(How To pages)
(How To pages)
Line 333: Line 333:
:::On Wikipedia, How-to pages are not allowed, so there is a template for articles that sound too how-too-ey, so that the article can be improved. <scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
:::On Wikipedia, How-to pages are not allowed, so there is a template for articles that sound too how-too-ey, so that the article can be improved. <scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
::::But Wikipedia also allows categorizing user pages and dumb categories.<scratchsig>Curiouscrab</scratchsig> 02:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::But Wikipedia also allows categorizing user pages and dumb categories.<scratchsig>Curiouscrab</scratchsig> 02:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
::::While this is a wiki, it doesn't have to work in the same way Wikipedia does :P Anyway, sounds nice! <scratchsig>Chrischb</scratchsig> 06:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:05, 8 February 2013

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
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: 117,525 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).

Please start with Interwiki

No Not done

I just want to remember you of our wish, to start with Interwiki between this english Scratch-Wiki and our german language DACH-Scratch-Wiki, see here and here: We started in 02/2012 and - if you can see here - the DACH-Scratch-Wiki already contains >380 qualified german articles, that are mostly connected to the coresponding english articles, but sadly only in one direction, from German to English and not backwards (Until now we use the so called "Servicekasten" at the end of most german artikles for both: To Link to the cresponing english artikle and for annautomated generated string to copy&paste a link to this artikle in the forum in correct BBCode. Who could help to estblish real Interwiki? -
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 15:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I can do reasonable French translations, but sorry, no German. If you ever make it to French, give me a message. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 16:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't speak german, but you could go to the german language forum on the Scratch Forums
Coinman (talk | contribs) 16:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
No - I did not ask for help with the german wiki - we have the german scratch community to build and enlarge it. I was asking for help to establish a method for linking the english and the german wiki by Interwiki like it is established standard in Wikipedia. This could only be done by the admins... -
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 20:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Will this thread end like the last time, when the german speaking Scratch community asked for Interwiki here some months ago? Some of you sayed "that would be very good" but no responsible person answered and after some waiting the suggestion was achived without any substantiable reaktion...That's not realy motivating for the german speaking scratch community...Does anybody know what to do? -
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 07:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We're actually waiting for the bureaucrats to discuss this and come up with a response, I believe. Apologies for the wait.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I really like the idea and I want to make something happen, but I can't without JSO's approval, and he hasn't really responded to many of my messages lately - so blame him.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I found a user who seems to know German. S/he used German in this project.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We have many members of the German Scratch Community that know German, including me ;-) I know Wilena, she is from Austria (yes, they speak German there too...even in Switzerland they do...therfore our Wiki is called DACH-Scratch-Wiki ;-). Wilena is registered as one of the authors of our http://wiki.scratch-dach.info/, but she didn't write much until now...
Thanks for unarchiving this thread! Yes it's not done...not until Interwiki is established or rejected....-
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 16:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank Scimonster. He recovered this. What took so long for the answer?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As Lucario said, we need to talk to JSO about this and then things can happen. I believe Luc's told me that JSO's busy as well. I don't have contact info for JSO, so basically the most that I (or anyone else really) can do is to bother Luc until he bothers JSO into saying something.
(note: don't bother Luc; leave it to me)
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you can bother JSO at wiki at scratch dot mit dot edu. But leave that to me. :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we do this manually? There seems to be nothing happening. I may not know German, but I know how to use Google Translate. I'll start linking some pages soon if nothing happens.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
We could do it, but we don't know how we should do it, in an organised fashion. Please don't work on this without instruction, or we'll have a bit of a mess.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Most articles have an External Link thing. It can be put there.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Please don't. It's better to do it in an organized fashion, as veggie said. The built-in software will also work better.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Automatic edit summaries

Should the automatic edit summaries have an arrow before them to separate them from custom ones? Like "MediaWiki:Autosumm-blank" here is "Blanked the page", while on Wikipedia it's "←Blanked the page". Specifically, there are four:

Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries
Ihaveamac (talk | contribs) 06:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


Yes Done
Does the wiki have the default photos and costumes that come with Scratch when you download it?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of them. Why?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering. I need a link to the page. I think I'll add the rest of them.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 03:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no page on them, and I don't really think one is necessary and they don't really have much purpose here on the wiki. What would they illustrate or teach?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
So users don't go onto Google images and look through millions of photos for a picture of the MIT building.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Veggieman, the pictures won't help. And Curiouscrab, what are you talking about in your last response?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Some users look up new pictures because they don't know about the defaults. And sometimes I'll be talking to somebody and then they'll be like where'd you get that picture and then I have to explain everything in a complicated way.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think maybe a page explaining where to find them and ONLY A FEW examples of them would be sufficient.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

list of curators, list of SDS's, why not a list of featured and curated?

Yes Done
Title seems long, but it gets my point across. It would be pretty cool to have a list of each. Sorry if there already is a list for each. I couldn't find it. Also, a link to the gallery which contains all the curated and/or featured projects.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We're not trying to advertise the projects, specifically, though. Plus, would we even be able to find all curated projects??
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Veggie. Too "advertise-y" and too hard to find.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a gallery with every single project since curating/featuring first started. Also, click on See more for the featured row and all of them come up.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Still, I don't think we should be encouraging lists of projects. I kind of think we shouldn't have the ones that we have. :\
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
What gallery? There is no gallery for every curated project. One of my projects were curated, and I never got a notice saying that it has been added to a gallery. Also, the featured projects place doesn't have the first curated projects, it only has a certain number of pages, and when a featured project reaches that last page, it is off the front page. It would also be extremely hard. Let's say that someone get curated, and they curate two projects a day, we would have to be editing non-stop.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 22:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Once again I agree with Veggie and Joletole. Too hard to manage, and we don't need a list like this. We already have enough lists :\
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
A list of all featured projects is available here. A list of all curated projects isn't really so important. Why not do all the projects that have ever been on the front page while we're at it? Forum Smiley - Rolleyes.png
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
All the featured projects can be found here.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
@Scimonster Well, I was only thinking the ones that are possible. It was kind of like a user on the wiki trying to see how to get more popular and come across a featured project list and views them all and sparks an idea for a new game or animation to help them out and they can learn from others' scripts and use others' costumes/backgrounds (with permission) and then they stick with Scratch for years to come.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 17:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
@Joletole The editing non-stop thing, well, what edits do you make anyway on the wiki other than responding to my posts? Same with everybody else. This brings up the thing with veggie wanting us to stay away from editing our userpages, but that's all we can do. This would give us a reason to edit for once. All we do right now is find grammar mistakes and fix a picture or two, but not much else. The wiki could be active, not that it isn't already. Maybe a little more active.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 17:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
In the Featured Projects article, you can add a link to the list of featured projects. As for what edits you can make, Scratch 2.0 beta is opening in 7 days. There'll be plenty to edit then!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Says the person who has 34% of there edits on User Talk pages, and 4% on articles.
Also, here are somethings you could do:

Joletole (talk | contribs) 18:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'd recommend that you don't help with/start either of the development articles unless you really know what you're doing because you'd need a whole lot of information that's really hard to find and I'm going to do it so yeah.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
+1 to veggie. I don't know anything about the development. That was my other idea, Scimonster. And Joletole, did you not just hear me talk about there is nothing else to edit other than my userpage and simple grammar mistakes? And at Joletole, you just looked into Recent Changes and chose a random name and made it up. Scratch 2.0 isn't even out yet! You can't create a page without the actual thing out, otherwise it's basically useless until then, and then that's a lot of complicated stuff. Right now, we can all look at veggieman001's page about the development of Scratch 1.0 (no idea what took so long for it's creation) and I can make a either a Disambug (probably not) or redirects for the new page.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
(Well that puts a lot of pressure on him). But, I just hit the random page button, and look where I went: ScratchJr. A page that was never finished. We have a lot of info on this. And also, you, and a lot of other people have access to 2.0. Besides, we are getting really off topic here. Also, im leaving the wiki. Not for good, but im just not in the mood to edit. Sorry.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


Divider 1

Lots of stuff. First divider. I don't have access to 2.0 That's in 7 days. Then I'll use cloud variables and make my own version of multiplayer using long lists to plot the x and y positions of characters in my games so you can have a one-on-one battle and it seems to be multiplayer. Today I discovered how to use the user id blocks to have it so only one user can control a certain sprite so the other user van't cheat and control the other user's character.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
@Joletole My edits outside of my user name space have increased lately and I haven't made an edit on my userpage for a while until today when I fixed something on it. That's probably the last edit I'll make on it until 2.0 comes along.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I thought you signed up. Recently, 500 new testers were added to help test 2.0.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 23:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I was 501.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

articles in progress category

Yes Done
I don't see why this is needed. The template would be on the page and anybody viewing the category wouldn't really be able to use it. All they know is that they can't, or shouldn't, edit those pages at the moment. The category isn't being used for anything. Anybody have something to add/say?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's the same with almost all of those. Why can't we just use the WhatLinksHere page for it? I brought this up a while ago, but it never really got resolved.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Changes article

Yes Done
I have no idea what some of the things mean in recent changes. I can't find any previously existing articles about, or that include, what some of the things mean.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 17:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you confused about?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Why are some numbers in bold (+544)
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Bold numbers indicate a major change in page size.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Yes Done
KrIsMa's Sandbox appears to contain a double redirect. Fix?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, since it's her userspace and not really harming anything.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Lol it's an infinite redirect :D
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

archive dead links

Yes Done
I noticed in the Wanted pages a lot of the pages are caused by pages linked to in the archives. Could the admins remove any red links in the archives whenever a page is deleted or an archive is made?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's preferable to just keep archives as-is, as otherwise they wouldn't be accurate archives.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Yes Done
New template idea ^.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary considering redirects are pretty easy as-is. :\
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It takes a while to create a redirect with the category and stuff. And the test thing was for testing the new template and then it would be a redirect to Scratch Wiki:Sandbox.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want to test the template, do it in your own userspace. And it really doesn't; it's already pretty easy.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Couldn't. It needed a page with nothing on it. I thought might as well test it on a page and then remove it and use the page for something before it becomes a little redirect.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You could've used a page like User:Curiouscrab/Redirect Test or something of the sort.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't like having pages deleted that much, so I try to limit the number of not useful pages I make.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

New curator.

Yes Done

There is a new curator, TeslaKat. An admin needs to update the news.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Yes Done
New template idea. Place to keep all pages that need to be deleted, but an admin can't do so at the time. Link above.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

theres already a template that does exactly what you say, {{Accidentally Created}} .
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be renamed for {{Deletion Request}} and maybe the template changed a little.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I think some new users that just learned about a template called "Deletion Request" might use it on pages that they only THINK are useless, but a template called "Accidentally Created" would be rather left alone by people who don't know what they're doing.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1.x info on Wiki 2.0

No Not done

How are we planning on organizing the info from the current Scratch program and website after they change to 2.0? The main articles (such as Scratch Website) will of course be about 2.0. But how do we show the 1.4 info? Here are some ideas:

Link to the history (Lucario621)
Pros — very little work
Cons — Personally (and according to veggie), this idea is bad. It means it can't be edited, so if there are mistakes, or perhaps we need to update an image, we can't.
Put them in a Scratch 1.x namespace (veggieman001)
Pros — very good organization, not too much work, editable
Cons — won't show up in the wiki's article count, or Special:Random
Keep them in the main namespace, with a name like Scratch Website (1.x) (Scimonster, with a modification by veggieman001)
Pros — will count towards the article count, editable, easy to use
Cons — harder to set up
Have the info on the same page
Pros — easy to do, editable
Cons — potentially a bit confusing

So there are three four different ideas, with some pros and cons of each. I think my idea is best. :P How does everyone else think we should do it? Oh, and remember, please don't start this until we're done.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should do the third but only for major stuff. For minor things (blocks, front page rows, etc. etc.) , the info can coexist.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, i forgot about co-existing. I'll add that to the list. I agree with your view.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Scratch Website 1.4 Easy name. Just like how I moved Scratch Wiki Keys to Scratch Wiki Keys (PC), or somebody else did. I don't see what the problem is with setting it up. Just move the page.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay so with those options, I say we do something that's a combo between 3 and 4.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
We can use the {{Main}} template. Then that links to the new page and a small article is given on the old website. Maybe it could be called Current Scratch Website, that way a little blurb on Scratch Website 1.4 belongs there. An article on the Scratch 1.4 Website doesn't belong in an article about a Scratch 2.0 Website, other than the See also.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically what I'm thinking is there's an article on the 2.0 website, called Scratch Website. Then, there's an article called Scratch Website (1.x), although I'm hoping to figure out a different thing to put in the parenthesis because 1.x is kind of awful (Squeak might work, but it's still kind of meh). For articles like that, and, for example, the paint editor, there'd just be a see also. I don't think {{Main}} is a good idea, just because they're completely separate entities.
For other things, where differences are minor, the information could be incorporated into articles (e.g. with block articles, etc.) If those differences are major enough but still too minor to merit a full articles, they'd probably get a subheading (e.g. website concepts [flagging], etc.) Or at least that's what I'm thinking.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I like how you think. :P Squeak doesn't sound right; after all, the website isn't made in Squeak. :P pre-2.0? old? I sort of like Ccrab's idea of using {{main}}, but not exactly. Maybe we could have a new template (not sure what to call it) saying For historical information (pre-Scratch 2.0), please see [[{{PAGENAME}} (pre-2.0)]].
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I guess that'd work. I think we shouldn't really make the historical thing so prominent, but it's not that important. Also, I think something simple in the parenthetical, like 1.4 or 1.0, is probably best.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
@Sci It's CC. Remember? Also, the new template sounds interesting. Make it in your sandbox so we can see what it would look like or do. Maybe a new category called "History" or "Archives" could generate with the template.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I came up with a name and made a version of it.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

My opinion is we move all the major 1.x pages to --- (1.x). That's easy to scale to all the big pages. Blocks and stuff should just have a little note at the bottom of the same page. I'm willing to help out with this. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree!! Except I don't think it should be (1.x)—that term is never used officially and it could be confusing for new Scratchers. Glad to see you're back to help, though! I was afraid it was gonna be mostly me and Sci :P
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Cool! Yeah, (1.4) may be better. Will you do it like you planned to do sentence case migration?
P.S. Glad to see my highest nonadmin edit count record still stands!
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 05:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I'll probably do it, but once we've totally decided. We still have no bureaucrat support.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
In fact, we had some bureaucrat opposition. 1.x is used on the latest SDS, so now it is official. :P Yay, Hardmath's back!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I like the namespace option as it provides good separation for search engine indexing and a clean structure going forward. As a relatively new Scratch user (most of my experience is with Scratch 2 over the past few months), my entry into the Wiki was via Google searches; it's likely that most new users will stumble upon the Wiki this way as well. Overall, the Wiki was tremendously helpful as a learning tool and I never felt too confused between versions.
It might be considering the Wiki migration process in two phases: (1) The need to support the 1.4 and 2.x communities simultaneously for a couple years (namespacing handles this well); (2) 1.4 is a historical version with very few users (option 1 handles this well).
Also, feel free to ask me questions on my user page if need a newbie perspective on any ideas. This was my first post in the Wiki :)
Learnegy (talk | contribs)


Divider 1

Lots of discussion. @Hardmath123 I'm about 500 edits short of your record. @everyone The whole 1.X thing makes sense. As Sci mentioned above it is in the SDS gallery and is official. Did anybody see the template I created? I still think it could be considered for the 2.0 page. Maybe some stuff could be changed. I realized the category and the words don't go together, which means 2 templates would be needed.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

SDS can't really be considered "official". I still think 1.4 is probably better. And the template is alright, although probably needs some slight tweaking. What do you mean that we'd need two templates? Can't we just categorise pages ourselves?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I guess we could, but the only problem is the text that displays. I fixed my Sandbox so that the templates are correct. They're ready to be put into the Template mainspace. Read the text and you'll see what I mean.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I get it. I don't really think we'd need templates on both of them, though—maybe only on the old one? What does everyone else think? We still don't know if we need this, though; we haven't chosen an option yet. Let's wait and see how this plays out. :)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
IMO, having the info on the same page, but reorganized, is fine. Having the 2.0 info first is better, then having the 1.x stuff in a section called something like "Past Versions" will be great.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
It depends on the goal of the Wiki. If the Wiki is intended to be a learning tool, then discussions about older versions become increasingly confusing to new users over time. If the Wiki is for archival and historical record, then discussing multiple versions on the same page is ok. I find the Wiki more of a learning/documentation tool and would opt to not mix version-specific information on the same page.
Learnegy (talk | contribs)
It seems to be both, though, at least to me.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
+1. I still like #3 and #4 better.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't really like there being a page called "Scratch 1.x" if there are already several pages called "Scratch 1.0", "Scratch 1.1", etc. It seems...I don't know...Repetitive?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's lots of repetitive pages, but nobody worries about them. Actually, being repetitive makes it easier to find things if it's in the same format.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

mod download

Yes Done
Sometimes I have trouble downloading mods. It would be cool if somebody could go in and add in the mod articles how to download and install correctly.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We could perhaps have a page on how to install mods.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Not all mods are the same. It would go along with the images of the Scratch mods. Images of what to click and different things for Windows, Mac, Linux, etc.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 18:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
But they should provide their own technical support then; we can't do everything for them. :\ Providing information about downloading and installing .image files is reasonable, though, along with including a note on each mod's page on its method of install.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


No Not done
If I make projects specifically for the wiki or a certain topic on the wiki, can I add it as an example project? I was just wondering. I might make more example projects for the wiki.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If no, then can I make an account called Scratch Wiki (looked up, not taken yet) and upload projects to there to prevent popularity on my project if the admins think that's what's happening (sometimes admins are skeptical about everything)?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

1) I don't think you should create an account called ScratchWiki or Scratch-Wiki or whatever, just because that would make you seem like an official representative. 2) There usually aren't cases where there aren't example projects for something on the wiki, but we try and find a notable example of one if there isn't. If you have to create an example because you can't find one, perhaps the type of project isn't really notable enough.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
1. Lots of users (including KrIsMa) see me as an official representative because I was the first to help them or their first friend. 2. My latest project here has never been created before and hasn't been added to the animation types page because it is being considered whether or not it's an actual type of animation or an animation tool that would be a whole new article.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
1) I think that lots may be an overstatement. And I don't think that accounts with names like that should really be created or used by anyone except perhaps the bureaucrats, since they're the ones actually in charge. 2) I fail to see how this is relevant. An article such as "animation tool" also wouldn't be necessary unless they were a trend on Scratch, which I see no evidence of.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
1. Then you can tell Lucario621 that in a suggestion. 2. It isn't a trend currently, but that's mostly because the script is very complicated and takes lots of Math, but a wiki article or section would help users incorporate it in projects.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
1) What would the purpose be for such a wiki account? 2) Then that would probably go under a tutorial-type page, not an informational-type page. Writing tutorials is encouraged. :)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:05, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, i thought i was an official representative of the wiki, being an admin and having the highest edit count... I don't think an account is necessary.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)


No Not done
I just received an edit confilct, yet nobody else edited it (at least not according to the Recent Changes).
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

That is because two people were editing and he left without submitting the edit.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Who did?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
(example) KrIsMa goes and edits a page, and still is, when you join after. You submit something when I am not done editing the page. You recieve a edit conflict, yet I do not. I leave without saving the page. That is an example.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but was it you who caused the edit conflict?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
What page was this?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
The page you're posting on right now.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Community To-Do List

No Not done
As many users brought up earlier in past archives of this page, there is nothing to edit (after 2.0 we'll be right back where we are right now) and I was thinking we could make a new category for pages that need work, but aren't stubs or anything, just need maybe rewording or something. Then a page or just have the category with the list so users can go work on those pages and then remove them from the category or add them to another new gallery for admins to check to make sure they are good and then are removed.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki:To-do
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Very outdated.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The point of a wiki is that people can edit things. If it's outdated, we should have a discussion to change it. Lucario, however, will be revamping some structure over the next not too long from now, so we should probably wait until that happens.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for 2.0: revamp text editor

Well, Scratch 2.0 uses a great library called markItUp. I've already played with it (and implemented a color picker for the forums which may be added in a future version), and I know that it's literally trivial to add it to the Wiki. In fact, if you want, I can make you guys a nice changeset with all the files you need so that all that really needs to be done is add <textarea id="somethinghere"></textarea> to the page and you have a markupable box. Support? :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Depends. Will we use it? How will it be used? You have a long paragraph, but we still need to figure out why we need it.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 11:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I find it easier to do <span style="color:COLOR"></span>
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 11:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Interesting idea. Some of the features might be useful, such as the keyboard shortcuts, but what does it really offer that our current edittools don't?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, for one, it's uniformity across the site. New Wikians won't be startled by the purple stuff, they have the tools they remember. You also get keyboard shortcuts, as you mentioned. It can be easily scaled to many other things that I personally feel the need for editools for, like Wiki tables.
The MIU editool bar is much more compact, and it has some drop-down menu items that condense a lot more tools into the same space without confusing users. The current editool bar is a lot more confusing since it's purely symbols that need to be hovered for a while, and anyway a couple of things (like math) are not even supported.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Good point. OK, it does sound nice.
Scimonster (talk | contribs)
Some of the things on ours are completely different, though. And I'd find that really confusing. :'(
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, with the new editor system, we can have a custom set of tags. Basically, it accepts a structure of name, icon, begins with, and ends with under the hood. So "bold", "B", "''' ", " ''' " would be enough to get bold working. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Scratch 2 theme

Should we try to create a theme that looks like the Scratch 2 interface so when it gets properly released the wiki can integrate?
Logiblocs (talk | contribs) 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved this to the Community Portal.
JSO has already made a theme, and i think it's almost done too. You can try it by adding ?useskin=scratch2 (or &useskin=scratch2 if it already has a question mark) to the end of any URL.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Didn't work on this portal.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
You have to do it before the #.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I typed in [1]
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Accidently has extra "r", looked like user instead of use.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Never mind, still not working.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Works here
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: Use ?useskin=scratch2 on page and &useskin=scratch2 when editing.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Then what Sci said still stands true...?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but he wasn't very clear about it other than if the URL already contains a "?".
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
As this is an experimental skin (and you're not even supposed to be using it) you might notive stuff goes weird sometimes. (read: I'm working on it so beware).
JSO (talk | contribs) 21:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


I updated this a long time ago: http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Template:Nutshell Is this a good template or should it get deleted (o.o)?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it can stay for now. I know it's used on Wikipedia quite a bit, and I can see it being used on the Scratch Wiki (though not sure where yet). Thought it would be nice if it was automatically centered. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Mod Section

I think we should have a Mod Section on the front page
Devloper123 (talk | contribs)20:30(GMT) 4th Febuary 213

What do you mean? For featured Scratch Modifications? I disagree.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
No so we could have a whole easier way to find mods
not for featured
Devloper123 (talk | contribs) 5 Febuary 2013 18:01 (GMT)
Please explain more. I have no idea what you're trying to suggest...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
So it'll be easier to find mods, Not featured mods
Devloper123 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 6 Feburary 2013 (GMT)
You mean a list? I think something else would be better such as a block list.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Like the blocks page with the same layout but a diffrent category

Devloper123 (talk | contribs)16:03, 7 Febuary 2013 (GMT)

List of New Blocks Page

No Not done
Should there be a page with a short list of commonly made/used new (dark purple) blocks? There's a list of collabs/companies.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It'd be hard to keep track of all the blocks people use though...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I said most common. Or, if you want, most rare.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it would be cool to do something like this in the future, but I don't think that's something we should really focus on now, especially without a 2.0 block plugin yet. They would, however, be nice as parts of new tutorials.
Also, I honestly don't think there should be collab pages or a list of them and that's something I've been meaning to bring up but I'll probably wait on that for a while.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
And how about that 2.0 hasn't been out very long, so we don't have any data...?
A better comparison would be Most Common Scripts.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That too. :P
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm with veggie on the list of companies/collabs as it gets outdated and it's not very useful other than for fame of companies/collabs. It would make more sense to have those pages on winners of Collab Camp and stuff like that.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


I became curator today!
Joletole (talk | contribs) 01:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, congratulations! :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Nice! You're #99! I updated the news. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Congratz. I didn't notice since I rarely use the 1.4 site anymore.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Scratch modification pages

While I find pages on Scratch modifications in general to be interesting and a worthwhile use of the wiki, I think there should be some sort of rule that says a modification must:

a) be released and downloadable with substantial changes from the main program
b) follow the Scratch Source License / GPL (depending on version)
c) have at least more than a stub's worth of info to make a page about

I feel like these guidelines, or at least similar ones would allow for pages on mods like BYOB/Snap!, Panther, Insanity, Bingo, and others for which there's a lot of information on and many users of while keeping to just the notable ones. Also, if a modification hasn't even been released, how can we know it will be? It's hard to delete the page then, for we'll be continually waiting to see.
I hope all y'allz consider this.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I give some support. But I worked so hard on developing the page for Blook! D:
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That page would probably be able to stay (considering the mod is released and has info about it available), although it would probably be better if it explained the blocks rather than just show them.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been thinking about it too, and i agree.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Possibly make a page called Scratch Modification Guidelines so that I can't just make a duplicate of Scratch using Squeak, but not use the actual program itself.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

block name changes

No Not done
In the last update the if blocks changed their name and the forever if block was dropped.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should wait for a while to see if they keep the changes; occasionally they'll just try something out and then revert it later. We don't want to be too hasty.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
In general that is wise! And it is possible this could get reverted - but I think it's pretty unlikely. If I hear anything to that effect, I'll ping you guys.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 19:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How To pages

As we get closer to the release of Scratch 2.0, one of our goals is to integrate the wiki more tightly with the rest of Scratch. Towards that end, Natalie, Ricarose, scmb1, JSO, Lucario621 and I have been having conversations about the issues this brings up.

Before we start diving into the details of the transition, we think it makes sense to step back and think broadly about the goals of the wiki. It seems like there are two major ones:

1. To support Scratchers with Scratch related stuff. 2. To document all things about Scratch.

These are both great goals, but they don't always mesh. One example is the Translating Scratch (website) page. This page is trying to describe lots of things related to translation, while also trying to support new translators learning how to use the translation system. The two purposes get in each other's way, and can make things wordy and confusing - especially for new or less technical users. The same can be said about the Paint Editor page - which combines a description of raster and vector graphics along with tips for using the 2.0 editor.

So we're proposing that we make this distinction more clear on the Wiki by creating a new category: How To. How To pages will be focused on showing how to do things in the simplest, clearest possible way, with an audience of inexperienced Scratchers in mind.

To do this, we’re making a How To category on the wiki. How To pages will be made distinct from other pages by the presence of an image in the upper left column on the page (mocks coming soon). They may also be titled somewhat differently -- i.e. “How to Translate the Scratch Website”, or “How to use the Paint Editor.” How To pages may be written directly addressing the reader as “you.” These pages will contain links back to their equivalent general information pages (i.e. Translating Scratch (website) and Paint Editor), in case readers want more information. We’ll be making guidelines for editing them soon, but the plan is that the How To pages will be written with a ‘less is more’ philosophy. Anything that could confuse or disorient someone with less technical background should not be on placed on a How To.

There’s lots of others news / updates about the wiki coming soon (updates to the backend and to the page design to match 2.0), but we thought we’d start with this update. Let us know if you have questions!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 19:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea, but how come i haven't heard about about this until now?
I've long warred with myself over this very problem, and i'm glad that it's being addressed.
This actually seems pretty similar to the FAQ — both geared towards newbies (mostly); both are written in second person; both have a special category and look. Any chance they could be connected more?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. I think we should make what this little icon would look like first if we do decide to do this. Somebody's sandbox maybe, or the Scratch Wiki:Sandbox. Also, maybe add on those "confusing pages" with Template:Main so that it helps clear up some things. Maybe split those pages in half if need be. One thing though, how long would we have the title of the page? Would we go for shortest to have an easy URL or lengthy so a search for it would more likely come up with that page?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, How-to pages are not allowed, so there is a template for articles that sound too how-too-ey, so that the article can be improved.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
But Wikipedia also allows categorizing user pages and dumb categories.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
While this is a wiki, it doesn't have to work in the same way Wikipedia does :P Anyway, sounds nice!
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)