I process accounts, guys? I'm responsible, even my mother says so :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Oops you said no
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If WM is on github, why can't somebody (such as krett12) just send a pull request?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bots

Is there a page that lists all the bots? Thanks! :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

[[Category:Bots]]
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Also, you need nowiki tags around that, so I added them. ;)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
FYI to both of you, a link to a category is [[:Category:Bots]] no nowiki needed ;)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

EW's

If EW's aren't active, do you kick them from being an EW? Because I know I am new but, I am on every day morning and afternoon. I was wondering if you need more I could definitely process account requests. Just tell me when you need more. I could tell if they need an account or not. I would also look to see if they are requesting another account. I will look at their regular Scratch profile. If it says they had an old account, I would look to see if that account had a Wiki account. Thanks! Scratch On!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You joined the Scratch Wiki on June 6th, which means you've been here for 8-9 days. That's definitely not enough experience to be a possible EW, and besides, as jvvg said, we don't need any more EW's at the moment. If you stay active for a longer time though, and happen to be on whenever we have admin/EW elections, you might have a chance.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 13:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Really? I haven't been on for 10 days? I am already having fun! I have edited some articles.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I registered on the Wiki in March 2012, and I became an EW in mid 2013. The "experienced" part of the term is not taken lightly.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Then I will keep working!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 14:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
trust me, at this rate, you have a chance for being an e.w! At this point, as the name implies, the experience is needed ( experience of this wiki only) (and its really hard to be experienced ( personal witness)) but you can make it!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I know I don't have very much experience. I will keep editing articles. Also, thanks for the encouragement KrIsMa! Sent from my tablet. You don't know how hard it is to edit the wiki on this thing!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 1

It's easier on the Nexus tablet. ;)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes use an iPod Touch to edit, it's pretty hard. :P
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 16:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I am using a ASUS MeMO Note. It is kinda hard. An iPod would be next to impossible. We need an easier way to edit this on mobile.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
iPad is very easy.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The iPad is also like 2 times bigger than my tablet.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
@Derpmeup & @-PRO-: I've used my iPod 4th gen before to edit the Wiki, and it's actually quite easy, given a bit of experience. Besides, the 4th gen is smaller then the current 5th gen. ;)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not too hard. I'm typing this on an iPod Touch and it's fine :P
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 05:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I am at my grandpa's house because I am going to a camp. So I have to use this for a week. I just wish I could play projects.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 11:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

is it ok to keep the two quotes consistent?

I mean {{quote}} and {{quote2}}, they are a bit weird because in quote, the parameters are (text) then (author), in the other one, it is vice-versa (author) then (text). Would it be possible to make them both consistent because it is very confusing sometimes :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I wish, but it would break existing usages.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
if only there was a way 'v
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
You could use bots. Even without bots, there is a way. If you press control+option+j, or (I hope I get this correct) command+j, you can see every page that links to another page, or template. Using that shortcut, you can see the pages that link to Quote2, which there are under 50 of. Then it's a simple task of updating every one of those articles.
Would it be fine if I moved all of {Quote2} to {Quote}, instead of visa versa?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Anyone? If no one comments against this in the next 24 hours, I'll go ahead with transferring {Quote2} to {Quote}.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait what? I don't understand why though
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
For the same reason as you stated earlier, the consistency. Besides, Scimonster seems to want it as well.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Wait, are you talking about style or parameter order? I'm talking about order.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh! I understand. I originally thought that you were proposing for the two templates to get merged. Now I see that you were suggesting for the parameter order to be swapped. Would it be okay if I did that now?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind switching every single occurrence, changing the template code, and putting a warning on the doc with the change.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I don't mind. What is the warning for though? To remind people that the template has been changed?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I'll get started on it when I have a bit more time!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I got the template as updated as possible! I put up a warning, updated the template code, and updated any uses, if I could. Unfortunately, I couldn't update the template in archive pages. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Would This Be Pointless Or Not?

There's an article on the Community Guidelines. There's an article on the Terms of Use. But, the Privacy Policy doesn't have a wiki article! Look: Privacy Policy. Should we create one, or would that be pointless?
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't like that. The Community Guidelines are less formal whereas the Terms of Use re very technical, strict, and legal.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 21:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be good. But there is a page that states it. Maybe on the page put what the policy means then give the link to the actual document. On the wiki page, make it more understandable.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Just Reminders About Linking

I have been sweeping in like a hawk and adding tons of links today to a whole bunch of articles. We seem to forget a lot of links so here are the most common we need to remember:

If you go to a random page, you are very likely to find one of these words in need of linking.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I couldn't add user for voxbot to link because i didnt want to cause the bot to link other usages of the word user, such as Scratch Wiki:Users and others :(
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

temp

sometimes, I am on mobile and I see a page that really needs some cleanup by User:VoxBot, should i create a template that, when placed on a page, will signal VoxBot to clean up the page when it turns online? thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually like that idea. It gives us some way, too, to contribute if we see a page that needs help. But what kind of "cleaning up"?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I think any of these tasks :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
For example, if someone links a lot of words on a page he/she might want to add the template on the page so the bot can remove multiple wikilinks
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
If this is approved the second thing to think is if the template should be invisible (cannot be seen on the page itself) or visible :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Invisible.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I will start the template tomorrow if there are no objections :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I finished it! Let me know if there should be changes made and if there should be a category for it!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

done!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop checking the edit rankings page

Just about every time in the past few days that I've checked recent changes, someone has updated the edit rankings. This shows that people are checking them basically all the time. Instead of focusing on the number of edits, focus on the quality of edits. Expanding 10 articles is better than 500 edits to your userpage, but they both appear the same in the rankings. In addition, the fact that people are checking frequently suggests that people are being competitive and trying to boost their edit counts.

I will reiterate what I said above: Focus on quality, not quantity of your edits.

Furthermore, being competitive about edit counts does not accomplish anything, and it encourages lots of useless edits that make it more difficult for me to patrol recent changes.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

you beat me to it!!! anyways yeah i agree there seems to be a current "competition" between some users on the wiki.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I only see one user updating the edit ranking frequently, unless I've been skipping over some people.
Anyway, I would agree with you jvvg. It sort of goes with the saying "It's not what you have that matters, it's how you use it."
Translated for the Scratch Wiki: "It's not the amount of your edits that matters, it's the quality of them."
Do you see the parallels there?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
yes! (now i'm wondering if "do you see perpendiculars in there" makes sense, too)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
btw ErnieParke: here you go!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Is this sort of a result of my 40 linking edits today? I know they were all small edits but I did not intend to try to make this into a competition. But we all have to admit, I admit myself, having the free capability to see how many edits we have drives us to be competitive. I will link less now (it was a one day thing powered by about 8 s'mores). Sorry jvvg I didn't mean to clog recent changes but in reality those pages did have missing links, everyone I saw. Sorry :(
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with adding links; that's a good thing. It's when people are constantly checking their rank and edit count that it becomes a problem.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
We should have a bot update the rankings every so often *jk* (if people do want it i've got dibs)
Personally, I don't think people check in on their rankings that often. Besides, sometimes quantity does matter a little. I don't really think it's a current problem.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

HUGE ERROR

I am very sorry everyone, I tested out my new bot (it worked) but I forgot to ask Jvvg to turn WikiMonitor off. I am very sorry for anyone who received double notifications. AND, my copy of No Bots Override and the Page Ignore List.

I'll ask him to turn off WikiMonitor first next time.

Also, I didn't know a bunch of text appeared on the screen (e.x. "KrIsMa did not sign post. Notifying...")

Well, sorry!
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's all good. I'm keeping WM off until mid-day Wednesday, so you can test all you want until then. Also, yes, a lot of text does appear on the screen. You're welcome to comment out the "Starting cycle" thing if you want. I added that a while ago for debugging purposes, but never ended up removing it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tweaker

Unfortunately, the Tweaker account has not been promoted to a bot yet, so unfortunately you will see its edits regardless of your preferences. I'll ask Scmb1 to promote it.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to have it not a bot so we can monitor it's progress for a little while.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll keep WM off until afternoon Wednesday (eastern time) to facilitate more testing.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop with custom sigs?

Custom sigs are making it more of a pain to read talk pages because the formatting isn't consistent and they often use flashy colors that distract my eyes from the actual message. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if everyone switched to using the default signature? This isn't like the forums (where you express yourself with your signature), because on the forums there is a set format to the page, and that is unchangeable. However, on the Wiki, sigs are the only way to tell who posted what.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with jvvg. It just needs to be simple. BTW, I found this while I was creeping around on the Recent Changes. Hehe.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Just wondering - isn't custom signs just "not recommended"? It might be hard for me to adjust back to regular sigs. (speaking about that I haven't used my old sig in years!!!!!!)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm completely fine with custom sigs here. To me, they don't seem flashy or make the talk pages harder to read for me. In fact, the only custom sig I've seen so far is KrIsMa's. Are there more by chance?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Many people think I don't appreciate creativity, but the fact is that I like consistency. If everyone uses the same signature, then it's a lot easier to read discussion pages, and the formatting is more consistent and therefore easier to manage.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
If we stop c.s then we are literally changing the rules, because the rules say - custom sigs are not recommended, and now we want to say "custom sigs are not allowed"
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
And- let's see who agrees to stopping custom sigs
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You are stating that changing the rules is something that's never done before. In fact, Wiki rules change periodically. I really posted this topic just so people would think about it. Your signature is fine, but some new users who aren't really experienced with how discussions should look make signatures that really don't work well in the discussion flow.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, no I wasn't stating that rules haven't changed :P I think telling people that their signature is odd is a good way because an admin told me a while ago that my sig's avatar was too big, too. Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures could be elaborated on :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe no GIF signatures would be a good idea. But someone may have a GIF profile pic on Scratch... Hmm...
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
My regular signature is also flashy, see!
KrIsMa (talk | contribs) 01:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I like your custom sig better. It fits in more than others'
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Not all custom sigs are bad, but the ones by new users tend to mess up the formatting.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, ok! you mean Talk:Talk_(disambiguation)?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@jvvg: Like KrIsMa said, we could always comment on their talk page about their sig. Editing an article quickly several times in a row can clog the recent changes, yet we only leave a message on their talk page.
Or, maybe, we could have custom signatures be request only? Meaning the user has to request the custom signature in the CP before an EW or admin would put it into place.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 1

@KrIsMa: That's the one that made me think of posting this topic. Also, I saw you use MuseScore. Do you like this piece that I wrote? It's called "The Modern Piano Sonata", mainly because I use the beginning few bars to present my opinion on modern art musically.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

hmm I was thinking about that earlier, but I thought it might be hard to maintain now that I think about it, I think request a c.s is a good idea, but we can't really enforce it, either. (edit conf X2)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
We could also institute standard format requirements for signatures, and require users to fix them if they don't meet those requirements.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@jvvg It's actually really nice! I like how you used the few bars to represent modern art!! Maybe adding a tonal center? I love the Allegro Vivo part!!!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This was mostly created from sketches that I have, and that section was written at a time when I was feeling extremely depressed, so I used that to represent my feelings.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahh the power of feelings; it's prevalent in music! If we are gonig to create a template for custom sigs, please do it here thanks!!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I've composed my own little piece over the past few days. It's somewhat cloud like, once you here it. Would you two mind listening to my piano and composing skills? The original m4a is here, while the converted mp3 is here.
By the way, shouldn't this discussion be happening on our user talk pages instead of the CP?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── yes lol it should - anyways great song!!! i love the flow of the notes!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of this, which is a mostly complete version of what I posted earlier?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Very nice! I like the ending :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@jvvg: I also like your piece! It has some very interesting parts in it, and it ends nicely. :)
Although, I'm not sure that I liked some of the pauses. Still, it's a nice piece!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
The awkward pauses in those two bars of the C# minor section are intentionally awkward. The rest of them are either for tension or a result of a certain person being too lazy to fix them. :P
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
ErnieParke you should sign up for a account on MuseScore and publish some of them! then we can follow each other lol --- however there is a 5 piece upload only limit on musescore :(
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Too bad about the limit. Anyway, I don't write music that much anymore. I originally just wrote music to be annoying (i.e. not playable), as evidenced by my first piano piece.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah that limit :( lol that piano song is soooo funny! i like the tempos and the title lol
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You should also see (not hear, I don't recommend trying to play it) my very first composition ever: The Apocalypse Quartet in B Flat Major, scored for violin, accordion, flute, and trumpet. The bizarre instrumentation is intentional.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It almost sounds like a Christmas song ;) do you want to hear my uncompleted song of death ;/ lol
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually nvm were really off topic
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@KrIsMa: I just got MuseScore, so we'll see if I join or not. I only occasionally compose.
@jvvg: Nice first piece jvvg! I agree with KrIsMa that it does sound like a Christmas song, and chaotic at the same time. Interesting.
Anyway, if we want to move this discussion to a talk page, how about User talk:jvvg/music or User talk:jvvg#music?
Also, jvvg, what did you think of my piano piece above?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 2

1. Yes, we can move it to my talk page. 2. Yes, I did like it. It was very nice.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Moved. Please keep content under this line related to "not using custom signatures"! Thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

fact tag

Is {{Fact tag}} needed? We could edit {{Fact}} and edit a bit so if a parameters is used it would switch to the custom message.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO it helps to keep them separate. But I'll wait for more opinions.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to merge them as you described it.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, Yes Merged.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Tweaker Feature

I noticed that people didn't like custom sigs, and I thought I might use a simple solution. I'll use KrIsMa as my example.

Any time {{User:Krett12/Sig}}

FLASHY SIGNATURE BY KRETT12

appears, it would have "switch code" activated. What I mean by switch code is this:

{{User:??????/Sig}} --> --> --> --> <scratchsig>??????</scratchsig>

Which would look like this:
Krett12 (talk | contribs)

Of course, the solution to this problem is probably not having a bot remove it.



Krett12 (talk | contribs) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please change that signature to not be a header.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Jvvg did it.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
How would the "switch code" know when to start? I mean, some GIFS aren't flashy and even some with fast transition speeds aren't, too.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Requirements for Userpage Edits to be Marked as Minor

It bugs me when I look at recent changes and see that 80 out of the 100 recent changes are all Userpage or sandbox edits. I think it should be required for all Userpage edits to be marked as minor, and if this rule comes into effect WikiMonitor can patrol it.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that it will not be enforced by WikiMonitor, or at least not until August. I don't want code conflicts with Tweaker. Also, I think people are already annoyed enough about the category notifications. Receiving a notification every time they forget to click a checkbox when an edit isn't even really minor would not really help.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay forget the WikiMonitor part, but shouldn't people mark Userpage edits as minor at least when they make about 10 in a row?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It really depends on the content of the update. If they add content, or an entire new section, then the edit isn't minor. Then again, I doubt any user page receives only major updates, so some edits should at least be marked as minor.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
To be honest I really don't think that the minor edits should be enforced. Right now, I am actually questioning why there are "minor edits" and how they come into purpose.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, what if somebody was going to make a big edit to their page? I'm not sure that that would be considered a minor edit. I think that maybe there should be something that if an edit gets rid of less than 100 bytes or the edit adds less than 100 bytes, then it will automatically get marked as a minor edit. If the edit got rid of over 100 bytes or it added more than 100 bytes, then it wouldn't automatically become a minor edit. Those are my thoughts. :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I just realized there is a way to filter out the userpage edits, so this is Yes Done and not needed!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've been looking around and haven't seen a way to block those edits. How did you do it?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Under the Namespace drop-down at the top of recent changes, I just select "main" and hit Go to show all non-talk page and non-user page edits.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
And if you select Invert Selection, it shows all edits of namespaces EXCEPT the selected one.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
That is a neat trick Turkey3. I'll keep it in mind!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Category included!

Some mainspace pages located in Category:Templates isn't a template! My guess is that a template used on that page has included a Category:Template on the page itself. The weird thing, those mainspace pages don't have the Category:template on them! weird!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the real issue is... You know how templates basically copy themselves wherever they're used? That includes their category code, which means the page gets the category as well. Thankfully, we just need to put in some noincludes's.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I found that {{Fact tag}} didnt have noinclude, so I added that in, but for some reason those pages are still included in the category! This is so weird!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, this is odd. If you look at those pages, none say that they're part of Category:Templates on the page themselves.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that weird? I thought it was my cache - but if you have the same issue then I don"t think its my cache!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I have that issue too.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
However, I think I fixed that issue and I no longer see any pages that are not templates in Category:Templates.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You did fix it. What was causing Category:Templates to be added to those pages?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Swampert11! [1]
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What Would Happen...

If you have two templates that just link to each other. What would happen when you place one on a page? For example, if you have {{Template 1}} and it's only task is to display {{Template 2}}, but {{Template 2}} Just displays template 1, what happens?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember I tried this once, but anyway, you get an error in the template that's first repeated. I'll post it here once I figure out the error code again.
Edit: Here's an example:
Template loop detected: User:ErnieParke/Contents
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
It's kinda like an infinite redirect, but it would tell you.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It would look like this:

{{Loop1}}


Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted those two templates because now they're not useful. Next time please just test it I a sandbox.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplicity article

As I've seen articles for popular Scratch trends (Toki, for instance), I thought that maybe it'd be good to have a simplicity article in the Wiki, if there isn't one already, as it's a huge trend going on in Scratch. I'm afraid I might be wrong and there isn't need for making one, but that's the reason of why I am asking. Thanks.
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What is it? :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Same question.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it's just the trend of using simple logos, or thumbnails in Scratch. It is usually related with vector graphics.
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 16:28 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think user fads like that really deserve an article. I don't know how to explain it any better. I know what you're saying though, kind of like IOS7 simplicity artwork. It' she new trend in everything it seems. But I think it focuses too much on what's popular instead of factual things related to Scratch.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, it is a popular trend right now, but I don't think it needs an article here. Also, I agree with turkey3, "I think it focuses too much on what's popular instead of factual things related to Scratch". ;)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't think a trend like this deserves an article. It's just a way to make your project look; it's not really an interesting trend.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I Just Wanted to Say...

It is so great we are getting a lot of active, contributing users in the past few months! It used to be like the same 6 editors for over half a year at least, so I think things will be really speeding up now! Thanks for everyone who has joined!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've had a great time contributing, and it's not over yet! :D
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
if you compare the active users in User:KrIsMa/Statistics (I updated it today yay!) you can see that the active users went up a lot! yay thanks all!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I hope to be an active user soon :) (I guess I'm not, as I've only been in the Wiki for 2 days xP) EDIT: How weird, I really thought I said active... O_O
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Active or inactive?
Anyways, thanks again to all of the editors!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I joined a bit over a month ago and I'm close to 400 edits, so I guess I'm active. :P I come on here every day. :D
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 23:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
I see that. ;)
Anyway, I wanted to say the same thing as Turkey3; thank you to all of the new contributors! I'm sure we'll have a better time now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You're welcome.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Usefulness of page?

I probably wasted a bunch of time making a new tutorial page (in my sandbox) about saving data, but I don't know if it should actually be put on the wiki, seeing as how we have Saving Data. Also, because the blocks plugin doesn't seem to be able to assign categories, some of the blocks appear red. So should it be put on the wiki itself? (With added categories, of course)
AonymousGuy (talk | contribs) 17:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How about you merge it into Saving Data, as that page doesn't have any scripts on it yet.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe, but first I need to figure out how to get the blocks plugin working correctly.
Userlogoaonymousguy.png AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I've merged it - I hope I did it correctly. Or was I supposed to ask an admin to do some actual merging thing?
Userlogoaonymousguy.png AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Nah, it's good. We don't have any official merging tool.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

categorization

Can someone please add a category to Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures? Thanks a lot! (I can't think of a category for it)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Would Category:Scratch Wiki Tutorials be appropriate? Even though custom sigs are frowned upon (kinda)?
Userlogoaonymousguy.png AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 22:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
nvm sorry! oh yeah maybe that will work! Thanks for bringing that up! I will wait for some replies.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
just realized it wasn't a help page thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A new Wiki feature?

I think it would be good to know which pages need more information or to be updated, so Wiki members can edit those. Otherwise, I'll be clicking "Random Page" until I see one which needs it. Or is there already this feature and I don't know about it?
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 09:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You can take a look at Category:Article Stubs and Category:Articles to Expand.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :)
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 09:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I was gonna say that but Sci beat me to it :P

-unsigned comment by Krett12 (talk | contribs)

relating to nil user pages

Recently an attempt was made to create uncreated user pages to prevent red links to user pages. A template was placed on red link user pages that mostly said "this is to prevent red links". Wondering about any objections to this.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I remember veggie didn't have a user page even though he had the chance to make one, so it looks like he didn't want one. As for other Wikians, I think it would be nice not to create their user pages because it would be useful for historical perspective, and what would the user page have anyway?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I also think it's a bit insulting to have a user or user talk page say it was only created to prevent red links.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I see your point. If anyone is wondering, the exact content of the template looks like this:

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki!
We're glad to have you here! The Scratch Wiki is a large wiki which anyone including you can contribute to and edit. With 2,095 articles, 2,379 users, 112 active users, 290,943 edits and 3,611 files, the Scratch Wiki has been thriving since December 6, 2008.

Here's your first stop: the "Welcome" tutorial.

Welcome!

For a quick summary of the tutorial, see:

Cheatsheet

Have any questions? Ask on the:

Community Portal!

We hope you'll make great edits!
Community Guidelines banner.png



Scratchteam (talk | contribs)

Should we keep it? I can I personally think it's good. Besides, if they don't have a userpage, they haven't come online in years and they wouldn't care. Seems okay to me. What are your views? I'm open to ideas.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

who knows they don't care? Some people actually want to be unique and have no user page, and some dont care about their user page, however, as jvvg said, I think its kinda insulting too. When the user comes back on the wiki and sees someone made their user page they might get a bit mad
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Template?

Can I make a template called block. It will look like this.
scratchblocks
This a block article, it contains Scratchblocks


JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of making that template?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, what is the point?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is to tell a new scratcher that there a scratchblocks in the article and there is a link to what it is.
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

why would others need to know if an article has scratch blocks? Also, JayceeMinecraft, could you look at Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures? Cp had a discussion on custom sigs this is what they agree on. Thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To let new scratchers know that there are scratchblocks in the article because they might not know what they are or how to use them, by the way the name is already taken so it will be called useblock instead.
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

But because scratchblocks look, in fact, like Scratch blocks, how would a new user not know what they are? And as for using them - new users can't even obtain wiki accounts, and in the forums they aren't too important, so why exactly would they need to know how to use them?
Userlogoaonymousguy.png AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Their is a page about scratchblocks in the help pages, which new users to the wiki should have read.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 19:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
EDIT CONF! I'll post what I typed (thanks for summing it up!) :I see where you are going! Hmm, if new scratchers don't know how to use scratchblocks, in the editor, you can find help on how to use each scratchblock already, and scratch application has scratchblocks as it's main "scripting language" and again the help GUI is there to help new scratchers so I am sure they know what scratch blocks are! (Scratchblocks on wiki and editor are fairly the same, so new scratchers will realize - aren't these blocks from the scratch editor, and relate to the editor, so I'm sure new scratchers know what scratchblocks are) :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant when they start reading the page they'll start from the top(probably) and they won't see down the bottom of the page where the scratchblocks actually are, and if they didn't know that scratchblocks exsisted on the wiki and thought that there would just be text, that would help them.
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

swampert11 already mentioned that there is a page in the help pages about s.b and why would new users need to know there are scratch blocks on the wiki? Again, the help page
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant for non wiki editors, they would think that they are just reading text.
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

so you mean you are worried that non Scratch Wiki:Users would think they would be reading just text? Now how would introducing scratch blocks be bad? How would telling them there are scratch blocks in the article help the reader? (All readers are assumed to know scratch blocks already)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
EDIT CONFLICT 2! :P Why would they think that? If they actually were to look at the scripts on the page, they would see that they were reading off of scratchblocks. And also, scratchblocks are just text with fancy CSS formatting to make them look like blocks, but they would still be recognizable as blocks by new users.
Userlogoaonymousguy.png AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
also, please fix your custom sig to comply with Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures and indent using colons. Thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or @JayceeMinecraft?
Userlogoaonymousguy.png AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jay, but thanks aonymousguy for changing your signature !
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
No, not Scratch Wiki users I meant readers, just people who read the scratch wiki not edit it, they might not know that scratchblocks exist on the scratch wiki.By the way, I fixed my sig.
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.