Revision as of 04:26, 20 July 2012 by Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) (Block Images Suggestion)

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!

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

Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105
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: 84,619 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 [ link text] or {{plain link|1=|2=link text}} if you don't want the Link icon.png symbol to appear (remember http:// prefix).
    • Make a link to an article on this wiki with [[Page name]] or [[Page name|Link text]].
    • Make a link to a Wikipedia article with [[Wikipedia:Page name]] or [[Wikipedia:Page name|Link text]].
    • Indent a paragraph by putting a colon (:) before it.
    • For more, see the help page on formatting.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • Always remember to be polite and respectful, assume good faith, and be welcoming, while following the Scratch Community Guidelines.
  • When creating a new post, mark it as No Not done by putting {{not done}} at the top. Once the conversation has been resolved, replace it with {{done}} (producing Yes Done).

Block Images Suggestion

While I was talking to fg123 one evening, it was pointed out that it would be useful to have the default values of blocks included in the images of blocks shown on articles. For a block like Move () Steps, it might seem trivial to change the image so the number ten is included in its input. But for other blocks like () of (), it may help visually to include the default values to make it easier for someone to recognize and more quickly understand the purpose of the block. There isn't much of any reason to exclude them on the wiki - there are default values in the program for a reason, and I think including them in the blocks' images would be very beneficial. What are your thoughts?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with this. This would also allow the default value(s) field on the infobox for blocks to be removed, and it can be kinda confusing with multiple fields.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good yeah :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do you keep talking to fg123? :P
I agree with this. I think i brought it up once, but maybe i can't find it right now.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
xD He talks to me on skype.
Fg123 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems good :D
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, since it looks like most people like this idea, let's get working on it! Here's a list of the block categories and the ones that are complete or incomplete.
  • Motion Blocks - Yes Done
  • Looks Blocks - Yes Done
  • Sound Blocks - Yes Done
  • Pen Blocks - Yes Done
  • Control Blocks - Yes Done
  • Sensing Blocks - Yes Done
  • Operators Blocks - Yes Done
  • Variables Blocks - No Not done
If there's a whole block category whose images have been all updated, you can edit this list. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Great job doing the Motion Blocks Bsteward! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Finished with Looks.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Veggie! I noticed you changed the {{Block}}... do you think we should remove the "imagewidth" property from all articles? While we're add it, "default value" can also probably be removed. What do you guys think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • veggie
And yeah, I think it should be removed from all but I left compatibility for it in just in case something comes up and so it's backwards compatible. I agree with removing default value though.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Category for Scratch positions

Right now, articles such as Scratch Team, Community Moderators, Curator, and many others are in various different categories (Category:Scratch Culture, Category:Moderation, etc.) However I think all of these articles could also be fit under another category (which I don't have an exact name for). It would be for the different positions, or roles in the community. Category:Positions? Category:Roles? Category:Ranks? What do you think it should be called?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Roles, because of the Curator one, that isn't exactly a rank.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 03:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. I like roles best too.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 18:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Totally agreed. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've created the category and added a couple of articles to it. Feel free to add more articles to this article by adding [[Category:Roles]] to it at the very bottom of the article. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally nitpicky, but...

Shouldn't the subtitle read "...made by the Scratchers, for the Scratchers"? Sounds a bit better to me, though I don't know who can change it (JSO?)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the exclusion of the articles was done on purpose. It's using Scratcher as a general term to refer to a group of people. Similarly, I think it would be more appropriate to say "made by programmers, for programmers", not "made by the programmers, for the programmers". :) I do know how to change the message if needed, but I think it's fine for now. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess you're right. But if I remember right, it's "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it could be, but I don't know if that would sound better.
td76 (talk | contribs) 07:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
We're not the only Scratchers. If you added "the", it might make it sound like that.
The page with the tagline is MediaWiki:Tagline btw.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Good to know.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How about "Made by scratchers, for all scratchers." That sounds ok, I guess.
td76 (talk | contribs) 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What just happened? 3 posts are missing.
td76 (talk | contribs) 12:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't un-archive posts. They're removed from the page for a reason. When you pasted the archive in, you also deleted some of the posts here.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

td76 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Replacing FAQ forum with Wiki FAQ

Here's an idea: What if we moved all of the FAQs from the forums here, and wrote some more of our own? We could add subcategories to Category:FAQ, and also add an FAQ section to the main TOC. It would be sort of like the tutorials, i guess. We could also have a template, as proposed here. What do people think of it?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of replacing the FAQ forum with a wiki page. But we'd need to figure out the workflow before implementing.
For example, right now someone makes a thread, and then someone says: "Hey, that's useful! It should be in the FAQ." If mods agree, it gets moved to the FAQ forum.
In then new model, somebody makes a thread, someone says it should be FAQ'ed and then __?___ happens to contact / suggest it to wikian FAQ maintainers. If they agree, then they write an entry that summarizes the useful info. Should mods edit the first post on the thread and say "We added info from this thread to the Wiki FAQ (with a link.)? (I dunno myself if this would be a good plan - what do you guys think / recommend?) Also, what should be done about all the threads currently in the FAQ forum? (Btw, I made a minor edit to title for clarity)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It could be a good idea. It would be extremely hard. But, we could do it. @Lightin, I like your idea of editing the first post and saying that the question is now in the Scratch Wiki. But then, what is the point of the FAQ forum.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 15:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a cool idea! Here's how I think we should implement it: we first make a WikiProject kind of thing where all FAQs currently at the forums are rewritten on the Wiki. Then we get an admin to archive the FAQ forums for us, and instead make a sticky under "Questions About Scratch" called "FAQs" which links to the Wiki page and lets users suggest FAQ topics. About the Wiki page itself, my personal opinion is that we use a question-answer format, so we list all the questions at the top, and they link to anchors lower down on the page with the answers. (Of course, the answers would have a link to top).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it should be single page; that would get way too crowded. 74+ pages would work much better IMO.
@Lightnin: Due to the fact that both Lucario and i are both mods and active wiki editors, there should be a good chance of it getting caught in a report. And if they have a wiki account, they can of course just make it by themselves.
A problem is, how do we know it's authentic? In the forum setup, if you see a post by an admin, you expect that to be the true answer. In a wiki though, where contributors aren't shown on the page, though, what do we do?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
You could protect the answers...
P.S. Are you getting server errors on the main site? 503's in particular?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
But then it couldn't be improved.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Or, you could say who answered the question. Like you could say "Lucario621 answered this question." That way, people know that it came from someone they trust. (sorry Luc that I used your name, you just the first mod that popped into my head). Oh, and yeah, I am getting a lot of server errors.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 16:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that the point? If a mod posts an answer on the forums, nobody can change it either, but those are usually good in the first place. You can't have it both ways, allowing users to improve an answer and preventing them from changing it so that its accuracy is compromised. I would personally vote for the prior, because the Wiki should be as free as possible, and we always have rollbacks.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 16:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Or, we could quote the Scratch Team in answers rather than framing them ourselves.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
If the answer is posted on the original forum topic, so then it could easily be referenced. But if we write other FAQs that weren't first brought up there, we wouldn't have that. (Though how could they be FAQs?)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
First off, sorry if I don't get the indentation / Wiki etiquette right (and feel free to correct me.:) Seems like a lot of issues have been raised above - I'll try to address them all and suggest what seems best to me. Hardmath123 - I like your plan to move FAQ thread content to the wiki, after which we archive it and put a FAQ sticky in Questions about Scratch. Q/A format seems good. We really like the way Vimeo did their FAQ, so we're thinking of making a main site FAQ page that's very similar. . It might be useful if the wiki uses a similar format. Maybe we'll index the wiki FAQ page so it can appear on the main 2.0 site support page search engine results. A single FAQ page with anchors for each entry seems best to me (like Vimeo's model). re: edit privs. I'm for the open wikipedia model. If someone is making bad edits, revert and then teach them to do better / ask them to stop. re: Quoting ST answers. That's not necessary. You guys are wiki editors! Make your own, acknowledge mistakes and criticism, and then refine your answers.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 20:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
When replying, you add one extra indentation to show the reply.
My problem with that is the page length. We have 74 FAQ topics on the forums, some of which are pretty long (such as the moderator summaries). To put that all on one page just seems like too much to me. Besides, i'm always looking for ways to boost our article count (1,694 right now). xP
The entire wiki should be indexed by the Scratch search engine!
I agree with keeping it open. The only protected pages are really the main page, pages transcluded there, and some high-risk templates ({{!}} {{*}} {{-}} etc).
About quoting ST answers; some of it is stuff that really should come from an administrator though. Such as stuff about the administration policies (What does the Scratch Team do when they find something inappropriate? for example).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Interesting (about the indenting). How do you deal with the mega-indent problem? (We didn't like it on main site with comments, which is one reason we only do single indents in 2.0.)
Re: page length. I would suggest making much more concise FAQ entries, a paragraph or two at most. I suspect most of the FAQ threads, when mined for the important facts, contain a few sentences of useful info. To me, one of the main benefits of this project would be to provide concise versions of the info on the threads. If people want more detail after reading the FAQ entry, you can link them back to the thread. (And yes, we are thinking of indexiing the whole wiki in the search, btw. So if you want to do separate pages, that could work too, although searchers will be less likely to stumble upon other entries that might be relevant to their search.)
Re: stuff coming from admins. Just ask if you have questions, and feel free to quote as I've seen you often do. But I don't think it's always necessary to use direct quotes.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 14:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
So i have a compromising idea. We can make a few pages with several FAQs in a category. If there is one that should be elaborated, we can summarize it on the page, and add a {{main}} link to it.
And we rarely actually use quotes; just summarize them and reference.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
@Lightnin: I made a mockup FAQ over here. It's based on the Vimeo one you linked with chenges to match the Wiki theme. The #linking works, too (if you want mouse-hover-darkening, an admin needs to edit some protected CSS). Enjoy! :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool mockup! A minor technical improvement i might suggest: instead of using the "#"s, use a standard level 4 header, with the underline added. That way it will appear in a TOC for linking. Maybe you could also include a small thing at the bottom, floated right, link directly to this section with the hash code.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Good idea, I'll get right on it. :D
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: I right-aligned it and gave it a tooltip.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Lookin' good to me! Maybe you should summarize a couple threads worth of stuff, and ask everyone for feedback on how it's looking?
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Great! I'll summarize a few (they do need summarization) and see how it looks. :D
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 13:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Cool mockup Hardmath123 - it looks like you put a lot of work into it! Your example looks concise and well written. However, in my opinion, we don't really need the specially designed boxes, font colors, font sizes, and gradients. I think it would be much simpler (for both reading and editing) if we followed the general style of the wiki, as used in S:FAQ. It might not be as special or fancy, but people might be linking to the FAQ and referencing it often as a resource, and over-complicating the formatting isn't necessary. The only difference from S:FAQ I would make though, is a more customized table of contents, to make it easier to switch between categories of questions - like the one used on Vimeo. I think it's best to keep things simple with a larger project like this, rather than making things too advanced. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
... but... that sounds so boring! :P
Seriously, though, a bit of formatting shouldn't hurt. It's a simple template, and I intentionally kept formatting to a minimum. I agree about a better table of contents. If someone lets me into the Wiki's CSS (not inline styles, that's a technical limitation) I can set up a cool little all-CSS menu which uses the hover pseudo-protocol to detect where the mouse is. Alternatively, we could just have a simple little collapsible navbox or Wikitable with links to all the questions, organized by category.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 09:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but i happen to agree with Lucario on this one. A styled TOC only would be good. The mockup you made though is a little too bright.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
*sigh* The TOC is not done yet. Did you really expect me to have red and blue as a color scheme? Ugh!
About the question boxes, I'm still not convinced. Having a simple template like that makes it easier to add/edit entries (there is practically no formatting code, just a simple template). It makes anchoring easier, and we can put in a "back to top" link quite easily in all the boxes, which I personally think it important in any FAQ list. Having a clickable link title which links to that question's anchor (like what you see on each forum post's timestamp) makes linking to questions really easy, all you need to do is right-click the title and copy. Also, the gradient-box looks very Scratchy, doesn't it? I thought that was a rather cool looking bit of formatting. I suppose I could remove the box and just have the header+text, but that seems a bit bland, don't you think? I mean, compare [this] to mine.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Lol. It looks nice now. Lightnin likes it too.
There are only two questions now. a) Do we use 1 big page with everything, or a few shorter pages with general categories. b) What happens to the current FAQs in Category:FAQ?
a) I like several short pages. b) Some of them could stay, such as How Do I Get My Projects to Become Popular? and Which Forum Does My Post Go In?, but Is There a File Size Limit for a Project? doesn't seem quite significant enough with these.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Resuscitated discussion. I vote for one long page, as FAQs traditionally are. It seems unethical to intentionally bump up our article count.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 13:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed it from the archive so that we won't have duplicate archives.
So you're going for traditionalism? That's boring. It's also a very long page. The wiki used to give a warning if a page was longer than a certain amount of bytes, saying that some people could have trouble with it. If we took, even summarizing, the 74 FAQs from the forums, and the others from the official FAQ page (which is 42.5 KB), how long would it be? It would be difficult for people who have the technical abilities to find the right part to edit... And i like the growing article count. If we're doing it legitimately, i think it's fine.
Scimonster (talk | contribs)
Fine, how about we make a new page for each category, but not each FAQ? (see my TOC/mockup for what I mean)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. This discussion is getting huge... is there some way to shrink the top? Are we allowed to make a subheading in the middle to make editing easier?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I personally think that the FAQ page should be organized as Hardmath123 suggested, with one page for each category. It seems like the most practical solution for the number of FAQ questions we will probably have. The article count on the wiki is irrelevant to this decision.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, i didn't mean a page for each FAQ; i eventually agreed that we didn't need that. I meant a page for each category, like you guys think. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Subpage, yes.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 10:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't really love subpages. Scratch Program FAQ, Scratch Forums FAQ, etc sounds better to me.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Subpages should be fine. After all, I don't think these FAQ pages should appear when the "Random Page" button is clicked (except for the one with the table of contents).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
How does this look (formatting-wise) so far? User:Hardmath123/Sandbox/faqtest
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 10:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Subpages appear in random page. And why not?
@Hardmath: Looking good.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey - I have an idea! So, everyone is saying that the FAQ page would be too hard to fit onto one page, so why not fit it onto multiple pages. Like so: On the first page, the name of it would be Frequently Asked Questions (Page 1). Then, 10 questions would go on that page. And on the bottom of that page, there will be a link say: "Page 2>" Which will link to a page called Frequently Asked Questions (Page 2), then on that page would be ten questions. And on the bottom of the page would be two links, one say "<Page 1" Which leads to page 1, and another saying "Page 3>." Probably all the stickys would be on Page 1, and all the old FAQ that is in the back of the FAQ forum would be on the last page. (Sorry for writing so much, I just tried to add as much detail as posible without giving a full essay :P). Tell me what you think of this idea.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 19:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty similar to what we were thinking, except we were going to organize by category. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I brought this discussion back from the archive, since I still think it's quite relevant. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to the new archive in old archives before it's created

(I hope you can tell what i mean.)

In the code of Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archives it checks if the new archive exists. All this linking really boosts its location in Special:WantedPages, which goes by amount of links. I think it is enough to just link in Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Help Box. Anyone else?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archives is deleted? I think the page is useful for navigating the archives, and so it's quite useful to include it on every archive. I wouldn't worry about Special:WantedPages too much. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I'm fine either way; the /Archives template isn't necessary IMO, but WantedPages isn't important either :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, i think the archive list is good to have. However, when a new archive is created, and the list is not updated, it gives a message saying that the list needs to be updated. The checking is what i'm talking about. I don't think we need the message, because whoever is doing the archive always updates it anyways.
@Jon: :O I use WantedPages to find valid redlinks and create pages. I did 2 pages from their yesterday, and made some redirects.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I still think the message is quite useful. Especially considering archiving only happens like, once a month at most, its easy to forget to update the list. Sure, Jonathanpb has done it quite a few times so he probably wouldn't forget, but if someone new is doing it, its a good reminder (rather than having the problem until someone else notices it). Again, having one extra page on Special:WantedPages isn't a problem at all.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 17:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki, or Scratchpedia

I have been thinking about this for a long time, and I think it is time to tell everyone what I think. I personally think that the Scratch Wiki should be named Scratchpedia. Obviously, this would be hard, but it gives this wiki a better tone to it. Tell me what you think.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 16:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If we would do this, it would be Scratchepedia, because it seemed to be missing a syllable. :P
Anyways, i don't think it's remotely necessary. What's wrong with Scratch Wiki?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree; the wiki has been like this forever and I'd hate for it to change, and I don't see how it would be better to have it like that.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It is just a suggestion.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fine how it is TBH :S
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice suggestion, but I think it's best to keep it the way it is.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)21:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olympics 2012!: New SDS

The new SDS is going live. An admin needs to update the news.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)18:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's updated now. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)