Line 514: Line 514:
:::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?
:::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?
:::{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
:::{{User:KrIsMa/Sig}} 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? <scratchsig>ErnieParke</scratchsig> 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
== Is Scratch Hacked!!!!!!!!!!! ==
== Is Scratch Hacked!!!!!!!!!!! ==

Revision as of 17:22, 11 June 2014

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!

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

Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
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: 65,089 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 [ link text] or {{plain link|1=|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}}.

SVG files

SVG files are scalable vector graphic images. They are not supported on the wiki at the minute. I have Scratch cat and Gobo in SVG. Is there a way anyone could make the wiki support them?
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 11:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I doubt we could; we would need someone who really has access to the server settings to be able to. Like an ST member perhaps.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 16:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I know what you could do. Look up on the internet, "svg to png converter online" and find a free online converter. I do it all of the time! :D

arinerron (talk | contribs) 18:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

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)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Animation Hall of Fame article?

We have an article on what happened when a Pac-Man project was removed. What about on the new occurrence of an external party claiming copyright to a Scratch studio? Maybe a new article about the phenomenon in general?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I never knew that happened...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
We should indeed have an article on this. It is the second case of this type of thing. If a third one ever pops up, we could merge them all into some article called "Scratch in Law" though that sounds dumb how about "External Corporations Holding Law Against Scratch". However, I don't think Scratch was required by law to rename it. But eh, we'll worry about that if it comes :P I say make a new article on the situation.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

You're Gonna Hate Me for Even Bringin' This Up

As said above, Scmb1 stated that we should not advertise when a user is blocked, as it is like openly shaming them. Well, don't we kind of do the same thing with Kaj? We openly shame that human being who was once Kaj and give that person a bad outlook. What if you were Kaj and got better, came back and saw there are Wiki articles and mockery (such as kajTheModerator) all over the site? I would not want to come back to a site that utterly only knows me as the person who threatened to hack Scratch.

My point is, we openly shame Kaj, so why is that acceptable at all? Is it really respectful to have an article on one individual user who threatened the website, because if you ask me, it shames Kaj.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's some examples in the article of how it is either very judgemental or mockery. "Kaj originally had no intention of causing harm"- I see no citation, for all we know Kaj could have wanted to do harm. "Some users put the word "Kaj" in their username to scare other Scratchers."- that's like saying Kaj is just plain-out bad and is mocked by people with their usernames. "On April Fools' Day 2011, KajTheModerator appeared on the Scratch Forums."- doesn't that seem like making a fool of Kaj? Maybe not the best quotes they are, but I feel like Kaj is just (over?)rated. There have been so many users banned for stuff like this- Kaj is just legend because he/she was the first really. This is an article on a user, legend or not, and I don't find it too reasonable.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't hate you for bringing this up. You have as valid an opinion as I do.
Anyway, time for my thoughts. I feel that although the article maybe be mocking kaj, we also have to consider that the Wiki is here to record and document Scratch, not to include only things we want. For example, let's think about the slavery that occurred in the United States. It was a very shaming event for slaves to have been whipped, called bad names, and forced to do every command. On the other hand, if you look in text books, this key part in American history wasn't wiped off the slate, or removed from every book everywhere. It was kept to preserve the integrity of history in the United States, and that's sort of what the Wiki is for. Not just for documenting the blocks and interface of Scratch, but for also recording the truth and history in Scratch. So even thought the article might be shaming, I feel it should be kept largely the same.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Turkey3. I think that the way the Kaj article is currently written, it publicizes a lot of information that really should remain private. I also agree that things such as KajTheModerator are extremely rude. It's very likely that Kaj has matured and would be very said to see what people are saying about him/her. If I was a rude user on Scratch a few years ago and decided to come back later, I wouldn't want to see myself ridiculed and an article about me portraying me as a total jerk.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
You summed up what I was saying much better. I understand people's reluctance to remove it from the Wiki, because it is history as Ernie stated, but Miafan being banned is also now history, so why not tell the world that she was banned, too, and what she did wrong? The last thing I forgot to mention that really seems like mockery is the nasty logo of Kaj (the one KajTheModerator has). It's not really nice, and in all honesty it makes Kaj seem like someone who is, well, pitiful (in the nicest possible way to say it). Not sure if that was Kaj's original logo when the "threats" came, but it still seems like mockery. But whether it is nasty or not would be better fit for the forums, I guess, but the Wiki article needs discussed, too. As jvvg said, KajTheModerator probably matured. He/she could have been a 9 year old with some anger issues, for all we know.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Featured article suggestions

We need some! A list of past featured articles is on Talk:Scratch Wiki Home/Featured Article; please don't suggest any of those.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:58, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How about the article Cloud Data? I know New Scratchers are interested in making their own multiplayer games, along with their own chat rooms, so why not inform them a bit about Cloud Data?
Gobo's Friends also sounds like a neat article to feature.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 15:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
We should have a page where users vote on what pages should be featured, such as the page Scratch Wiki:Elections.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ernie: Thanks. It looks like Gobo's Friends was suggested almost a year ago and never used. Cloud Data would also be good, next time.
@KrIsMa: I don't think it's necessary.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
It's worth a try :) We need to set dates on when to change the F.I and F.As :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
That last suggestion sounds good. How about featuring a new article and images every month (or two)? What do you think of that?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I think a month is good :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Maybe just 2 weeks.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 13:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What routine tasks can be "bot-ified"?

I am currently writing WikiMonitor B, a bot to carry out any routine tasks. So far the only one I have is recategorizing (in the case of renaming a category). Does anybody else have any good ideas for features that should be added to it?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Other then a few tasks on Scratch_Wiki:To-do, how about adding in a feature to autocapitalize page headlines?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
1. What do you mean by "page headlines"? 2. Out of the tasks in the to-do list, the only one I think would be appropriate for my bot is fixing double and broken redirects.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I thought of another good idea: changing all links to a given page (i.e. if a page is renamed).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I call dibs on changing links to redirects to actual page :) - oh yeah - clearing the sandbox regularly
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
@jvvg: Do you see how you titled your discussion as "What routine tasks can by "bot-ified"?" I meant headlines like that one, or in other words, anything involving double pairs of ==, though you might want to skip talk pages for that suggestion.
Anyway, how about deleting all links to a page, in case a page was deleted?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the grammar rules for title case are a little difficult for a bot, especially because it varies by region and even by person.
Go ahead with fixing double redirects. Deleting broken ones requires admin privileges. Maybe it could just add {{delete}} to the top, thereby also breaking the redirect?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Deleting all links to a given page is good, and adding the {{delete}} to broken redirects also is a good idea. I will implement those later.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 10:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I have an idea for a bot task. I noticed a few days ago that the Scratch Statistics page had a graph of the Age Distribution of New Scratchers, not of the Age Distribution of Every Single Scratcher Adding up all the bars on the graph would give a really close estimate to the new Scratcher population, and then subtracting from the number of registered users would give the Scratcher population. That could be a nice statistic to go under Scratch#Count, but it would take a lot of time to keep up to date. Maybe your bot could do it?
In case you're interested, I had actually done the computations a few days ago leading to some interesting facts: Forum Link
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll do that later.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Message

Currently the (automated) message is Welcome to Scratch Wiki! We hope you will contribute much and well. You will probably want to read the help pages. Again, welcome and have fun!.

I think that it should include a link to Help:Welcome

Should we change it?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Help:Welcome is the very first link on Help:Contents, the page it links to currently. I don't think it's necessary.
By the way, in case anybody is curious, the message is located at MediaWiki:Confirmaccount-welc.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Since we're already talking about this, any other ideas for how it can be improved? I apologize for not writing a new one when programming the system, I just took the software default.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Improve the software? I would add a custom welcome box so you can insert your own custom welcome! I mean, doesn't the old message seem repetitive? ;)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Mathfreak, the page you gave has some differences from the message I (and all other users granted access by the new system) received.

Jvvg, I think we should improve it.

Im'ma work on a thesaurus extension ("We hope you will contribute much and well" might be "We are hoping that you will devote well, and much" and maybe we could use it? Actually, maybe someone else could do that, because I'm still pretty new, and I'm already working on something to make blocks private, only visible by bureaucrats
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 03:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Well certainly using the word "devout" is a good start ;)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, you made that page 2 days ago (current date: 5/6/14). That's not a real page! That's fake! Besides, you didn't even make the system. But that's not the point? Why did you try to trick me?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not a trick. It's just a slightly confusing system. See here for the original default text.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
That's just how system messages work. The apparent "creation" date is just the first edit; if it was never edited, it appears somewhat as if it were never created.
And why would I trick you? I'm an admin. Do you even good faith?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

new page

i am not sure how to incorporate this into the scratch wiki (or even incorporate it at all), but can someone think of any uses for it? thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a subpage of Scratch Wiki:Bots?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, ok! Do you know what the page should be called? I Am stuck on a title :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 13:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe SW:Bots/Areas or SW:Bots/Details.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

has anyone else noticed that the outdent is a bit off?

in #Bot, the indent of five colons is way bigger than what 5 indents should be, and the outdent demonstrates that. Is there something wrong about the community portal? it seems to only glitch in the C.P :O
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, maybe it is syntax in the C.P discussions that are causing it. Preview shows the regular indentations :O weird!!!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Time to change the featured images/articles!

What article/images do you guys want featured? :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 13:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Scratchers and Studios
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 15:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I like Studios; thanks!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem :)
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 15:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

How about File:() = ().png due to its usefulness in Scratch? Or File:404 Image.png because of its unique depiction of Scratch?
By the way, do we have a list of already featured images somewhere?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Good bot vs bot idea

Suppose someone makes a bot intentionally that pretty much wipes out 200 Wiki pages. Someone should have coded the ability for a bot to revert the last 10-20 or parameter-specified edits to counter this.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll code that into WMB.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Give That Task to That Bot!

Since we have two bots, we NEED to have a vote on what areas of the wiki the bot should do! Initially,

  • WikiMonitor looks at the recent edits and changes edits made by users that are bad
  • VoxBot cleans up the wiki

Since we sometimes have predicaments on which bot should do what task, we should have a vote to see which areas of the wiki each bot covers! No stepping outof those boundaries, bots! Please add some thoughts! Thanks!

For WikiMonitor

  • Editing recent edits for anything

For VoxBot

  • Find/replace words on all wiki pages

for ThisIsAnAccount

  • Organize categories

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well you need to leave some bot tasks for others, too. Unfortunately, Blob8108's client is broken, and making my own hasn't been going too well. :(
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey, did you see the new posts at #Categorizing redirects?? It is very important :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I think I will designate my bot for category-related automation. But it may be a long time before it is up-and-running...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean it will automatically categorize pages? oh yeah, do you want to also make your bot clear all redirect categories or do it now?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I'll eventually program that.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so final verdict, you will remove the redirects! Great! We will wait for you. :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Be ready to wait a long, long time. :P :p :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Scratch Day to the News

^^ Happy Scratch Day!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Happy Scratch Day everyone! :)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

WM Source Code

If anybody wants to see the WM source code, check it out.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)\

Am I Active?

Do I seem active, or do I look like one of those people who request an account and never do anything with it?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Define active.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 22:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen you before, are you new?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

You've made some edits today and in the past, so I'd say you're semi-active.
As for Swampert, Swampert joined sometime in March this year, so they're not new by now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 15:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
You are active, but not as active as some other people are on scratch; about as active as me.--
Typemaster (talk | contribs) 00:09, 26 May 2014 (UTC)typemaster
I'm pretty sure that I'm more than semi-active. it?

Krett12 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the purpose of editlockedpages and uploader groups?

What is the purpose of editlockedpages and uploader group and why their is no one in either groups?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 18:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

See Scratch Wiki: editlockedpages,Scratch Wiki:uploader ! (I'll update uploader page later O:-) ) currently, there is no use for being an uploaded or being placednin editlockedpages, and that is why no one is in each group :) we mainly use the groups Scratch Wiki:Users,Scratch Wiki: Experienced Wikians,Scratch Wiki:Administrators and Scratch Wiki:Bureaucrats :}
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to work on the Scratchblocks article?

In this forum thread, some Scratchers are suggesting changes to the Scratchblocks page. Anyone want to work on it?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Block Plugin/Syntax#Hacks
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Sure, I will.
JayceeMinecraftlogo.png JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It's already there.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Ah, indeed, thanks!
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

blob8108's forum archive

A wild mirror of the forum archive appeared! Should we replace the links to the archived forums with this?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

We should.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
But what if blob takes it down at some point?
You know what we should really have? A template for linking to the old forums, with the URL, so that it can be automatically updated. And obviously a bot to put it out there...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No. It's entirely temporary and will go away at some point.
What would be really helpful is to replace all the links of the form viewtopic.php?pid= with the redirected version. If the archive doesn't have to support post links, it makes it much simpler to host.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

More WM problems

Yes, I know it seems like WM is like the Los Angeles Metro Blue Line in that they bot crash a lot (sorry, I'm a subway nerd). Anyway, there will be some more downtime because the bot is inexplicably stopping during the middle of operation. I am guessing it's an infinite loop somewhere, but I'm not sure. It might also be the API output caching. The issue is that it happens after several hours of operation.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Should we create an article about the spam in the Suggestions forum?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 02:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to do so either.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Should we create an article about the current MP3 glitch?

There is a current MP3 glitch going on on the site. Should we make an article about it, and how to turn MP3's into WAV's for Scratch to use? After the glitch is fixed, we could change it to a place in the history part of the Scratch 2.0 article.
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 11:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't usually create articles about issues.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 11:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that this will kind of be a tutorial of how to get past the glitch with Audacity, a program.
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 12:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Maybe you could put it in Sound or Sound File Format.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I use iTunes to fix it; much easier. Plus we already have Sound Editor#Converting a Sound to MP3 Format in iTunes
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 13:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's really notable. We don't have articles on bugs unless they are really big, and become a part of Scratch history.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Turkey3 The MP3 glitch is a glitch where you can't import MP3's.
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Mathfreak231 Thank you! :D
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 20:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The glitch is now fixed.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, this glitch has been happening for me for around 6 months. I've been converting the audio to a .wav file for me to use in projects. Also, the bug is fixed now. :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 15:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Merge Motor Blocks with Lego WeDo Blocks?

I think Motor Blocks and LEGO WeDo Blocks should be merged and Motor Blocks should redirect to the other. They're about the same feature in different versions of Scratch, and it's confusing having them on separate articles. Does anyone agree with this?
Djdolphin (talk | contribs) 22:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Aren't those pages ST-maintained?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the only ST member who edited either of those pages was Natalie, who added information for obtaining the blocks in 2.0 on the Motor Blocks page. The LEGO WeDo Blocks page gives you the same exact information, though.
Djdolphin (talk | contribs) 22:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree.
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 11:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that I've taken a look, the two pages do look similar enough to be merge able. I also agree that Motor Blocks should be the redirect because LEGO WeDo Blocks seems like a more official title, and Motor Blocks is the more outdated of the two.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


Add dach to the interwiki table.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 18:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with using de?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:43, 31 May 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)


How do you make something redirect to a page?
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 15:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Read this.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Lucario621 Active?

Is Lucario621 still active on Scratch or the Scratch Wiki?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 00:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Your nest bet is to comment on scmb1's profile if you want a bureaucrat.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki for Fools

I saw the Un-Scratch Wiki, and I just had to do something like it.

Anyone can edit it, just do whatever you want!

Here's the address.

Fresh and new, no articles made yet.

Come and be a part of it!
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 02:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The Community Portal is for questions, not advertising pages. Please remember that.
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 11:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, if you want people to improve an existing page or range of pages (as is the case here), you are allowed to comment it on the CP. Otherwise, how are you going to let people know? Anyway, since Krett12 is still fairly new by Wiki standards, I'm not sure if hosting the AF Wiki in his/her userspace is the best idea. The idea is that the user whose userspace is used is in control, and I think it would be better if that were a more experienced user.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
We can always continue to use mine.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree that continuing to use Mathfreak231's username subspace would be better because not only do we have a more experienced wikian, but it's not entirely certain we'll be starting from Scratch with the AF articles. In that case, why bother moving all those pages when their current location fits them well?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's fair to say he is more experienced than I am just because be has been around longer than I have. Plus, I called it first :P. But seriously, I am willing to let anybody edit, in which case I think mine would be good. However I am open to suggestions.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry everybody

I apologize for flooding Recent Changes with some accidental blanked pages. The issue has been resolved.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Going into Read-Only mode soon, for update

Hey everyone- I'm going to put this in read-only mode in a few minutes because I'm going to backup the database and do some updates.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 17:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the downtime, but it's back. We're now updated to mediawiki version 1.22.7. Let me know if you find any problems.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Looks nice! The editing interface is a lot slicker. The one concern I have is that the edit section buttons were moved to the left, rather than being right-aligned.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree; the new interface does look slicker and simpler! By the way, do you know if this update fixes the bug where you couldn't delete images?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not know. Probably your best bet is to try it out. :)
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope, file deletion has not been fixed. I'm still getting the error: "Error deleting file: Could not create directory "mwstore://local-backend/local-deleted"."
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Could you try again?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The new interface does look better and I like how a message appears once you make an edit, but I do not like how the table of contents on some pages change.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Could you give me some examples? Maybe some screen shots and/or links?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 13:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Scratch Wiki:Bots the toc is stretching to the right too much! :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
here I uploaded a file
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It also does does that on this page and I do not like it that the table of contents goes under an image.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think this happens on all pages.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 23:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Help Page

Why you cannot access the help page in the navigation section?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes Fixed.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Who changed the log-in page?

I like it!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the new log-in page was part of the update.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 02:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
But now it doesn't have a link to sign up. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Woops! I'll look into that.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 13:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, I just added the link- but it's a janky solution. I'll look into making it prettier, but that should work for now.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Right-aligning [edit] link

With a few votes in favor, i will edit the skin to change that. So far jvvg and I want it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds good to me.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 13:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I also like the right-aligning [edit] link, but then again, I have seen several pages where the right-aligned [edit] link is covered up by images. If that's fixed, then I would support right-aligning [edit] links.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I may have fixed file deletion

I think. Try it out and let me know!
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 17:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Presumably admin-only? Anyway, some admin, get on Category:Broken_Images
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh yep, admin only.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I just deleted an image, so it's Experienced Wikians as well. Anyway, great job Scmb1! Thanks for all of the work!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Awesome! :)
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

EWs and Admins: Let's delete broken images!

We can now delete files, so please delete a few of the broken images. Hopefully we can get rid of all of them soon.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

And the image deletion is done!
Should we delete broken images?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Since we no longer have any use for it, I'm going to do that now. I will also delete the template.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Coming Soon: ThisIsAnAccount actually doing something

I just found out about UrlFetchApp in Google Scripts, and I figured it might be a good way not only to use the wiki API, but also set it to run while I'm away.

Anybody oppose the idea of using a Google script?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

it's ok, but I think it all depends on the scripting of the bot itself.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
As long as it works properly, I'm ok with it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Do we need to do the bot approval process?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Given that Mathfreak is an admin who has demonstrated a fair amount of programming experience, he probably doesn't need the same scrutiny that others do. However, he still should make sure the community is ok with the various tasks you want to do with his bot before writing them.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 11:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm probably a bit behind, but what are you using the Google Script for?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 13:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, the only task that I can think of off the top of my head is taking off the redirect category from >1000 redirects.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Scratch_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_65#Categorizing redirects?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, the source code can be found here.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Please consider Scratch Wiki:Bots/Areas to make sure than when you are adding more bot functions to the bot, that it is not a duplicate of other peoples' bots! thanks! (we dont want that many bots that do the same things)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Speaking about bots, I'll run my bot today. It hasn't been run for soo long :P
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Bots are getting popular

I was planning on making a bot approval page, so proposed bot discussions can be hosted there. I was thinking that because old bot discussions therefore can be archived separately. Here, I'll start the page here.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to do Scratch Wiki:Bot Requests? If you're ok with it, I'll start that page now.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh I was planning on working on it first from my subpages then copy and pasting, but sure you can start it
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ps, clearly my language skills are down right now ---
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok I got it started feel free to change the english
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Shall we archive the discussions one by one, or maybe five to one page? And also, I was thinking of archiving all the discussions, even the smallest ones. Do you agree or disagree? And, I think we should just create a sub page of the main page and name each archive /archive1, /archive2 or something. Then, we can have an arcive toc like the one in the community portal! Sorry for all the questions, jsut want to see if you agree to all of them :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the archive naming, as well as archiving everything. I think that instead of having a stead fast number of discussions per archive page, we should do it by length like we currently do it in the CP. It wouldn't make sense to archive one little discussion, and it wouldn't make sense to wait for a fifth discussion when there's already 4 long ones.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, I think that is an even better idea! I don't know, I think it is better to put one discussion into one archive page, or maybe not?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's have jvvg comment.
By the way, in the bot table of Scratch Wiki:Bot Requests, maybe a Bot Use column would be helpful?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks!!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think it's better to do one archive page. This will simplify things a lot.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Do you mean one discussion one archive page?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No, I mean all discussions one archive page.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh I see. Ok, great! We'll archive it once it gets too long. However, what are we going to do with done discussions still on the main page? use {{Collapse top}}?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We can just keep them there until the discussion is finished, then archive them.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, one thing to note: don't worry about WM notifying you about rapid editing the bot request page. I added it to the unconditional ignore list. Anyway, I'm off to bed now. I will work on this more tomorrow.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, it's ok! I have nobots, but I rather remove it now cause it serves no real purpose other than to keep my talk page clean :) Good night! > Oh I see what you mean, wait until the discussion is over, then place in the archive page. Nice idea! Are we going to leave the table as-is when a discussion is archived? I personally think so :-)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking also archive table rows.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 10:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


are we still deleting all the images on Special:UnusedFiles? a while before, we decided to add the brokenimage template to all of these files, and those files got deleted, so are we deleting these files as well?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably, although one or two of them still look useable.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Ahh ok :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

do subpages need categories?

just wondering because I realized that Scratch Wiki:Bots/Areas has no category
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it should.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Should we make a category for bots since we now have a bunch of bot pages?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:04, 6 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)
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)

Archive CP?

Getting a bit long.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not even 50k yet.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I would agree with Turkey3. This page does seem a bit long, although I would be fine with a bit longer of a CP.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Two Things About The New Footer.

1. We Need To Update The Copy On The Scratch Wiki.
2. We now have our own button on the main site. Should that be on Scratch Wiki News?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 12:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, added the new footer. How's it look?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 19:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. But maybe we don't need the SW button ON the wiki.
Good point-- but I added it for consistency. What do others think?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I like the consistency, but instead of having the link stay blue, maybe it could be blackened to indicate that you're already on the Scratch Wiki?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

TOCs fixed now?

I made a teeny edit to the skin that hopefully makes the Content tables look like they used to. Can someone verify that?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 13:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Note: you may need to clear your cache to see it.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 13:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I found no difference :( I am still on my iPad and the tocs look very vrey big ':)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Huh. Are you sure you cleared your cache? It looks like this for me:
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Nvm for some reason clearing my cache took 5 minutes to work thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The TOCs are fixed for me too.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for rejecting bots

What should the criteria for rejecting a bot request be? I think it should be at least 3 posts disapproving and at most 2 posts approving by someone other than the user requesting.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

if there is a formal vote, i think >80% is a good place to start. Otherwise, it depends on the content of the discussion
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
However, often it can be established in the discussion that a bot is not necessary, and in that case a vote would be a waste of time.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
yeah, so far we haven't had a formal vote yet :( if the discussion has majority say no, then reject. Otherwise, take a vote?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good. I am going to reject the archive bot, but there is still potential for the other one.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WM checking for signatures in articles

The Wiki guidelines state that we shouldn't sign articles. New users often don't know this. Should I make WM check for that?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. Nothing but discussions should really have them.
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 20:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, Scratch Wiki:Bots is a hybrid page. However, I would only look in the mainspace.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiMonitor Rapid Edit Ignore List

At User:WikiMonitor/Configuration/PublicRapidIgnoreList, you can submit pages that will be temporarily (for now until I manually clear the list) ignored when checking for excessive edits to one page. There are sometimes cases where one page needs a lot of quick edits, so I created that page to facilitate that. However, userpages are absolutely not allowed on that list (I specifically programmed WM to ignore them if added).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:38, 6 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)

Welcome Sandbox

I'm gonna make the "Welcome New Scratchers" page have its own little mini-sandboxes along the way. If anyone doesn't like this idea, feel free to let me know.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Why would it be? Please don't do things like this without getting some approval first.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I also don't think it's necessary. Users can just use the Wiki sandbox. As Sci said, wait for someone else to give an opinion before starting.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we fix autoconfirmed?

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)

Is Scratch Hacked!!!!!!!!!!!

Google "Scratch". What I saw was "Banned from Scratch" instead of the typical "Scratch? File:Hacked Scratch.png
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP of the Google crawler probably got banned, or maybe there was another mini-IP ban disaster. When visiting the website, the normal title shows up.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
It's gone. hopefully it won't come up in the news.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Featured Images

Could we get the 'Featured Images' changed? They have been up there for like a month. I want to see other images. Thanks!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please suggest an image. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Um... Ok. 1.0 userface.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done. Thanks!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What's the point of having EWs?

I was just wondering. I have gotten a bunch of requests to do stuff involve protecting pages, and I can't do that. I actually had to say that at the top of my talk page to avoid those. Anyway, this brings me to my main point: what's the point of having the EW rank? Before I continue, I am going to list the difference in rights. EWs have the following elevated privileges (from Help:Group rights):

  • Confirm account requests
  • Delete pages
  • Patrol edits
  • Quick rollback edits

In addition, admins have the following rights (I'm only including the important ones):

  • View/recover deleted pages
  • Edit the user interface
  • Have edits automatically marked as patrolled
  • Do stuff related to protection

Anyway, my point is that if someone is qualified to have the EW privileges, why not the admin privileges? It just seems to over-complicate things. There have been several instances where tasks would have been executed much more quickly if EWs could edit protected pages. There have also been many cases when there was a necessary interface change (such as better delete reasons) that I could have easily done myself, but I had to ask an admin. What is the point of having the EW rank, as it gives people some privileges, but often not enough to do what is really necessary. There also isn't really much of a risk - if a user is trusted enough to be an EW, I think that user is also qualified to be an admin. I remember the group was originally created so that extra people could confirm accounts because there were only a few admins. However, now the circumstances have changed (Mathfreak231 and I review almost all of them, and I review the majority).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess the point is because runner-ups in elections maybe not ready for admin yet (not saying that all EWs are not ready)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If it is only used for confirming accounts, then i don't think ews are nessasary.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
If someone is ready for the EW privileges, he/she is probably ready for the admin privileges too. The rank was created due to the circumstances at the time, but the circumstances have changed. I think both ErnieParke and I would work fine as admins. At least in my case, I would actually be a lot more effective because I could make necessary changes myself and not have to ask someone else to do them.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Those are some good points, jvvg.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, I know we originally made the Experienced Wikians because we wanted more people to be able to help with account approval. We try to keep the number of admins to a minimum because, the more admins we have, the riskier it is. In other words, we don't just add admins because being an admin is fun-- we add them when it is really necessary to have more people with the additional permissions.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:15, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Often, it takes days to update the front page (as well as many other admin tasks), and if the current EWs could do those tasks, it would be more satisfactory timewise.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense to me. How many admins are currently active?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I think just Scimonster and Mathfreak231.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 18:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, so would everyone be okay with me making jvvg an admin?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 19:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, he has proven worthy. He is no young padawan but a Jedi.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I am okay with jvvg becoming an admin.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 22:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I hate updating the news, so I'd love to get someone else to do it. But of course that's not the only reason why jvvg should be an admin. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
lol new class: News Updaters
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I would be fine with jvvg becoming an admin. He's proven himself many times, and is quite savvy code wise.
As for jvvg's comment above about both of us becoming admins, I would be fine staying as an EW. As scmb1 said, it's good to limit the number of admins that we have, and jvvg would be better of us two.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with jvvg becoming an admin. :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
jvvg! jvvg! jvvg!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
YES! There is even a speech I wrote to jvvg somewhere in his talk archives
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
ErnieParke, you are so kind!!!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
OK, jvvg is now an admin
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Woo! Thank you for all of your support! I will not let you down.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:39, 11 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)

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


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)

New featured article

We haven't updated the featured article in nearly a month, I think it's time we do so. Any suggestions?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki:Bots :3
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh please no :P maybe
ooh! [1] sorry for link lol iPad
@Turkey3 lol
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.