Revision as of 17:21, 15 August 2012 by JSO (talk | contribs) (fixed indentation)

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
101 102 103 104
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: 38,977 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).

Here goes nothing

So Sci just told me he thinks I ought to take a shot at being an admin. So...

I'd like to be a Wiki admin. There, I said it.

I'd make a good admin because:

  • My Wikipediholic score is 1480.
  • I edit a lot, and have more edits than Lucario. I have made and rewritten many articles, including Squeak Tutorial, my personal favorite. My grammar and knowledge about Scratch and programming are pretty good.
  • I'd like the shiny new tools like deleting, protecting, editing protected pages, adding to the Wiki editor army, and defending the Wiki from evil, mean-spirited spammers (*gasp*).
  • I'm a responsible Scratcher.
  • Wiki Admin is a good title to flaunt. :D

I know I'm making a tall order, and I sincerely understand the responsibility I'm asking for. So thanks, and Scratch On! :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you would be a great admin. You have made many quality edits and are the non-admin editor with highest edit count.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)15:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Since you mentioned that i suggested it, everyone knows my take on it. :P
Some points i'd like to point out:
  • Hardmath edits a lot, and edits more than Lucario.
  • He makes all good edits
  • He has the highest edit count of a non-admin, which is wrong, being 2500+.
  • He (used to, at least) reminds the admins to update the news, which he could do on his own
And, that's it for now. No one can contest that you have a lot going for you. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I have no doubt that you'd make a great admin and would use the tools well (and that you have more edits that Lucario, but come on, that's easy), but I feel like I need to ask the eternal question that everyone needs to answer: what, specifically, would you with do with the tools that are available to administrators to help the wiki that isn't already being done by the current admins who are pretty much on all the time due to their differing time-zones?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, the deleting is a simple tool which to be honest I wish I had just because I need it once in a while. Protecting pages is one which I think I would mainly use on templates which are used a lot, like Template:User, and being able to edit protected pages is nice because I've been here for so long I know once in a while we do need to change a template for some reason. Also, as Sci stated above, I'd help out with the news and I'm pretty sure I'd keep it more informative than the current newsboard, because I'm very active on both the main site and forums. Also, I think the newsboard has deteriorated into just updates about curators and SDSs, and the occasional new mod. Having been on the Wiki for 436 days as of today, and not messing anything up that bad, you guys know you can trust me, don't you?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 00:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
For me, even how you've been outside the wiki, as well as inside, should be sufficient reason to be sysop. I hope you get it. :D. This also makes me think that maybe sci or one of the other sysops should become a bureaucrat.
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs) 00:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks SJRCS_011 and Bsteward, I appreciate it. And yeah, Sci and Veggie would make great bureaucrats, too; I assumed they were when I first joined. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
IMO it doesn't really matter if you don't have a million cases in which you'd use those admin tools, because apart from creating archives and updating the front page there isn't much where they're needed. I barely ever delete things, like the only times I use those powers is to archive the community portal :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any problems with you as an admin :P Being a sysop isn't really a big deal anyway.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Quote Icon.png Quote:
Author: However it should be noted that actions of a sysop user are (almost) entirely reversible, by other sysop users, and so it can be a good idea to dish out these extra permissions to a number of users in order to
  • spread the workload of day-to-day sysop operations such as blocking vandals and deleting pages.
  • make things more democratic, and decrease any perception of a single dictator running the community
  • allow competent users the power they need to make progress with wiki refactoring.
  • reward valued contributors/community members
Text:   
Source: Help:Assigning permissions#Promoting users to Sysops and Bureaucrats
I think that once an user had contributed greatly to wiki, and has shown him/herself to be trustworthy editor, he/she should be promoted to sysop/admin.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)14:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Good find, Bsteward. (Hardmath is a boy btw.)
Also, let me remind Luc how i became a sysop, without even requesting... Quote Icon.png Quote:
Author: He has been a very active editor recently, with over 2000 edits, and certainly has many uses for the administrative tools. Keep up the good work.
Text:  Lucario 
Source: User rights log
2000 edits at that time was more than Lucario, a bill Hardmath fits today. Very active editor? Check. Uses for the tools? Check. Reasons against? ._.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
So...?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I still don't see that you've given very good reasons. The first and last are quite irrelevant, you likely wouldn't be able to "add to the Wiki editor army", and there hasn't been any spamming & the only offences ever have been minor-ish vandalism which can still be cleaned up as a regular use. I don't really get why we'd need another admin for the news; we already have the active admins (me, Luc, Sci) and semi-active admins (Chris & Jon) able to do that. Any significant changes to the news require discussion first, anyway, which all of the wiki editors participate in. It just seems like more of a security risk especially on such a small wiki like this.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You forgot WeirdF :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't consider him active.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I admit you don't need another sysop; you're right. But do I really need to prove I need the tools to be granted them? Isn't that kind of like asking users to prove they need to edit the Wiki to give them accounts? According to the quote Bsteward posted (BTW thanks, I appreciate it), sysop-ship seems to be both a reward and a responsibility. I'm not asking for just the title, but I just want to point out it's not entirely about just having a good use for the tools. Again, as a couple of sysops have posted above, they don't even use their powers that much. Finally, I don't see it as a "security risk", because I consider myself a responsible person on the whole. :/
Looking up at the discussion, it seems like Sci, SJRCS_011, BSteward are for, Chrischb and Jonathanpb are neutral (edit: Janathanpb is for) and you seem to be against. I think I'll ask Lucario to give the final verdict, since WeirdF is (I believe) inactive.
P.S. I'm not going to be really upset if you don't promote me, since I honestly didn't consider it until Sci encouraged me. Maybe I'll be a bit disappointed, but that's it. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Hardmath deserves the powers more than inactive or semi-active admins though... it's kinda unfair how some admins aren't very active and get to be a sysop while Hardmath is active and doesn't get it :/ (I'm for Hardmath being a sysop btw, count me in :P)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jonathanpb. Lucario? We haven't head from you yet...
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasons for Hardmath123 being admin:

  • My Wikipediholic score is 1480. — Hardmath123
  • I edit a lot, and have more edits than Lucario. I have made and rewritten many articles, including Squeak Tutorial, my personal favorite. My grammar and knowledge about Scratch and programming are pretty good. — Hardmath123
  • I'd like the shiny new tools like deleting, protecting, editing protected pages, adding to the Wiki editor army, and defending the Wiki from evil, mean-spirited spammers (*gasp*). — Hardmath123
  • I'm a responsible Scratcher. — Hardmath123
  • Wiki Admin is a good title to flaunt. :D — Hardmath123
  • You have made many quality edits and are the non-admin editor with highest edit count. — Bsteward
  • Hardmath edits a lot, and edits more than Lucario. — Scimonster
  • He makes all good edits — Scimonster
  • He has the highest edit count of a non-admin, which is wrong, being 2500+. — Scimonster
  • He (used to, at least) reminds the admins to update the news, which he could do on his own — Scimonster
  • Well, the deleting is a simple tool which to be honest I wish I had just because I need it once in a while. — Hardmath123
  • Protecting pages is one which I think I would mainly use on templates which are used a lot — Hardmath123
  • Having been on the Wiki for 436 days as of today, and not messing anything up that bad, you guys know you can trust me — Hardmath123
  • actions of a sysop user are (almost) entirely reversible, by other sysop users, and so it can be a good idea to dish out these extra permissions to a number of usersHelp:Assigning permissions#Promoting users to Sysops and Bureaucrats
  • spread the workload of day-to-day sysop operations such as blocking vandals and deleting pages. — Help:Assigning permissions#Promoting users to Sysops and Bureaucrats
  • make things more democratic, and decrease any perception of a single dictator running the community — Help:Assigning permissions#Promoting users to Sysops and Bureaucrats
  • allow competent users the power they need to make progress with wiki refactoring. — Help:Assigning permissions#Promoting users to Sysops and Bureaucrats
  • reward valued contributors/community membersHelp:Assigning permissions#Promoting users to Sysops and Bureaucrats
  • 2000 edits at that time was more than Lucario, a bill Hardmath fits today. — Scimonster
  • Hardmath deserves the powers more than inactive or semi-active admins though... it's kinda unfair how some admins aren't very active and get to be a sysop while Hardmath is active and doesn't get it :/ — Jonathanpb

Reasons against Hardmath123 being admin:

  • IMO it doesn't really matter if you don't have a million cases in which you'd use those admin tools, because apart from creating archives and updating the front page there isn't much where they're needed. — Chrischb
  • I still don't see that you've given very good reasons. — Veggieman001
  • Any significant changes to the news require discussion first, anyway, which all of the wiki editors participate in. — Veggieman001

My Comment: A discussion is not required to update for an SDS or Scratch Curator

  • It just seems like more of a security risk especially on such a small wiki like this. — Veggieman001

My Comment: actions of a sysop user are (almost) entirely reversible, by other sysop users

Although this list is a little biased, it seems that there are a lot more reasons for Hardmath to be an admin then him to not be one. I would like to see what a bureaucrat thinks about this.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)15:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, i see you did some nice work there, Bsteward. Luc said he needed JSO to have a discussion about whether to do it. I haven't seen JSO on Scratch in a while though. :S
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
O RLY
JSO (talk | contribs) 17:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I was responding to when Hardmath said "Also, I think the newsboard has deteriorated into just updates about curators and SDSs, and the occasional new mod." Those are the only reasons we update the news now, so if we were to change it to another format with more things then it would require discussion.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that really seems to put stuff into perspective. Thanks a lot, Bsteward, if I do become admin you're over 40% responsible. :) I suppose we just wait until Lucario and JSO think it over.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 00:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Lol, that bit where I said "IMO it doesn't really matter if you don't have a million cases in which you'd use those admin tools" I meant that as a reason for hardmath to be admin :P When posting that I was saying that I thought he should be an admin even if he doesn't need to use the tools a lot xD I guess it could be taken both ways though, but posting this to say I meant it that way
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:09, 14 August 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. http://vimeo.com/help/faq/general_vimeo_questions . 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 (1,435 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 http://info.scratch.mit.edu/Support/Scratch_FAQ] 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)
"Bump" :/ This seems to have died out...
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 10:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
You're right... What say we do it next week? Someone can create a WikiProject about it, that summarizes what we'll do, then next week we go to it. (I chose next week because i'm not available for all this work this week, and i wouldn't like to miss this!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Let's not rush things too much scimonster. There's still a lot of things we have to decide upon before we can start moving stuff to the FAQ.
  • How will everything be formatted? I think the system we decided upon is to have one central page with a table of contents, and that page would have subpages that contain the questions and answers. The answers should probably be between one sentence and three (small) paragraphs long. Does this seem reasonable?
  • What categories of questions will we contain? As there will be two FAQS in Scratch 2.0 (one on the main website managed by the Scratch Team, and one managed by the wiki), we want to make sure they do not cover the same topics. We can probably work on brainstorming a list soon.
If we can answer those questions soon, then we can (probably) start working on the actual FAQ.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
It had just been sitting here for a couple months...
@1: yes. @2: Maybe we should duplicate, some at least? If they are directly related to the categories.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible News Event

The SDS Curator system just moved to a 4-month rotational system (along with permanent curators), and two new curators were added (JustAnotherFace and angelica101). Is this newsworthy enough for a spot on the main page?
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 12:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I never heard anything about this until just now. Who are the permanents?
I think it's OK, but i want someone else's opinion first.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
It's all of us SDS Curators who were active before the rotations started. We get to train the regular DS curators before they officially start. So, ATM, it's you, JJROCKER, stevetheipad, and me.
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 12:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Just one thing: Do i really get counted as active? That's generous. Also, all mods have SDS permissions, so do i still need to be counted? (And you removed poopo from the list. Did he, the first SDS curator that i know of, retire?)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep, as of now you do. I haven't seen sparks active in a long while, and I think I only saw pokemongardevoir once in the time I've been a curator, let alone poopo or lilacfuzz101.
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is newsworthy (yet), because I don't see where this has been mentioned on the main Scratch Website. After all, the Scratch Team's info page about curators here hasn't changed at all - and there's no announcement topic about it. If there's any posts about this by the ST or Curator team though, it would definitely help. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, there's this post about it... xP
I asked on the "SDS curator discussion board" (aka http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/Lightnin/2133983), and Lightnin was explaining to me how it'll work. I just asked when this was/will be implemented, and now i'm waiting for an answer.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wiki Standards

I think this is a very useful template to put on articles. It clearly indicates that an article needs improvement, with the reason being for poor formatting and wiki markup - which is usually quite easy to fix. However I think there are some ways this template can be improved.

  • Change the color - I personally think that since this template is very similar to {{stub}} and {{expand}} in the sense that it's encouraging users to improve upon articles, it should colored blue, like the others.
  • Categorize the articles its used on - I think it would be great since if there are new wiki editors who are wondering where they can help on the wiki, it would be a useful place to start. Although clicking "Random Page" and looking for problems can suffice for some, improving a bare-bones article to a greater version is very rewarding, and would motivate newcomers to edit more - especially as its a simpler task. For example, this article could use some editing help - and a new member could easily see "Oh, I can add bullet points to the list of members... and add an extra sentence to this section", or if they're more experienced, "This could use the {{collaboration}} template!"

What are your thoughts on these ideas? Please leave them as a response below. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Another big reason i add it to articles is if it's written like a form post, not an encyclopedic wiki article, such as Make Better Cartoons. (Maybe you should add plainlinks to your "external link"? :))
As for the color, i debated it, but decided that it also a "bad page" template and should be more eyecatching. Stub and expand usually mean it's a article that has some content, generally written OK, but could use more. At least, that's how i see it.
I suppose categorizing should be done. I think i made the template at a time when we were debating auto-categorization.
Oh, and since you pointed it out, i might as well go clean up The Bit Company. ;P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the bullets for you. :)
Anyway, I agree with Lucario here. Not matching Wiki standards is more of a "do something here" than a "serious problem here". It should tell you to fix it, not inform you it needs to be, if that makes an ounce of sense.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh?
Yeah, makes sense. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed the template based on what Lucario said.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)

New curator

The news needs to be updated.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 22:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying us! I've updated the news. :) (Also thanks for updating the Curator article.)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 14:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've cracked the Disappearing Text Bug!

I think we've resolved the Disappearing Text Bug. It turns out that it's not actually a bug in the Scratch program, but an issue with the Windows server, and Ubuntu Linux. Here are some clues:

  • I never get the bug or a similar issue on Mac OS X, and neither does Joletole. :)
  • A similar issue happened on Word 2003 at BB6, room 110. :O
  • Some Scratchers got the bug in pre-1.3 versions, such as 1.0.1. :(
  • It can happen on Linux. :(
  • One Scratcher got an issue related to disappearing images! :O

So Scratch 2.0 probably won't fix/avoid the bug. The bug might just be less effective.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It will fix the bug, because the issue is with Windows/Linux and Squeak. This issue does not happen with Flash.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Although I'm glad to see this new info that can possibly be added to the Disappearing Text Bug article, this is a post that best fits in the forums. The community portal is for discussing wiki questions/comments/issues, and not general Scratch topics.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 03:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)