(Pages that need to be deleted)
(Trouble finding things to edit)
Line 341: Line 341:
Hey, I'm having a bit of trouble finding pages to contribute to and help fix on this wiki. I've tried pressing the random page button a view times, but to no luck. Do you guys know of any pages I could help fix up?<scratchsig>Tierage</scratchsig> 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm having a bit of trouble finding pages to contribute to and help fix on this wiki. I've tried pressing the random page button a view times, but to no luck. Do you guys know of any pages I could help fix up?<scratchsig>Tierage</scratchsig> 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
:[[Scratch Wiki:To-do]]. You could also try participating in some of the above discussions. <scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
:[[Scratch Wiki:To-do]]. You could also try participating in some of the above discussions. <scratchsig>Mathfreak231</scratchsig> 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
::Okay, I'll take a look around.<scratchsig>Tierage</scratchsig> 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
== Pages that need to be deleted ==
== Pages that need to be deleted ==

Revision as of 23:30, 13 October 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
101 102 103
If you do not think a discussion is done, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.
Size of Community Portal: 102,893 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).

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 Neat For Some Things As A List.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs)
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)
Yeah, the collab page totally makes me cry every time i hit Special:Random and it comes up :(
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 11:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while. Should we begin to collect data?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought of this. I already tried a bit in my sandbox. I say, DO IT.
Hexagon400 (talk | contribs) 18:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Well if somebody could tell me how we are going to collect data on unique custom blocks, we can do this. Otherwise, "useful" or "commonly used" custom blocks are totally opinion.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just look at different projects and see what comes up common. I know jump is very popular, but comes in many forms.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Well how will we find consistent blocks? And which projects would we look at?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a better idea to make tutorials for specific blocks rather than having a page for a list of common ones.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

template ranking

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

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

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

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

Spanish Wiki?

Spanish is a pretty popular language, and think about almost all of the entire South America and lots of North America: all those people speak Spanish. We have a German wiki, but why not a Spanish one? I know a Scratcher who is very fluent in bot languages: armique. Maybe we could start one?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 3:03 p.m. July 8, 2013

I think the ST would say the same thing they told the German Wiki founders - start off on your own, then we'll see. Martin Wollenbrenner is holding a talk about starting new Scratch Wikis at the 2013 European Scratch Conference in Barcelona - perhaps you could talk to him then.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
To work together to get a Scratch-Wiki in your native language (if it's not English or German) get in contact with us at: Session 74T-10. If you are a group of >4 very interested Scratchers of your native language, we would like to help you starting with our experiences and ressource even before the Scratch2013BCN starts: Please write us to: info[ät]scratch-dach[dot]info.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
@Sci MartinWollenweber, not Martin Wollenbrenner.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Find some pictures of 2013 European Scratch Conference here.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 06:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Images in tables are being squished

Yes Done For example:

Document stub.png This article is a stub. It may be incomplete, unfinished, or have missing parts/sections. If the article can be expanded, please do so! There may be suggestions on its talk page. (Date?)
Warning.png This article or section is currently undergoing major changes. Please avoid largely modifying this page's contents until this template has been removed. (Date?)
Clock.png This article or section contains information about a feature from a future version of Scratch that is unreleased and is subject to change. Please cite any additional info in order to prevent speculation.

Notice that in all of these, the image on the left side is squished by the long text on the right. Some sort of CSS should be added to the skin to prevent this from happening. What I do for now is instead of using the MediaWiki table syntax, I just use standard HTML <table> tags and add style="width:30px" to the <td> tag with the image. However, this should still be fixed in the skin.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really look squished to me.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
For me it looks squished. I remember I had the same issue on my sandbox with an image, but I fixed it by specifying the width of the text squishing it. I assume setting the width of the image would also work.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Squished for me, too. Good idea, set the width.
Edit: On one of the templates, I set the width to 23 pixels, but it turned out as like 250 pixels! Weird.
Edit: not to mention, but the outlines of the images need thickened. Know what I mean?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It is squished for me. I am running Google Chrome V29.0.1547.32 on Ubuntu (Linux) 13.04.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Squished here. Chrome on Windows 7.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Good catch! I might be able to look into this later in the week, but I'm very busy. If you'd like to give it a try, fork it on github.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I edited the CSS to remove the max-width parameter and it fixed this. Here's hoping I didn't break anything else.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Block Category Images

Are we adding the images for the block category bars? Those bars that when you click them changes the category? I'm not sure what they're really called. I didn't see anything talking about the bar.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think those are called the block palette categories, and there already seems to be an article&image on them here: Block Palette
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought the block palette was where all the blocks were, not the categories. Maybe upload individual images for each article (Motion, Events, etc.).
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought, too. I call the area displaying the actual blocks the palette, and the other area just the block categories section. Wouldn't life be easier if we had official names?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Well (@Cruiouscrab) I didn't mean a whole article was devoted to them, but that there already was something somewhat on them. I should've also added the Blocks category, but that's a bit too late...
Also (@Turkey3), I said that those were the block palette categories, not the block palette itself.
Anyway, now that that's hopefully cleared a little on my part, I really don't think these need an article because most of what can go there is already in either Block Palette of Blocks. On the other hand, though, images on the individual block category buttons sounds like a good idea.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Still, we could use the images.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Other rights for E.W.'s

No Not done

I feel that scmb1 left out a few rights to Experienced Wikians when she created the user group. So I put together a wikitable of new rights and reasons for why other E.W.'s and I should have them:

New Right Reason
Editing protected pages/files (i'm not sure this one is a user right) So we can get to problems faster, since you deemed us "experienced". I'm pretty sure I'm the most active user at this level, and I'd sure like to get to these things more quickly. An example is File:TOC blocks.png, where I had to have scimonster unprotect/reprotect the file.
Protecting/unprotecting pages/files (protect) Again, since I'm more active, I'd like to be able to protect a page if it needs protection, for example archiving CP discussions.
Have edits automatically patrolled (autopatrol) Because nobody bothers to use the patrol feature anyways, and we are "experienced" and all... I'd really like to see less red !'s in Recent Changes...
View deleted pages and undelete them (deletedhistory, deletedtext, and undelete) What if one of us makes a mistake in deletion, and nobody is around to fix it? Also, undeleting broken files is better than creating them. And sometimes, I'm just REALLLLLLLLLLYYYYY curious what was in there... >:D
Unblock ourselves (unblockself) This is actually kinda stupid, but I'm just reminding everybody of it.

If I seem a bit greedy, you can judge, I just felt that what veggieman001 said in the original discussion was too little, but what Scimonster said was overwhelming. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to use unblockself, as i don't have block. The first and second are both under the protect right. Besides for unblockself, i think all of the rest would be OK.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Having those rights the user group is pointless and we might as well call you admin/sysop.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
@CC Like I said, I don't want to be overwhelmed quite yet XD
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you already overwhelmed yourself.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think that the editing protected stuff would be useful, as it is protected to prevent people from vandalizing it or making unnecessary changes, but we are experienced enough that we know what should go on there. I don't think protecting pages is necessary, as with autopatrol. I think that viewing deleted stuff is important though, since we can delete pages, we should be able to view deleted pages as well.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When clicking a link in search dropdown, it should take me directly to the page rather than the search page

Whenever I click a link in the search auto-complete dropdown, it takes me to the search page (searching for the thing I clicked). Once there, I click the top link ("There is a page named User:Jvvg on this wiki") and it takes me to the page. However, on the old skin, if I clicked the dropdown item, it took me straight to the page without the search page in between, thus eliminating a step and saving everyone time. I don't have much experience with MediaWiki, so I couldn't find how to do this looking through the skin (I really was just fixing HTML errors), but if somebody with more experience editing MediaWiki skins can figure that out, that would be great.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:28, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that, too.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 17:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Template for Advanced Tutorials

The "How To" template/category thing says it is written to be easy to understand for beginners. However, that is not the case in all tutorials. I just made the page Checking if a String Contains a String, and I have the "How To" at the top. However, it says it is written for beginners, but really, do you think a beginner would understand that? I tried my best to describe the script, but even that can't do the justice. Maybe there should be a template that notes pages that are more advanced tutorials? That somewhat aren't fully fit for beginners.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Interesting problem. Any page categorized as a How To page shows that message. We want How To pages to be guides aimed at new users. So, more advanced topics might not fit in the How To category. Perhaps, of you don't think a topic is for new users, you could categorize it as a Tutorial rather than a How To page. Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with putting them in Tutorials.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I also support because it doesn't fit into How To (unless we updated the template to say "beginners", "intermediate scratchers", or "advanced scratchers"), and it doesn't really merit it's own category. So I support as well.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think splitting the template into levels of experience would seem mean to the readers somehow... :\
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see that, though it would also become a bit hard to define the difficulty levels. Something hard to someone might not be hard to another user. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

2 Articles on Grids

When I created the page Implementing Grids, I never realized there was the page Snap to Grid. I searched "Grid" and didn't find it and it wasn't in the scripting tutorials page. So, what should we do with these two articles? Merge them? Both have their own advantages I think to each other.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

One of them is a tutorial and the other one is an info page, so I think they should be kept. But don't trust me: it's only my second day here
Scratchisthebest (talk | contribs) 21:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
They should both be kept.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, they both sound like tutorials, and they should be merged.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

HTML Plugin

We have it on the DACH-Wiki.

  • Using <img src="imagename"> rather than uploading user images/files
  • Is a real programming language which many, including me, know
  • Also allows PHP (not sure what you could use that for anyways)
  • Links
  • Easier template creation

If anyone else can think of other things, mention them.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It allows PHP? In that case, you could do something like <?php echo file_get_contents('/var/www/wiki/mysqlinfo.php'); ?> or whatever the file with the database specs is. You could also do the MediaWiki equivalent of this: <?php $db->query('TRUNCATE TABLE users'); ?>, which would delete all of the users. One of the very first rules in web security is that you NEVER allows users to submit server-side code, because it only takes one person to completely destroy your site. The rest of it seems ok, though.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, that'd work well. Says the person with absolutely no knowledge of HTML. You have to realise that there are younger editors who don't know HTML.
Chocolatepenguin (talk | contribs) 06:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought you could link external images anyway? And jvvg's right that allowing PHP is far too dangerous.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Only trusted users are on the wiki. Also, jvvg mentioned you can already do that with Mediawiki.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You'd trust wiki users with your password?! O_o
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Only by Email as non-wiki members can still view the wiki and the page source without logging in. :P
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Although Scratch has a good reputation, you always want to be safe and can't trust everyone, even people who seem responsible and honest.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Not Scratch, but the Scratch Wiki. Also, I think you can disable PHP. It doesn't work on the DACH Wiki.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Index Magic Word on Scratch Wiki Home

Yes Done

Should an admin add __INDEX__ to the front page?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

What does __INDEX__ do?
Chocolatepenguin (talk | contribs) 10:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's supposed to ask search engines to index the page. I don't see the need, as it already gets indexed.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't. I did a Google search and the only pages that came up were Scratch Wiki and Scratch, which I manually indexed.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki Home/News vs. Scratch Wiki:Current Events

The only key difference I've noticed is that C.E. has it divided into sections, which doesn't change much. Do you guys think it'd make a difference deleting one of them? My opinion is that we should get rid of Current Events and change MediaWiki:Currentevents-url to say "Scratch Wiki Home/News".
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

They have different information, although I don't know if that's intended or not.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I never really knew myself what the point of the C.E. is. Maybe for going further back than on the main news? I wouldn't delete it though, Lucario might get mad at you. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
When was the last time Lucario ever did anything on the wiki, anyways? I haven't seen him around in a while.
Again, the only difference I really see is that CE is divided into sections, which again isn't much of a difference.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Luc's been busy, I believe. I can ask him why there are too different pages next time I talk to him, though.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we Clear TOC Links of 1.4-Only Features?

On the TOC are many links to things such as MESH that only apply to Scratch 1.4. Should we rid of these links?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Depends; if it's a page about the Scratch program, then yes. If it's a list of mods, or something not version orientated, then they don't need to be removed. By the way, which ToC page did you find MESH in?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it was in the program, not sure, but thanks. I'll go clean up some, then.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
I think enough people still use 1.4 that they're probably worth keeping.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with this; plenty of schools & things do.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay. I guess I'll revert the changes, unless I make a 1.4 restrictive section. Do you think that' same better idea? Kind of like how in the blocks section we have 1.4-only ones?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess Scratch 1.4 is more prominent then I had originally though. Anyway, since we have a section for blocks removed in 2.0, why not add a page on 1.4 website stuff, if we keep it? So go ahead. Also, when you do, could you add Ignore List?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you referring to creating a whole new page or adding the stuff in a separate division box to the pages already there? In total, about only 10 links were removed.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Image and Category Name Consistency

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

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

How should I process spam account requests?

I just got an account request where the request notes were "Cause i want to contribute". I view that as spamming the form, as the user completely disregarded the instructions outlining what to put there. For that specific case, I followed the standard account rejection procedure (reject request, comment on user profile explaining why). Out of the following three options, which do you all think would be best? 1. Standard rejection procedure 2. Don't comment on the user's profile explaining why, or 3. Comment on the user's profile asking them not to spam the requests?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, I'd say 2. I think it's best to just ignore it and he or she will eventually forget about it. If they were really serious about wanting to contribute, they would have read the account request information. I would not do 3, because I don't interpret it as spam as much as random letters and such, and it might confuse him or her.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, sometimes users are really eager to create an account that they just forget about the rest of the article. I wouldn't think of it as spamming if it's the user's first request. Just tell them to read the requirements and such next time.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
As MF says, follow standard procedure. It doesn't take long to leave them a comment, and if it becomes a serious problem (they noticeably make many requests), then it can be dealt with then.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like it if the news' title didn't scroll.

When you scroll down on the news the title "Scratch News" disappears as well. I think it should be changed so the title always appears whether you're right at the bottom or at the top. If we changed the code to:

<div style="border:1px solid #E0E0E0;-webkit-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;box-shadow:0 2px 3px rgba(34, 25, 25, 0.5);margin:0px 0px 20px;padding:0px;background-color:#FFFFFF;width:56%;"> <div style="height:20px;padding:7px 20px;position:relative;background-color:#F7F7F7;font-size:1.5em;text-align:center;border-bottom:1px solid rgb(224, 224, 224);">Scratch News</div><nowiki> <table cellpadding=0><tr><td><div style="padding:5px;height:500px;overflow:auto;float:left"> {{:Scratch Wiki/News}}</div></td></tr></table> </div>

which makes: Template removed by owner because I want to be able to use my sandbox for other things

Sorry for that being all scrunched up, visit User:EH7meow/Sandbox where the code isn't mashed up.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: I made the template get its contents from my new sandbox because after an old announcement was taken off the main news it wasn't long enough to properly demonstrate scrolling.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, this should be updated, but we need Mathfreak231 to do that. Also, I just found a bug linked to your scrolling: http://i39.tinypic.com/2q1xmdj.png
The scroll bar overlaps the blue tool bar at the top of the page. Is this happening with you as well?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't happen for me, but I'm on Windows so IDK if that has anything to do with it.
I tried adding your code (with a slight tweak for floating) and tried to make the height right so it would align with the others, but the text just overflowed off the bottom. Do you think you could make it so the whole thing is 500px?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
So it was the height that was the problem? I tried redoing the front page in my sandbox but it was messed up and I don't think what happened had anything to do with the height. If you could tell me what your fix with floating was then I could have another go.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I did it (hopefully)! What I did was I made the code:
<div style="border:1px solid #E0E0E0;-webkit-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;box-shadow:0 2px 3px rgba(34, 25, 25, 0.5);margin:0px 0px 20px;padding:0px;background-color:#FFFFFF;width:56%;float:left"> <div style="height:20px;padding:7px 20px;position:relative;background-color:#F7F7F7;font-size:1.5em;text-align:center;border-bottom:1px solid rgb(224, 224, 224);">Scratch News</div> <table cellpadding=0><tr><td><div style="padding:5px;height:450px;overflow:auto;float:left"> {{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo}}</div></td></tr></table> </div>
If you add this code in remember to replace {{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo}} at the bottom with {{/News}}
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Looks nice! Just do that for all the other boxes and we're good.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Done. I don't think this is necessary for the other boxes, TBH. When do they need to scroll?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The only other one that needs to scroll currently is "Featured Images" but I think it would be better if the images were small enough to not have to scroll.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 07:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's hard to "feature" an image if it's small as can be. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Warning / Info templates look funny

The text looks like it runs onto the Info or Warning! label.

Can anyone with more CSS experience than I do fix this?
Scratchisthebest (talk | contribs) 19:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I could fix it, but I don't see the issue on my end. What are you using OS and browser wise?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Google Chrome. Happens on android version and windows version.
Scratchisthebest (talk | contribs) 05:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Binary Code Article?

Does anyone think having an article all on binary code would be good? It could merit an article and go under Category:Computer Science. However, I don't know too much of it, just how to count and stuff, so who knows a lot about it, such as binary addition, etc.?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

this being the scratch wiki, I don't think it is really necessary.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 04:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Unless you can find a way to make it relevant to Scratch, we really won't need it.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 11:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a number to binary converter? Would a tutorial on that fit your requirements? I know that would be a fun article to have for sure.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. "Find a way to make it relevant to Scratch" implies you're going to try to invent a reason to have that page. That doesn't make sense, and I really discourage using that as an excuse to make a page just because writing it is fun. I know writing a new article is fun, but it should be within reason.
That said: A page on binary could be useful to a Scratcher in many ways: reading the .sb format needs you to know about it (actually, reading most file formats needs binary knowledge). You need to know about binary to know why we use hex for BBCode colors. The old RSC needed some knowledge of bits and bytes.
But that's not the point. The point is whether it's worth writing yet another introduction to binary or whether we should let the reader Google it and find something someone else wrote with more knowledge and care. We can't have an article about every computer science concept there is. I'm actually not completely sure about the articles about lambda and oop either (even though I admittedly made them). But if we can have a simple binary-for-dummies article then I don't object; it will be a great way for a curious Scratcher to learn something new and important (which is the whole point of Scratch).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 00:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I was just curious if we should; I didn't just want to write the article just for fun. Actually, I'm not knowledgable enough in that field to even write it. We have the article pixels which contains much information related not to Scratch, yet some related to Scratch. I guess it's the same case.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
How about an article showing how to binary to decimal converter in Scratch? It could explain the CS stuff (eg. hex codes) in passing.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I definitely agree with your idea; having it otherwise seems a bit unnecessary because although a simple binary-for-dummies article would be very educational to the intrigued Scratcher, this isn't really the place for that.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot template?

Now that we've got our first bot, I think we should have a template to show they're a bot, how about:

Stop.png This user is an automated bot controlled by BotCreator. It is used for making repetitive or difficult edits that would be hard for a human to do.

Check its contributions to see if it has been behaving itself and comment on its talk page if you have any problems with it.

I'm not sure I like how large it is and the image is not good (maybe a robot would be better) but I think the message is just about right so what do you think?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

New Curator.

doggydudet is our new curator. Also, some outdated items need to be taken off the list.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 09:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes Done
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Is the numbering wrong? It says doggydudet is the 112th however the curator spot has been filled 114 times and 111 if you don't include Collab-Camp and Collab-Challenge as curators.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 14:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I just added one to the last number. There have been a screw-up very recently or long, long ago. I'm not sure which count you mentioned is being used.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Their Number Is 114, Not 112. And Firedrake Is 113, Not 111.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 11:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Workarounds on the bottom

Should workarounds for blocks go underneath example uses?

I can imagine that if I was looking up a block, I would be more interested in how I could use it than how I could make it a different way. Thoughts?
Scratchisthebest (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this was actually brought up a while ago. Or maybe it was just on veggie's to-do list. In any case, i say it's a good idea.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe it was decided they should, so please, by all means, move them! :)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Images from Other Sites

Are we allowed to take images from other sites? Let me explain further. I really want to develop the MIT article into a very informative one, but I have some concerns over ownership of images. Wikipedia has phenomenal images of MIT and the Media Lab, but are we allowed to use those images on this wiki, too? And can we take images from MIT's website? (I'd assume since this server itself is at MIT :P) And one more aside, does this wiki allow .svg images?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We don't actually have any policy here regarding file copyright, which is a little disappointing, but it looks like this image, for example, is CC BY-SA. That could perhaps be notated by a small note on the file's page.
As for SVGs—no. I have requested they be added a few times, but it never happened.
And remember, for the article, to keep it relevant to Scratch. A cursory description of the university and some background information would be fine, but we don't need some colossal article like Wikipedia.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and uploaded the image here: File:MIT Media Lab
I left the placing-half of it for you, though. ;)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Warning Vs Caution

We have the friendly

Note Note: this is a note

And the scary

Note Warning: this is a scary warning

And I think something needs changed about the warning message. To me, if I was a new user and saw some warning message on the Wiki, I'd be scared. Not really scared, but a "Warning" sounds more like someone saying "I'm warning you!" and almost trying to make you fear. I suggest that we either change it to "Caution" and have a yellow image of an exclamation point or create a separate template for "Caution". Caution is less scary than warning, but shows more importance than a note does. Signs say "Caution: wet floor" instead of "Warning: wet floor". I think having a yellow image and the word "caution" instead of "Warning" will seem more friendly but still as serious. Do you agree?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think it'll be as serious, but it would be more friendly. Still, anything deserving something more then "Note:" needs a little umph so as to get a message across, and keep it across. A note is more there as a "Hi! I'm a little tea cup. I'm not needed, but you can drink tea from me." Meanwhile, some topics actually need a warning that will stick in people's minds, like "Modifying Scratch may result in a loss of elements. When editing, be sure to use care; some ..." (Modding Tutorial) So, I feel the image is needed, but the word can definitely be changed to "Caution:" That shouldn't compromise the message too much.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe instead just make a new template? There are some cases where it may be needed. For example, look at the warning in Encryption. That could use an orange caution instead, as it is not a common issue putting personal information into an encryption. The Paint Editor article I think has a few also.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I think we could use a new template. It can use the same image as {{In Progress}}.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think of it as scary. And the image of In Progress would look ugly that small. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It would look something like:
Warning Caution:
That image doesn't look that bad.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Make a new image? Low resolution
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
@EH7meow: I agree, that doesn't look bad. It can definitely be used.
@Turkey3: Since the small version of the image still looks good, I don't think we'll need another.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
The edges look choppy for me and the ! A bit weird. Why would a new image hurt? Plus, a lower resolution one could load a millisecond faster ;) anyways, I think I'll make this template now.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hmm... True, true. After all, it would help a tiny bit, and it wouldn't hurt anyone. Well then, if no one new objects, then I'll post a new version of the image tomorrow.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes Done

We have the template finished now. The image is not shrunk, just its full size, so it looks nice (we should make new images for all those type templates)

Note Caution: An example

@ErnieParke: now that I'm on Firefox, the old image does look nice, but doesn't on all browsers, so I think this will look nice on all.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

502 errors

I have been receiving 502 Bad gateway errors when I try to access the main site for the last 15 minutes. Firefox 17.0.9, Windows 7 Professional, Service Pack 1.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Trouble finding things to edit

Hey, I'm having a bit of trouble finding pages to contribute to and help fix on this wiki. I've tried pressing the random page button a view times, but to no luck. Do you guys know of any pages I could help fix up?
Tierage (talk | contribs) 03:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki:To-do. You could also try participating in some of the above discussions.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a look around.
Tierage (talk | contribs) 23:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Pages that need to be deleted

Special:BrokenRedirects The majority of these pages need to be deleted (as a result of the inactive mod cleanup).
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 21:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, but I don't think deleting them is 100% necessary. Couldn't we redirect them to the List of Scratch Modifications page?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think that that would be a relevant redirect because if a mod is inactive, who would bother looking for it? If they need info about it they could search the forums or something.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
But then there wouldn't be anything in the forums, so they'd need the Wiki, but then again, it's page is gone. I see your point; they should be deleted.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Plus the names will still be on the list and all names on the list will have references or a page.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)