(Stub Standards: I found an earlier reply by Scimonster.)
(Undo revision 79058 by Scimonster (talk) We Don't Remove Messages)
Line 410: Line 410:
 
:The only page I can really think of, '''M'''rsrec, is [[Scratch Timeline]]...<scratchsig>Turkey3</scratchsig> 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 
:The only page I can really think of, '''M'''rsrec, is [[Scratch Timeline]]...<scratchsig>Turkey3</scratchsig> 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 
There's More. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay More.<scratchsig>Mrsrec</scratchsig> 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 
There's More. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay More.<scratchsig>Mrsrec</scratchsig> 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
:Such as? <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 15:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 
  
 
== New Years Wiki Globe Logo Idea ==
 
== New Years Wiki Globe Logo Idea ==

Revision as of 17:16, 1 January 2014

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

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





Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103
If you do not think a discussion is done, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.
Size of Community Portal: 100,950 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).

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)

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)
I agree with Mathfreak231; the differences they have don't merit entirely different pages (btw, I created the original Snap to Grid :D) .
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 17:36, 25 November 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)
"bot807"
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:54, 3 October 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:
Removed so I can use my Sandbox for something else
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)

The Scratch Forum Guidelines

During my moderator checkin, when i agreed to retire, i talked to Lightnin a bit about a problem i've noticed on the forums: Newbies don't follow the rules. Why is this? The simple answer is that there isn't a single collection of the rules. I therefore proposed the Forum Guidelines, written in the style of the Community Guidelines, but specific to the forums. He suggested we work on it on the wiki.

I can think of a few rules to start out with:

Post in the right section. 
Read the forum descriptions to make sure that your topic is in the right place. This helps keep the forums organized and helpful.
Search before posting. 
If you take one minute to do a quick search before making a new topic, this can save many duplicate topics from being created.
Read the stickies. 
The "sticky" topics contain useful information for a specific forum. It is wise to read them, especially the ones called "Read this before posting".
Don't necropost. 
Necroposting is when someone posts an unhelpful message on an old topic (general consensus is over one month inactive).

I know some of them need to be improved. Anyone have any more to add? Remember to keep each item (as well as the whole list) short and concise.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

How about expanding Scratch Rules?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe
Don't spam. 
Spamming is posting something irrelevant to the topic or using an excessive amount of smileys and unneeded symbols.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't spam — good one. I forgot about Scratch Rules, thanks. Except i think we should have a separate page for this.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Don't report problems with other users on the forums. 
If another Scratcher is bothering you, please report them to the Scratch Team. Posting about it on the forums, especially using names, dramatizes the conflict, and is not helpful. These topics are always closed.
^ I know, that's a little long. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the wording of that last one (the title of it) because someone may interpret it as if someone is doing something bad, don't report the problem and leave it alone. It sounds like "if another user is causing a problem, don't report it". I'd change it to "If someone breaks the above rules, report the post".
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I think "When reporting users " is a better title, mainly due to how it's shorter. I also agree with Turkey3; the rule does sound a bit like trouble users shouldn't be reported. (though @Turkey, this is if someone breaks a rule on the website, not in the forums)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
When reporting users 
If you have any sort of problem with another user, simply report them. Projects, comments, and forum posts all have a report button, as well as user profile pages.
Sorry about that disappearing act. I haven't been keeping it open, so i *cough* sort of forgot.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

New template?

I think we should make a new template to say why exceptions have been made for certain pages, such as Toki. It could look like:


Yes check.png This article would normally break the Scratch Wiki's guidelines. However, an exception has been made for it because of the decision made.


which is made by:

{{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo|because=of the decision made}}

What do you think?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I'd wait for one other person before creating it though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Is this something that regular users (as opposed to wiki authors) are going to be concerned with?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Good point there, because non-editors don't know what should be allowed, nor care: they just want info.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, this might be useful in the future with a plan of the Scratch Mentors; it's still being decided and worked on, so the template might not be needed, but we'll see.
Anyway, I support this template. I'd also like to see a parameter field that would allow custom reasons.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
If it doesn't meet the wiki guidelines, one should look on the talk page to see what has been done about it. I don't think the template is really needed.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 11:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Good idea! I also think we should create a page for Andresmh, and add that template.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@ErnieParke There are custom reasons! Change what is after the
because=
in {{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo|because=of the decision made}}.
Also, this template might possibly stop any confusion on why somebody wasn't allowed to make a page about something when there were other articles about user-created stuff.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
It could also be better for new editors.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@Joletole There was an idea a while ago to make a page about more prominent Scratch Team members (with perhaps small subheaders with more info). Is there a reason Andresmh merits a page over other Scratch Team members?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
@EH7meow Aren't new editors the ones usually breaking the guidelines or, not being very bold, often bringing something up on the talk page too early? I still think it isn't needed, as the info will be on the talk page anyways.
...Then again, it could be one of those templates that is actually put ON the talk page like they have on Wikipedia...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Last Updated- (Date)

Yes Done On many websites, the articles always have a date near the bottom of when the article was last updated. This is useful because people like to see the reliability of the information they read. Yes, people can look at the history, but your average Joe or kid might not know about that. My suggestion is that we have an automated code to put, in small print, the last date each article was updated. It could go at the very bottom underneath the category. What do you think?

Article last updated: 5 November, 2013

Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that would be needed. Although the average Joe or kid doesn't go through history, they don't need to. Wiki articles are constantly being updated, so an outdated one is unlikely to appear. Even if there was some major change, like Scratch 3.0 went live, then there's the {Outdated} and {Expand} template to save the day. Also, I feel that the message wouldn't even be too helpful being at the bottom of the page (and not seen).
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 03:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
In contrast, I think that this should be added, in the same place as the little message on Wikipedia that says the same thing, at the bottom. It'd be nice to have a quick and easy way to see when the page was last updated. However, this isn't really a high priority thing (especially because I don't know who has access to edit something like that—Lightnin?)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit the PHP code for the wiki skin and make a pull request on GitHub.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
no u
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 09:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm trying to implement this feature right now. I'll make a pull request on Github soon. We don't have to accept it if we don't want it though. Personally, I don't really see any harm in making this feature.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
This feature is in the Vector skin, and even though I don't use the feature much, I still think it'd be useful to have on the default skin.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I've finally submitted the pull request on GitHub. It will add a centred bit of text saying when the article was last modified. It is in 11-point text and is grey. To change the message to what turkey3 said you'll have to edit MediaWiki:Lastmodifiedat
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 21:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I like the message as it is.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, I pushed the changes so the last modification date shows. Anyone have strong feelings about the exact wording of the message?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Read the post directly above yours.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. The only thing about it that seems a bit strange to me is the bullet, but I'll probably get used to it.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 07:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you mean a bullet point? It doesn't have that on Firefox.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 07:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh lol it was just showing as a regular list element since I hadn't cleared my cache for the new CSS. Lookin' good! :P
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 08:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Love the look! Not to mention it's useful for bibliographies (though not sure when the wiki would need cited)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for fixing Wiki signup criteria?

I looked at the account request logs, and since October 22, and 3 requests have been accepted, contrasted to the 13 that have been rejected. That means that 3/16 or about 19% of requests have been accepted, and only 2 of the 13 rejected requests were for account age/activity, meaning that that about 85% of the accounts rejected were because of request notes. When reading request notes, I accept them if they actually give a specific example of how they would help (e.g. a specific page or a broad category of pages). However, most people say something generic or not that related to the Wiki (e.g. helping new Scratchers, keeping things up to date, having been a good member on the forums and Scratch site, being a good writer, referencing helpful subjects, and so on), so I reject those requests because they don't provide any information that actually gives me an idea of what would be improved on the Wiki if they have an account.

So after writing all that, my question is this: How can we improve the Become a Contributor page so that the request notes meet the standards I mentioned above? One idea I have is putting the link at the bottom, so people have to scroll through the whole page to get to it. I could also add something along the lines of the standards I mentioned above. Does anyone else have any better ideas or think I should do one of the things I said here?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe instead of, on the registration page, "Why do you want to be a contributor?", it should be "How will you contribute to the Wiki?" That, as a start, sounds better.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If I were accepting account requests I'd have probably accepted "keeping things up to date" and "referencing helpful subjects" because those are real problems that the wiki could do with getting done. I remember in my request I pointed out a sentence about the TBGs that should be put into the past-tense. However, if they have knowledge of something that the wiki actually does then I don't really see any harm in creating the account. Note: When I say "something that the wiki actually does" I mean things that happen (or should happen) on articles, not "helping new scratchers".
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 10:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that adding a change to the Become a Contributor would be the most helpful because not every potential contributor goes there before making an account, or at least I imagine it so. I think it'd be better if there was a change to the actual registration page so that it'd be seen every time, which is why I like Turkey3's idea.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you being overly harsh? "helping new Scratchers, keeping things up to date, having been a good member on the forums and Scratch site, being a good writer, referencing helpful subjects, and so on" do sound unoriginal, but they don't sound like bad reasons. (As EH7 points out.)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think jvvg is being overly rash because when I went to view the rejected requests, each had a blank biography. I do though agree with you that those reasons you listed aren't bad.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ernie and myself (well, duh). Most people who sign up probably don't view that page, and the change in registration as I said above from "Why do you want to contribute" to "How will you contribute" should probably be put into place. Why someone wants to contribute is totally different from how they will contribute. It wields a totally different response from the sign-uppers.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe both questions could be asked, like "Why do you want to contribute, and how will you contribute?"
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
@turkey: Yes, I wish I could have agreed sooner. Those questions are very different and it would be good to substitute one for the other or include both (as veggie points out)
@blob: I think most of those are at least a little acceptable except for "helping new scratchers" because it's absolutely not specific at all (lol redundant) and for "having been a good member..." or "being a good writer" because it's extremely opinionated. A blank bio is obviously rejectable (lol not a word, my computer keeps wanting to say "ejectable"). IMO anything that the wiki specifically does (as EH7 points out) is significant and saying where they have had experience on other wikis is also significant.
So there's my two (or four? or eight?) cents.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, changing the signup page itself would take a lot of pain on my part due to the whole pull request system on Github and then having to send an email that it needs to be merged and then put on the server. The reason I've been rejecting the generic wiki-related phrases is that it seems like they're almost an easy way out. Someone can just say "I would update old pages" and they have an account, even if they don't actually plan on using it or only want to make a userpage. The reason I look for some kind of specific example is that I want someone who actually can think of something they'd do rather than just writing something that they can just copy and paste.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I think you're being overly strict here. Even if they don't end up contributing, it's nice that they planned to, and wanted to.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong in having a lot of people with wiki accounts. Also, just because somebody didn't write a huge thing about why they should be an editor doesn't mean they won't contribute, it means that they aren't so good at writing speeches or wasn't sure how much to write. I'm sure that if you looked at some active wiki users original requests, some of them wouldn't be as long or as detailed.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure mine was just "I'll add links to things" :P and another sentence, but that's pretty much what I was planning. Maybe he is being too strict, and maybe he isn't. Who knows? Not me, so why am I butting into this argument anyways... Maybe a bit strict. Just give them a try? It won't hurt. If they're uninterested, they will just stop. The active user list is getting kind of lonely. Speaking of that, when this wiki came out, how many active users were there monthly compared to the small amount now?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
We've had a large increase, actually; for a long amount of time, it was pretty much just me, Sci, curiouscrab, and maybe one or two others occasionally popping in. Now there's actually a good-sized (comparatively) group of editors that know what they're doing.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Plus, if you think about it, there's the German Wiki, and a Netherlands Wiki is being setup as we speak. It's interesting to see where things are going.
Anyway, I thought that I might as well post my original account request, just for fun:
I first thought about joining when I had fixed one of BoltBait scratchblocks and (s)he had recommended that I contribute to the Scratch Wiki. That got me thinking of the Scratch Wiki and adding to it, though I'd need to look at the Scratch Wiki more closely to see where I could contribute. Another reason why I would like this account is because I like to help scratchers (or anyone in general), and this would give me more ability to do so.
That was a little over a year ago; I'm a bit astonished.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea what my request was, but it was probably something along the lines of "I've used other wikis before and I know stuff about Scratch so can I help?"
And then I was made admin like 7 months later :P
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that when we leave the comment saying the user's request was rejected, we should try to consistently invite them to submit a request after some time that meets our expectations.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
That could get a bit spammy. Also, how are you supposed to remember when to remind different users. A bot?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
No, when you tell the user their account was rejected, tell them they can try again in a couple months or whatever.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Either the Server Can't Count, or some other bug

Check recent changes. It shows only 5 for me.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Mine's showing 500 like it always does.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Not mine... It now shows 6 and is adding on from the 5.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see much of anything wrong; I'm still getting 160 like normal. Could you maybe post a screenshot to help describe your problem?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Policy on users fixing request notes

Currently if I reject an account request for notes that don't explain how the user will help on the Wiki and the user asks me if they can fix it, I tell them that per wiki policy, they have to wait until their old request is cleared from the queue (which takes at least 2 weeks, and can take up to 4). It is effective in preventing repeated spam requests, but can be discouraging for potential constructive editors. My question is this: if they reply to the comment with improved notes that do explain how they will help somehow, should the request then be accepted immediately, or should they wait? This is currently possible with the system in place, because it does allow for accepting recently rejected requests. Any thoughts?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think they should be accepted, if they provide a reason how they'll help.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
That makes sense.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Bot

There was a (now archived) thread about bots. I can't remember what we wanted one for. So, anything need automating?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think there was making category names consistent. Ones that I would want to see would be double-redirect fixing. A slightly harder feature maybe would be if you could make links to redirects link to the actual article.
For example:
[[Redirect]]
would be replaced with:
[[Article Name|Redirect]]
and:
[[Redirect|Lorem ipsum]]
would be replaced by:
[[Article Name|Lorem Ipsum]]
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure Wikipedia has some policy on *not* changing links that point to redirects...
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Really? In any case, we prefer direct links to redirects.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I assume you mean direct links are preferred -- what you wrote parses as "links to redirects". :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Stupid English. What I meant was we prefer "direct links" to "redirects"; that is, direct > redirect.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It was originally some naming-convention discussion but then it went into the land of talking about bots...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? What needs automating right now?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a greet to new users? I dunno. The most useful purpose of a bot I can think of is if we were to like reorganise all the files into having like consistent filenames and stuff, we'd be able to update all those links for the moved images with a bot super easily.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, what consistent filename scheme do you want? I can do it, you just need to tell me what to do...
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
No, i think veggie means if we manually renamed the files, the bot could update the file links.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
That's harder, because then you have to manually specify which file links to update.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
A daemon bot that activates whenever a file is moved, and updates links to the file.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Ew.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Why ew?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

scratchblocks testing

Hi, wiki people! I'm working on a new version of the scratchblocks plugin. It's pretty nearly a complete rewrite, and I want to make sure I haven't broken anything, so I need your help checking it's the same. Please see here: http://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/21002/ Thanks! :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'll have to push it to its limits when I can. Possibly tomorrow when I'm working on my history homework.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'd appreciate that. Lol, "when working" :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, it looks like I forgot about it. The next time I'll absolutely be free is Friday afternoon, when I get "study hall" (aka me and my friend slacking off in the LMC).
EDIT: Oh yeah, that's thanksgiving weekend. Shoot. Well, when I do get the chance, how should I report problems?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll probably have enough bugs to fix before then anyway! And you can just reply on the forum thread I linked. :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Surprise! I have about 18 minutes now. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Yay!
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just pushed an update that fixes lots of things. Please go find more bugs! :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

What's the CSS for Creating Shadow Effects on Divisions?

What's the divisions styling code for creating shadow effects around the borders?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

box-shadow: offsetX, offsetY, blur, color;
To say, there's the optional input of "invert" which would invert the shadow. You can see an example in my sandbox, but normally most people don't use it. Also, Hardmath123, you forgot your signature. ;)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 03:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Signatures

I've forgotten the policy on this, so I thought that I might as well bring it up quickly. Recently, I've been seeing a few comments with no signature at all. Am I allowed to add it in? Is my guess of "yes" correct?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, yes, yes.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the quick reply!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Account

A Little While Ago I Created An Account Called Scratch_Wiki. Just Thought I Should Mention It
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 04:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I think there was a similar account someone (Sci maybe?) made a while back. That seems fine, as long as you don't pose as the official "voice" of the wiki or anything.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To Clear Up Confusion

Info
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're back! :D
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 21:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 :O is this happening! Gee, you missed a lot, especially the intense admin/EW elections.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow, so that's what happened. I had thought for a moment there that you really had turned on Scratch; that would've been bad! Anyway, welcome back Curiouscrab!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
What I was going to say is pretty much outlined in the above posts. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Add Hour of Code to Scratch News

The news is blank, so why not add Scratch being featured in the Hour of Code Dec 9-15?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be a nice idea. I say go ahead with it! That, and we could even add in a mention of the new holiday themes.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes Done
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

New Curator!

I'm the 119th curator!
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 21:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes Done
Two active Scratch Wiki contributors (almost) in a row. Who would have guessed. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
What a coincidence! By the way, I think you wrote I was the eighteenth curator rather than the nineteenth.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Opps. Sorry, copypasta fever.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

New SDS!

I think Holiday Foods is our new SDS.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes Done
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Searching on the wiki

If i searched "Project" on the wiki it would work, however if I searched "PROJECT" it would say "Create the page "PROJECT" on this wiki!"
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 18:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That's weird; usually the first letter of a page isn't case-sensitive.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not getting that issue... can you take a screenshot?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I type "PROJECT"

Search glitch.PNG
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 12:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

That there isn't actually a bug; only the first letter isn't case-sensitive.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging

How do you merge pages?
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 12:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no technical way to do it. Usually we just take the info from a page and put it in a section or two on another page, then turn the first page into a redirect to the second page.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

OK i was just thinking of merging Moving On and Alternatives to Scratch.
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 20:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

New template idea: Special stub/unfinished article

Ever have that annoying thought when there's an unfinished sentence at the end of an article, but it's been in progress for too long? What do you do when you can't fix it because you aren't a mind reader nor are you knowledgeable on such a subject? I am proposing a template that will fix this. User:Mathfreak231/Unfinished What do you think? The wording could definitely be improved. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea! Some people just post the template that they're working on an article and never really do definitely not me, though  :—|
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree; I never put up an in-progress template unless I know that I'm going to be working on the article. That's also why I still have Rope Physics under my user domain, because I'm working on it but very sporadically (I definitely need to get that done...).
Anyway, couldn't you simply take down the in-progress template and replace it with {expand}?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
But what if the person who was working on it left a random sentence at the end that they never completed? It's happened.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not have the first time ever (I think) Scratch Wiki Christmas logo starting on Christmas Eve through Christmas? I was thinking of placing a Santa hat on the puzzle globe and changing the color of the name. What do you guys think?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Scratch did have a few seasonal logos before, but personally, I like the idea. Even if the Scratch website doesn't do anything, I'd like to see the Wiki have a bit of personality, so I support it. Maybe we could do something for other holidays as well? Like Halloween and maybe April Fool's?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never enjoyed the fact that non-religious websites often "dress up" for Halloween and Christmas and the like. With Google i can stand it, because they do something for everyone's holidays. I personally wouldn't support it for the Wiki.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The main Scratch site used to do it, though, and the Scratch Team themselves allow Christmas topics because it is such a huge world-wide holiday and has its own aspects even aside from the religious point of view.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Forum topics and projects are completely different, as no-one is forced to see them. I know that the main Scratch site used to do it, but i didn't support it then either.
If it's democratically decided to do holiday logos on the wiki, so i'll deal with it. I'm just voting against. ;)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Okee dokey. I just didn't think a Santa hat would hurt on the globe, as that's not related to the religious part of Christmas.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody forget about April Fools'.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Halloween isn't religious, is it?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think it's origin is somewhat related to religion, but probably only about 5% of people know that anyway :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As a compromise, i added the logo from 2009 to the featured images. That way it's not super-prominent, but there for people who want.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Page question

Who keeps creating pages like yellow blocks, pink blocks, etc? I just wanna know.
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 19:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The "yellow blocks" "orange blocks" etc. pages were made years ago, I think by chrisb
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
*Chrischb
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 10:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Should I redirect?

Should I put a redirect on Moving On that leads to Alternatives to Scratch? EDIT: Oops! My sig! I will put it on now!
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 09:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't do that until the page is fully merged into the other. And you forgot your sig by the way ;).
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Should I merge it?
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 11:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

We usually prefer a discussion first. If it seems like enough people agree, you can merge.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Alot of people do
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 12:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

archive forums links deletion

The links that lead to archive forums should be deleted because the archive website server no longer works!
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 10:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Error: Unable to connect to MySQL server. MySQL reported: Can't connect to MySQL server on 'scratchdb.media.mit.edu' (4).
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 10:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

No, we still keep them for when the archives come back online.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok merry christmas!
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 16:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Look over

Can someone please look over my unfinished article on wiki users? I want to know if I am doing something wrong before I continue it. Thanks a lot!!!

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's OK to have. Just remember to categorize it when you're done.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes! thanks!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Linked pages

How to I find pages all pages that are parented with my user page (for example user:krisma/sig or user:krisma/sandbox)?

Thanks!

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Special:PrefixIndex/User:KrIsMa
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Now I can finish my subpage navbox! :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

barn stars?

like the ones in wikipedia, you can award people a barnstar if you like their contributions. you can change the idea a bit. barnstars are a bit more serious then the thank you templates, and can only be awarded my admins. sound good? please discuss! :)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

but our judgement is already wasted on confirming accounts :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 02:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
lol ok then is it ok if we let experienced wikians, bureucrats and admins rank? sometimes, users feel like they are doing so much good contributions but no awards and that is why i wanted barn stars to be added, I will make then templates if it gets added! but yeah discuss first :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
then you can manually thank them; if scratch doesn't have an achievement system, why should the wiki? plus ew's can approve accounts too
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
That's true. Yes Discussion done!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

How do you see how many views a page has?

The old skin, or system I guess, had that at a bottom. Is there still a way to see how many people viewed a page? And while I am at it, how do I make a custom sig, because I want one?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

i can tell you how to make a custom sig. first, make a page, for example,
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png and make a custom sig. then, to sign a page with your sig, refer back to your custom signature page and append the timestamp with ~~~~~. for example, you would sign your post with {{User:Turkey3/Sig}} ~~~~~. after that, you are done! custom sigs are discouraged by scratch, though :(
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Discouraged? The only thing I was planning was to add a link to my contributions, Scratch profile, and sandbox. Thanks! I'll make it and hopefully people will not get mad at me.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Check out Special:PopularPages. And yes, custom sigs are discouraged, but allowed.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

New Year Renovations

Alright People! We've Got A Lot Of Work To Do Today! 90% Of Wiki Pages Have To Be Re-Written For 2014. THIS IS THE BIG DAY! Also, To Help Others, As Soon As You Edit An Article, Please Reply With A Link. Thanks For Helping With The Big Push!


Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ooh... I know this will sound like a dumb question, but what nature of edits are we talking here (what sort of thing will we be updating)?
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 16:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The only page I can really think of, Mrsrec, is Scratch Timeline...
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There's More. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay More.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

New Years Wiki Globe Logo Idea

New Years Day is a global holiday and not religious (I know you can probably find the smallest hint of religion in it, but don't bother mentioning it). I thought of just a fun idea of putting fireworks in the background behind the wiki globe some time today. I'd be glad to make the image, and a sysop can update the image for until New Years Day is over. Like the idea?


Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 20:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  Certainly not a bad idea... I'm for it. :)
 
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 20:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
totally! That would be cool!!!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I will post the image in a couple of hours and see if an admin likes it. Thanks for the support!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is the logo! Wiki 2014.png
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

COOL! I hope this image will be implemented on New Years!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Or on Eve, too, because that counts as New Years, too. For example, Google already has up their New Years animation.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Cross my fingers! (and yours)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I'll try updating the image.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes Done! How does it look? (you may need to reload for it to show up)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Mathfreak231, I have uploaded a transparent version. Thanks!

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I cleared my cache but cannot view the image. If I go to the file I see it, but on the rest of the wiki pages I don't. Better way to put it, do you guys see it in the top-left?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No, if you look at the revision edits http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/File:Wiki.png, he reverted it. I uploaded a transparent version on your behalf. :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the latest version I see is the logo with transparency. I don't see any reverted version. I see it on the page Scratch Logos, but it doesn't appear to me in the top-left.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the wiki skin, meaning the image in the top-left, is almost taken from another source.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The logo with transparency, you mean your logo? The story was an admin changed it to your logo for a while, then he stated in the edit comments, "do you even transparency" and changed the logo back to the original one, which means he wanted transparency on your logo. I have made your logo transparent for you :) Now, all an admin has to do is to change the icon back to your logo, and you are done! Hopefully, clears some confusion :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
So on the page of the image, the latest one you see is not the New Years logo?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
No, sorry I can't update it because I am not an admin, but you can post a message on an admin's page to notify them to change it :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, I know what you mean now, on the edits, the most recent one is your logo, transparent. Weird, it isnt showing up in the scratch wiki! Sorry about the confusion, i will research this more!

Note Note: I found the issue, I was looking through the page's CSS and the HTML. and the image links to

http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/w/skins/scratchwikiskin/wikilogo2.png.

Everyone has thought that [[File:Wiki.png]] changes the image, but it does not. The Scratch Team is the only way to change that image. Sorry :(

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, admins can edit the wiki skin, I think. I'll notify Mathfreak231.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 06:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
We can edit the MediaWiki namespace pages that modify the wiki skin at least. How does that look? :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It was fine for me right off the bat when I uploaded the new image and reloaded the page; you probably just need to do a hard refresh.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Oh *donks forehead*, it must be that evil ScratchWikiSkin. I never use it; the Vector skin pulls the logo right from File:Wiki.png. I think the logo is controlled by a variable that only bureaucrats can change but I may be wrong. Sci found it and got it working; thanks!
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) Updated 15:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, whatever the issue was, it's working now Yes Done
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

New template idea

Should there be a new template idea that indicates a higher level of knowledge of scratch (blocks) to understand a particular article?

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like that might work. But it may also be difficult to determine which topics require "advanced knowledge".
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 21:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Creating_a_Chat_Bot seems hard :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
When I made the article Creating a Chat Bot, I originally had it classified as a How To article. The How to header, however, says it is a step-by-step tutorial for new users. Realizing it was more complex, I brought it up here in the CP, now archived. I was told that if a tutorial is too advance for new users, instead of categorizing it as How to, just name it "Scripting Tutorials". Even more complex is Global High Scores and Checking if a String Contains a String.
Furthermore, I don't support this template, because if a new user is viewing the article and sees that template, they may be discouraged to continue on, and therefore won't learn from the article.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
That's true. Yes Discussion done!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
No Not done I Think We Should Have An "Advanced" CATEGORY, Not Template.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My page

I am not sure,but is it a good idea to move my page http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/User:KrIsMa/CSS to another article designed to help with formatting? I am still working on it :)

KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You can merge it into Help:CSS. It definitely could use your lovely chart ;)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that comment ;) The article and my page is a bit off, maybe a page that talks about making custom boxes and other cool things for pages, like your page and the cool boxes :)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
If you don't mind, I'll merge them. The Help:CSS doesn't even really tell any CSS.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday

We Can Do New Years, But Nothing America-Focused. Since The DachWiki Is Released , We Can Assume Everybody Here Speaks English. Australia, England, United States, Pretty Much Everybody Speaks English. So We Can Only Do New Year And Scratch Day, But Others Might Get Upset By This Since ===I Officially Call Scratch Day Logo=== So How Will We Gently End This?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am a bit confused. We did New Years because it is a global holiday, and a Scratch Day one would probably be fine in (what, 5 months or so?). The Christmas one was turned down already because it was religious, and I think we already will refrain from all-American holidays such as Independence Day. New Years is great, though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Stub Standards

I asked this question before, but it apparently got edited out/deleted without anyone telling me anything. I was just wondering how you guys generally deal with stubs. As in, at what point would you consider a page to be complete, and no longer a stub? I figure one would probably just "eyeball it", but I thought I'd ask just to be sure.
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 16:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the page history Scimonster replied:
I think if it has more than one header it's not a stub anymore, but might still qualify for {{expand}}
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)