(Vandalism: Yup.)
(Vandalism: Reply to Ken)
Line 622: Line 622:
 
::::Yeah, I know. I saw you two talking about it.{{User:Duckboycool/Signature Code}} 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 
::::Yeah, I know. I saw you two talking about it.{{User:Duckboycool/Signature Code}} 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 
:::::Yup. I feel sorry for the unfortunate Admin that has to hide everything.<scratchsig>Drunken_Sailor</scratchsig> 21:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 
:::::Yup. I feel sorry for the unfortunate Admin that has to hide everything.<scratchsig>Drunken_Sailor</scratchsig> 21:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 +
::::::For me- the highest priority was putting the wiki back to its high quality self. That is my logic for reverting the edits.<scratchsig>Makethebrainhappy</scratchsig> 22:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:24, 24 July 2017

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!
Shortcuts:
SWT:CP
S:CPORTAL
S:CPTALK
S:PORTAL
S:PORTTALK
S:TALK

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
If you do not think a discussion is done, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.
Size of Community Portal: 100,408 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 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).

Not done

No Not done (this will never been done completely, so don't archive!)

Threads that need "long time and hard work" will not be archived, but moved to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/not done. Actually you can read and continue following threads there:

To make sure that your thread will not be archive put the template No Not done at the top.
Don't forget to replace it with the Yes Done template when the thread is finally finished.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Some Article Ideas for Everybody

No Not done

These are some articles I'm thinking could be created. If anybody wants to give these a shot at making them, feel free! Also, it can be smart to write articles in your sandbox if it's incomplete and then create the article after you finish it in your sandbox. This reduces the number of stub articles in the mainspace.

  • Adobe Flash Player - it's a fairly significant thing that's required for Scratch 2.0, but there is no article on it specifically. This article could provide info on what it is and details specifically on how to get it in different web browsers and operating systems.
  • Computer - We already have some articles on computer science, such as Computer Science and Lag. They are somewhat related to Scratch, and so is a computer. It's the main device used to run Scratch. An article on it is probably a good idea. It can cover basic logistics of computers but it also needs to be linked to Scratch in some way. You could talk about the development of computers coinciding with the progress of Scratch.
  • Yes Done - Defaults Library - Scratch has a built-in Costumes Library and Sprite Library and Sounds Library. I think maybe an article on this would be good.
  • Yes Redirected - Jobs - the main Scratch website has a Jobs page linked in the footer. As to why I think this deserves an article, we already have an article for the Statistics Page, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Use. I think, though, rather than talking about the Jobs page it could probably talk about Jobs. Scratch is an employer so this could be a good article on that stuff.
  • Yes Stub - Main Menu - It's part of most games, so we should probably have an article on it. What a main menu is and how to create one. Well we do have Creating a Main Menu but if we have an article on that an article on main menus in general is a good idea. You could even go outside of Scratch a bit and talk about main menus in NES games and such.
  • Removing a Character from a String - fairly self-explanatory.
  • Yes Done - Replicating a Multidimensional List - lists are 1D in Scratch. Just a list of items. In other programming languages you have multidimensional Arrays, so rather than have a list of say items 1-5, you may a have a list of items 1-5 but each of those items has a list inside of it. That'd be a 2D list. So basically you have lists inside of lists.
There are ways to "replicate" a multidimensional list with a 1D list. For example, if you want a list of 5 items and inside each item you want a list of 3 items, you can just pretend that the first 3 items in the list belong to the list items of the 1st highest dimension item in the list. I hope that makes sense. Like every 3 items it becomes a new item in a sense.
Then you can think outside of the box some. What if you don't want the same number of items in a list inside of an item? Well it requires some more complex logic then.
I also noticed the article Array does cover this some. But I think it would be possible to have a standalone article that goes way more in-depth.
  • Yes Done - Saving a Project - An article on how to save a Scratch project. Whether it be saved online or how to download it to your computer and save it there. It should be documented.
  • Sound Recorder - An article on how to connect a mic to Scratch and record sound in the Sound Editor. It's not really documented now. Currently we do have the article Sound Recorder which documents a Scratch 1.4 feature. This could be moved to Sound Recorder (1.4) and then a new article Sound Recorder can be made to document recording in Scratch 2.0.


Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

We came to the point that computer isn't relevant to Scratch.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (2,394)) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm making the multidimensional list one in my sandbox now.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done! I've put it at Multidimensional Arrays, but feel free to move it if you have a better title.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
00:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice!!
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 00:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! :D I am actually making a project that implements this on my testing account, so this article was more familiar to me to make.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
00:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the way, there is a section of one article that talks about the jobs available (Scratch Team#Jobs), although I agree it's a bit brief. I suggest we expand that section instead of making an article about it and have Jobs redirect to that section.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll create the Main Menu page really quick. It'll be basic, and won't have too much stuff (I'm not the best with wiki markup), but luckily you guys can edit it later. I'll just make a few description points and stuff like that.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I finished creating the Main Menu page. Wow, it was annoying trying to find a category, realizing I don't know what category to fit it into, creating a new category, creating a new category page, and then having to find a category for THAT page. I've marked it as a stub, though; it's not too complete, but it's still there.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A quick note: I moved Main Menu to Menu (project) after a discussion between Duckboycool, WolfCat67 and I on the talk page. So yeah. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like Downy did "Saving a Project"!
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Jobs now redirects to Scratch Team#Jobs. If someone can either expand the section that would be great. Alternatively, someone could make a full-fledged article on it if they want and replace the redirect with that.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A Thorough Discussion on Thinking of the Past, Present, Future, and Organizing them All

No Not done

One of the complexities of documenting Scratch is it changes so much. When Scratch transitioned from 1.4 to 2.0 there was an unbelievable amount of work on the Wiki that required tons of articles to be updated. This reached the solution of keeping articles relating to Scratch 1.4 but denoting them by putting "(1.4)" in the title of the article. For example, the older version of Paint Editor is Paint Editor (1.4). Another example is Project Compression (1.4) which is the old version of Project Compression.

I think we need to set in place some standards. In the future, we are going to have to do this for Scratch 3.0, so it's better if it can be done consistently. Firs thing to discuss is:

Past or Present Tense - I have noticed it is not always consistent. For example, Scratch Forums (1.4) discusses the forums in past tense. Paint Editor (1.4) uses the present tense, though that may make more sense since you can still use Scratch 1.4 while the Scratch forums are nonexistent. However, an article like Project Downloading (1.4) talks in the present tense even though project downloading on the Scratch 1.4 site is not possible since that old version of the site does not exist.

So I wonder, for an article that documents a feature in an old version of Scratch that is still accessible like the 1.4 Paint Editor, should it be: past or present tense?

For an article that documents a feature in an old version of Scratch that is impossible to access and there solely for history, should it be: past or present tense?

In the latter case of an article that documents an unavailable feature just for history, if present tense is used it sort of gives off the feel that that is how the article would be read if you were to be reading it in 2010 or whenever. This may make sense if we want our articles to sort of be like a frozen time capsule of the past. But if past tense is used, that could also make more sense because it's not 2010 but 2017.

Block Pages - This brings up another issue, and it has to do with block pages. An example of this is Distance to () (block). Please note that there is no Distance to () (block) (1.4) page on the Wiki, and that is so because this block is available in both Scratch 1.4 and 2.0, so we believed it was not necessary to document the same block in a prior version of Scratch. I'm starting to think, though, it might be a good idea.

Take a look at the script on that page. It uses the if <> then block as well as the stop [all v] block. Both these blocks are sort of in Scratch 1.4, but "if ()" then was just "if ()" and "stop [all v]" was just "stop all". So if somebody is using Scratch 1.4 and looks up the documentation of this block on the Wiki, the scripts in the article may use blocks not available in 1.4. There are probably more examples of block pages on the Wiki that use blocks not in Scratch 1.4, probably more dire examples than mine above.

It's just something to think about. How do we want to make our Wiki consistent throughout history to avoid any possible confusion? Do block articles deserve a (1.4) version or not? Eventually we are going to have (2.0) articles. It's best to decide stuff like this at the present moment.

If Block - I just noticed there happens to be no article on it. Technically "if () then" is only in 2.0, so shouldn't "if () (block) (1.4)" be an article?

Titles of Articles on items not in 2.0 - Examples of what I am talking about are the articles Stop All (block) as well as Java Player. The titles of these articles do not have (1.4) in the title because, well, they are not available in Scratch 2.0! So, I'm going to ask you guys, do you think by not having (1.4) in the title, it can be misleading, making people think it's a feature still available?

It does say at the top, "This article or section documents a feature not included in the current version of Scratch (2.0). It is only useful from a historical perspective" so I do not believe anybody reading the article is going to be confused and think the Java Player still exists. But do you think it should or should not have "(1.4)" in the title, or should "(1.4)" only be in the title of articles on features that have been replaced in Scratch 2.0?
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Turkey3 at it again with the great writing! I intend to move some things (leaving redirects, ofc) once I have time.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
23:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I think that this is a very important topic. It's important to get this right, or, like you say, things could get more messy and complicated.
So, here are my views:
I agree that past tense should be used when something is no longer accessible, it's odd to say 'you can' if you can't anymore. Similarly, I support using present tense on still accessible but outdated features because you still 'can'.
I don't think we should make 1.4 versions of articles for blocks that are unchanged on both versions. Examples are only examples, so I don't believe it's worth duplicating a page for them. That being said, it should be good practice to make examples as 1.4/2.0-friendly as possible.
I also agree with making a 'if () (block) (1.4)' article as the change between versions could be a cause for confusion, and this article could help clear up that confusion.
I believe that the version number used on an article on an outdated feature should be the last version it was available in, making it clear that it is no longer used.
Furthermore, a feature on the current version should have no version number in my opinion, as this causes lots of moving when Scratch updates and also makes it appear to be historic, as the version number looks like it's denoting a secondary, or outdated version of something.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
So with that said do you believe the title should be "Java Player" or "Java Player (1.4)"?
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 19:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I support Java Player (1.4) and Stop All (block) (1.4) and at this moment I also support Flash Player and Stop () (block). However, when Scratch 3.0 comes, I believe that Flash Player should become Flash Player (2.0) and there should be a new article titled HTML5 Player.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Should "Griffpatch" become a wiki article?

No Not done

Now, I know that you're not supposed to create articles about users and all, but arguably, griffpatch is now a part of Scratch culture. The same goes for "Kaj"; they have an article, and they were a user once. However, since they became part of Scratch culture, they were allowed to have a topic made for them. So, we at the Discord chat have all been thinking about what to do. What are your thoughts on the matter? Of course, we would probably have to contact griffpatch about it to see if they're OK with it first.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've put the logs of the Discord conversation here for anyone that can't access it. I will say that I don't really mind that much whether we choose to make a Griffpatch article or delete the Kaj one, but I definitely do think that we should be consistent. I would argue that Griffpatch would actually make for a better article than Kaj, as it doesn't have that teasing element to it. It's also undeniable that Griffpatch is a huge part of Scratch culture nowadays, while Kaj is honestly dieing out a bit.
Hamish752 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
So far, it seems like the reasoning for a griffpatch article is that he's massively popular, that he has the most popular Scratch project, he has a massive whitelist for chat projects, etc...
This is not what the wiki is for. It's not a popularity contest.
However, on that note, an article is allowable on other grounds. For example, the griffpatch problem. The ST acknowledged that many new Scratchers have trouble because they aim too high.
If there was more content in this direction, a griffpatch article would be acceptable.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 04:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally would support a Griffpatch article.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 04:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty much neutral about this. Even though Griffpatch is one of the most well-known Scratch users, I think he's a bit overrated. Also, Kaj's account was deleted, but Griffpatch's still exists, so we may need his permission.
Nickeljorn (talk | contribs) 19:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a sudden concern with this: What happens if Griffpatch suddenly decides to come on the Wiki? If he's accepted, he'll have a userpage and a mainspace page about him. Otherwise, I'm neutral.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
01:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
So what...?
Hamish752 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally would be in favour of a griffpatch article because I feel that he is as notable if not more notable than Kaj. I would also be in favour of not adding a griffpatch article and removing the Kaj article as well. (For the reasons stated above by Hamish)
The_Grits (talk | contribs) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For as long as I have been on the wiki, the criteria for articles about the community, users, projects, studios and collaborations has been "Was the product "sponsored" by the Scratch Team? This definition is tangable in a sense concerning all the above mentioned topics. "Kaj" became "sponsored" when the Scratch Team used him to describe an important point to the community. My impression is that this wiki is not about what really occurs in the community but more about what the Scratch Team does and the projects which they decide to back. Studios and collaborations are "sponsored" when they are set up by the Scratch Team and/or run by them. Forums have articles because they were set up by the Scratch Team, and so forth. My worry is that if we change this definition to what we define as "Scratch culture" I believe we lose the philosophy which has been held here. How we define "Scratch culture" is much less clear than the previous definition which I layed out. :) Now this does open up many new topics which may deserve articles because an argument can be made that they were "sponsored". The "griffpatch effect" as mentioned by ErnieParke may be an active problem that the Scratch Team is concerned with, and therefore deserves an article. Does "Griffpatch" deserve an article? No, b/c then we would need to write articles for many, many more community entities that deserve such. "WazzoTV" or "HobsonTV", with over 10,000 followers each may need articles as well. It would change our focus from being wiki editors to being wiki journalists, constantly updating and adding articles based on the newest cultural changes. Just my two cents on the matter ;)
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 20:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Embedding of Scratch Projects

Hey! :) I was thinking it'd be cool if we could embed Scratch projects into the wiki. They could be used in place of the existing example projects in the Pen Projects article, used on certain tutorial pages to demonstrate an expected result or even show a process more easily using an animation.

At the moment, you can't use the <iframe> tag required for embedding a Scratch project on the wiki. I've done a little research, and it looks like the easiest way to allow iframes would be to install this Media Wiki plugin. The good thing about this extension is that it doesn't allow the embedding of any iframe, it can be configured to only allow the embedding of Scratch projects, for example.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 22:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that having projects load on a WIki page could be slow and take up a lot of RAM and make things slower overall.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I definitely take your point. As long as we only embed one low-asset project per page though, it's impact on loading times would be more limited.
One article I thought could benefit is Pen Art Examples. For example, this project could be used to let readers see how it is rendered, in addition to the existing pictures. Readers could also then click the link and see inside to learn more.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
We could just make a gif of the pen being rendered.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 17:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a(n) (possibly better) idea. If we could enable video files to be uploaded, then we could make screen recordings of example projects and have those recordings directly in articles. Thoughts?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If I'm correct, mp4's were suggested before and accepted, but support was not added to the wiki.
This time around, when I re-suggest mp4's, how about we compile a list of what pages would benefit from it? Having examples is good motivation.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure! I think over 3/4 of all How To pages and tutorials would benefit from this :P
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References and Profile Comments

I've seen lots of people use profile comments from ST profiles as references in the wiki. However, when trying to click on them to check the source, it takes FOREVER to load in some browsers, especially if it's an older comment. Scratch has to load in every single comment on their page, and if it's old, that'll be a lot of comments to load. I think instead we should take screenshots of the comments, and upload them to the wiki. We could use those as references instead, no?
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good to have a link to the comment for reference, but I wouldn't mind putting a screenshot in too somehow.
Hamish752 (talk | contribs) 02:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
That works better, actually.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot is probably better than waiting 10 years for a profile comment to load. However, it can also get annoying if we start having to put the screenshot on the page just to prove it. It would almost be better if we could take the screenshot, upload it to the Wiki, and then reference the image itself. So it would actually be a reference that points to an image on the Wiki, which sounds weird but I can't think of any better option unless a different image host is used to host the screenshot, but then it may potentially be overwritten, deleted, or be hosted on a site with inappropriate content.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 05:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a slightly better idea. How about we have, for once, an actual format for references? So we do something like 'Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>' This way we can see the original comment (or at least the relevant bits) while still having a link if people need to see proof. We could add this guideline in Help:References. What do you guys think?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Turkey3 I meant for it to be like that, yes, instead of having images in the references. It could also have the original link to the comment on the file page. @Kenny2scratch That, too, sounds like a great idea. It's better than just a really long loading screen. XD
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 14:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You aren't able to reference an image on the wiki? I thought you could. That does seem like a good solution to me if we do it.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 14:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It just seemed weird to me. It's almost like referencing yourself in a way. Ken, I don't quite frankly understand your suggestion. If we say "Paddle2See. (25/7/2017)" that doesn't really tell anything as we still need to reference what he said on that day, which is when we use <ref> tags. And that leads right back to the problem of a comment never loading because it is 100 pages down on their profile. What could be done is a double reference, so upload a screenshot and reference that screenshot, and then right after make a second reference with the link to the actual source of the screenshot, the profile comment.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 18:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, @Turkey3. Linking to a screenshot, and then linking to the source, is probably the best way to do that. The source on the screenshot can prove that it hasn't been modified with Inspect Element in any way before taking the screenshot, and it'll be easier to read without a large loading time. It could be a progressive change, though; after all, there are lots of articles where comments are referenced, but as we find them, we can add them in as screenshots over time.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Turkey3 I don't think you read the full reference format. I'll put it down here:
Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>
We have the relevant bit of the comment after the date, before the link. That, then, would go inside <ref> tags. Get it?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
02:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
But what if you really don't want to type the actual quote into the article? I like it better when references are references and remain as those teeny square boxes with numbers. Once you start inserting the actual reference itself into the paragraph it can mess with the flow.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
When you put content inside <ref> tags, the only place it shows up is inside the <references/> tag! So here:[1]
Goes to here:
  1. Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>
  2. Got it?
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    06:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    I like that idea.
    Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 16:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    So, we have two great ideas; should we do this change, and if so, which one should we use? The reference to an image, with a screenshot, or @Kenny2scratch's way of typing out the quote itself as a reference, with a link to the source?
    WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 16:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think Ken's idea works best.
    Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    I like Kenny2scratch's idea too. It gives you the needed information easily.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    So, should we slowly start converting references to the way @Kenny2scratch came up with, or should we hold off for a little while longer?
    WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    That depends on whether we were planning on using an official citation method or not. :)
    Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 18:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    We seem to have already agreed on using one, and were just coming up with a method. Now that we (apparently) agree that the method I suggested is best, I think I'll add that as a regulation in Help:References.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    06:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    We could come up with our own, or use a more official citation form such as MLA, Chicago or APA.
    Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 23:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Makethebrainhappy We've already decided on the format; it is as follows:
    Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>
    I would say this is now Yes Done, as it's also on the "Help:References" page.
    WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 02:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I added that there. This (very long) topic is finally Yes Done.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    Update: I found this :P. Also, I updated Help:Welcome/3 to let people know that there's a format.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    00:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

    SDS helpers

    I noticed that on the wiki, we don't have an article for SDS helpers. If you don't know what they are, they are people who are seen helping around in the current SDS, and are invited to curate by one of the SDS curators with the job of adding projects and answering questions.

    I am thinking that we should note them on the wiki, since despite not being an official rank, they do exist, and can commonly be confused with SDS curators given that they curate SDS'.

    I was asking here if you think we should make a new article for this, or if we should instead add them as a section in SDS Curators. Also, if for any reason you think that we shouldn't do this at all, it's good to check in here first.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 21:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    I definitely don't think they should have their own article, as I don't think we would be able to find enough information about them for a whole article. The problem is, there is that kind of SDS Helper, and then there is the other kind, which is just unofficial people who like to help out in the SDS. So there are kind of two definitions.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Anyone else got an opinion on this?
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I would add a section on the SDS page about the official ones who curate the studio. Both defintitions could also be clarified, but I do not believe that this really requires a new article. That would probably cause more confusion :).
    Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 04:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I second that. Also, I don't think there is enough information out there for a whole article.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, you propose that we have it on SDS rather than SDS Curator, correct?
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 23:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I personally think we'd do it on SDS Curator because SDS Helpers and SDS Curators are so related. If you or Makethebrainhappy think otherwise, tell me :P
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 23:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Or anyone else, in fact :P
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 00:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just contributing my bit here:

    I think that SDS Helpers should be a section in SDS Curator, like most of you. However, additionally, I think that SDS Helper should redirect to SDS Curator#SDS Helper or whatever the section will be called. I don't think that the position is broad enough to warrant an article of its own, but that title can still redirect to the section documenting it.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    01:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    By unanimous decision, I have added in a section about it in SDS Curator. If any of you would like to look or improve it, just go there. I have not made the redirect page yet since I'm waiting for more approvals of the idea.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 12:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Kenny2scratch Yes, I agree. @Duckboycool Cool! I'll go look at it and see if I can add anything. :)
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 13:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for helping all. I can't believe I forgot the duties of SDS helpers. It was the first reason I wanted to make the section :P.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 15:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    You can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is Yes Done since the section has been created on SDS helpers.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 18:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

    We need a system for when to archive

    Lately, with the election there has been a lot of CP activity. This has resulted in some long threads and irregular archive times. So I think we need a system for when we archive.

    We have a few options:

    • When the bytecount reaches a certain amount[note 1]
    • When the number of topics reaches a certain amount[note 2]
    • When the page takes a certain amount of time to load[note 3]
    1. What I would go with
    2. Plausible but thread length is variable
    3. Probably not this, it's hard to measure

    So what do you guys think?
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    11:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    I agree, and think the best thing is when it's 125,000 bytes or over. This seems at about a good time to me.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 12:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    2 As a bytecount could archive an unfinished topic. (No, I literally mean a post half archived)
    Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 13:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    You wouldnt include the unfinished topics.
    Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'd go with #1 -- because there could be a lot of topics, or there could be not that many and they're really long, so it's the most universal between what could happen on the CP that makes it so long.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I am marking this as No Not done as this will be archived very soon.
    Edit:It was actually archived as I said this, and therefore unneeded, as this is still here anyway. :P
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 15:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    We don't just naively archive the community portal. It's important to look over topics to check whether or not they're finished. :)
    That being said, we have had a very inconsistent archive schedule, so a rule would be nice.
    Archiving serves the main purpose of making it easier for wikians to see the current discussions in the Community Portal. The main challenge is how much dead content is there versus current discussion, which is difficult to measure.
    So instead, archiving should be based off of load times, which is directly influenced by bytecounts.
    @Duckboycool: 125,000 sounds about right.
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This topic is Yes Done
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    06:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

    Checking InterwikiBot

    Hi everyone! I've rewritten the interwiki portion of User:InterwikiBot, seeing as PyWikiBot is broken. I've uploaded the bot proposed edits here: User:InterwikiBot/Proposed Edits

    Can someone look over a few proposed edits and confirm they are valid?
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    Update. I got Jvvg to confirm everything looks good, so I will be officially running the interwiki portion of the bot now.
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    This topic is Yes Done
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    07:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

    Editing not working

    I am trying to edit my profile page, but nothing happens when I press the pencil. What has happened?
    Eco fox (talk | contribs) 03:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    When you press the pencil, a list of things to do will pop up. Choose "Edit".
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    04:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sometimes, if the page takes a really long time to load, then the pencil buttons will not show for awhile.
    If this problem persists, try switching to a different skin in your preferences > Appearance. I recommend Vector.
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    "I recommend Vector" well Vector is the only skin available besides SWS so that should be obvious... But in all seriousness the SWS has multiple problems while Vector has none of those.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    It isn't the website because I tried it on another device. I am on Vector now. Thanks for telling me! It works!
    Eco fox (talk | contribs) 05:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    No problem! This is Yes Done now.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    05:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    A new namespace for AF pages

    No Will come into play later

    As most of you probably know, jvvg is going to become inactive after the summer. One question that currently stands related to that is: who will manage the AF pages?

    I have an idea. Instead of the AF pages being under somebody's userspace, how about we create a new namespace (probably AF:) and move all the AF articles to it? This would make it a) kinda more accessible since it's easier for editors to look for "AF:Scratch Wiki Home" than "User:Jvvg/AF/Scratch Wiki Home"; and b) it would be more SW community-oriented, since there wouldn't be any person controlling the entire thing (still with admins and EWs moderating, of course!).

    So what do you think?
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    10:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)