Revision as of 01:35, 26 February 2013 by Lucario621 (talk | contribs) (Replied)

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!

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

Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103
If you do not think a discussion is done, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.
Size of Community Portal: 102,997 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).

Please start with Interwiki

No Not done

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

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

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

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

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

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

Automatic edit summaries

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

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

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

1.x info on Wiki 2.0

No Not done

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

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

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

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

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

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


Divider 1

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


Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

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

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

Suggestion for 2.0: revamp text editor

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

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

Mod Section

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

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

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

List of New Blocks Page

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

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

Scratch modification pages

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

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

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

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

How To pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That seems like a good idea, but how come i haven't heard about about this until now?
I've long warred with myself over this very problem, and i'm glad that it's being addressed.
This actually seems pretty similar to the FAQ — both geared towards newbies (mostly); both are written in second person; both have a special category and look. Any chance they could be connected more?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds interesting. I think we should make what this little icon would look like first if we do decide to do this. Somebody's sandbox maybe, or the Scratch Wiki:Sandbox. Also, maybe add on those "confusing pages" with Template:Main so that it helps clear up some things. Maybe split those pages in half if need be. One thing though, how long would we have the title of the page? Would we go for shortest to have an easy URL or lengthy so a search for it would more likely come up with that page?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, How-to pages are not allowed, so there is a template for articles that sound too how-too-ey, so that the article can be improved.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
But Wikipedia also allows categorizing user pages and dumb categories.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
While this is a wiki, it doesn't have to work in the same way Wikipedia does :P Anyway, sounds nice!
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good! I had some trouble writing Squeak Tutorial without making it too informal or too wordy, having a howto section will make it much easier. :D
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Actually, that article is outdated now that we have Flash-based software. :(
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think tutorials about 1.4 are still relevant, especially if we had a certain category for them.
On the idea as a whole, I think it's a really good idea.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Possible downtime / locked db time

Hi all - just to letcha know, I'm working on moving the wiki up to a server in Amazon's cloud, and upgrading the back end stuff. That means I may have to freeze the db now and again (when making a copy of it). It should tell you when the database is frozen, and won't let you submit edits during that time. There may be other flakinesses as a result of the migration. I'll ltecha know once we're done.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright. This is a quick test.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems like this in in the middle of moving. The history diff style is cool, but the URL is not. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I was looking something up and got 404'ed. :P
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Video/Project element

Easier to make demonstrations (Of course I understand if MB Limits prevent it)But easier to like show a project/video about (e.g Modifications)
Devloper123 (talk | contribs) 22:31,11 Febuary 2013

? Maybe more details.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
See Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 31#We GOTTA Have This Extension. (I was a n00b back then. ^^)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
lolxd n00b xDDDDDDDDD
Plus you can pretty easily link to stuff on Scratch and YouTube/Vimeo/whatever so it's not that big of a deal.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Status of wiki migration / upgrade

No Not done

Thanks to everyone for being patient while me move stuff around! We're now upgraded to Wikimedia 1.20, the latest version, and also situated on Amazon's cloud service, which is a good spot to be in while we reshuffle all the physical servers during the transition to 2.0. Apologies for having to rush things - but I wanted to minimize the amount of time we had to keep the database frozen, so I spent most of yesterday migrating and upgrading. The old skins, unfortunately, don't work at all with this newer version of wikimedia - so we've got some work to do there. nXIII has started working on a 2.0ish skin that I hope we can get up soon, and then continue to refine with JSO's help. One other thing to look out for is functionality that didn't take the upgrade all that well - custom code like wiki approvals may have problems. Extensions are another piece that could be tricky. Please keep me updated about any issues you find post-migration, so we can sort them out. Thanks!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that the skins utterly failed.
Is there some sort of setting for the URLs, because all of a sudden, pages are in the root directory, and index.php stuff like editing are in /wiki/. This breaks most stuff, including account request and approval.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
We've made some changes to match the config used on the original server. Can you confirm that URLs are as expected?
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The front page looks messed up, can't wait until the migration. (And yes, I am going to be active again! :))
Joletole (talk | contribs) 20:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! There's plenty of work to be done - we need the help!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
On this CP, i don't see section [edit] links, though i do on articles and ordinary talk pages. Also, the block plugin is broken.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this too, but I figured it was an issue with our skinlessness. I had to ctrl-F to find this post.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 12:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

new look

I preferred the old look, and JSO's skin may have to be changed now.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thankfully, Vector's only temporary (though it'd be nice if we could choose Monobook in the time being; Vector's ugly!). While you may have preferred the old look, the skin doesn't work with this newer version of MediaWiki. They're switching the server and skin now, I believe, because they're working on the transition to 2.0 as well as because they need to redo the skin anyway, so it just makes sense to only do the new one. And we can't really avoid the new MediaWiki since it's kind of bad to have outdated software plus it already happened.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it feels too much like Wikipedia and just seems weird.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
It is only temporary, as I said in my post as well as is in several posts around here plus the message at the top. It is the default skin of MediaWiki. Be patient.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki:About

At the bottom of each page there is a link that reads "About Scratch Wiki" but it leads to a deleted page. Redirect?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Update: All footer links lead to deleted pages except "About Scratch Wiki" which I just fixed.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, this may be because of a configuration difference in Apache that we just reset to match the previous one. This means that any links you reset may need to be set back to the old, original, pre-migration url.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 00:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Doesn't appear to work anymore. I keep getting a list error and some code.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably just a defect during the migration. It should work again soon.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

scratchsig links

The link that my username in my scratchsig leads to is Wiki/User:Curiouscrab instead of User:Curiouscrab. Needs fixing.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Another side-effect of mid-migration, I'm guessing.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

box template

I created a template for templates everywhere else that use boxes that can be found at User:Curiouscrab/Box. Wondering if it could be a template.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


I think there should be something that users can click on and make their own version of the main page of the wiki so they can show their ideas. Currently I don't have a good label on the button and that would need to be discussed. What do the admins think?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand... what is the purpose of this?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In case some users want to show their ideas it would be easier to click once then to click view source, copy, go to sandbox, then paste and make changes.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
If someone truly wanted to show their idea for the front page, I think they can just copy at paste (since that's what you have to do for any other page or piece of code). Plus, the button there would be useless for users without wiki accounts and probably be confusing for them and new users as well. I don't support.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


Bulbapedia has a BulbaBot, so why not Scratch Wiki have a ScratchBot or a GoboBot? Whatever the bot is called, we certainly need one on here.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:14, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
If we do decide to make a bot with one of those names, I will make concept art.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The idea of a bot has been brought up several times, and it would be useful, but the main problem is that none of us really knows how to make one. I've tried, but it's a little difficult to mess with the APIs.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
True... I sure wish I knew how to make one...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
You've gotta use something like PHP, Python, or Perl.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I have a half finished Python script if it's of use to anyone...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
wut's it do
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Comments on top:
# A simple scratch wiki interface. Can:
#   * list pages in category
#   * read page (download wiki markup)
# ~blob8108
So, as you can see, those things.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Suddenly coming back! It's possible to create bots in PHP if you know some, and I've done one using an API. Bots can help with some stuff on the wiki, like replacing words on a page, or mass creating pages, even mass deleting pages (if the bot is a sysop), and more. I can't host it unfortunately, but I can try/help writing the code (if it's PHP).
Ihaveamac (talk | contribs) 03:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I remember: I got stuck at this point because what I really needed was a bot account to test the script with, so that it had permissions to edit pages through the API and so on.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

More Bots, not the good kind. :)

We had some downtime today, which it looks like was caused by Bing. Bing sent bots to index the whole site, seemingly all at once, which killed us (too many page requests at the same time). We added a few things to slow them down a bit so it hopefully won't happen again. But if you notice slowness, please do comment here (with timestamp) so we can check the logs and figure out the cause. Thanks!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 21:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There's some sort of error at the top of the page on every page of the wiki.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
That sounds downright creepy: Microsoft bots sent to attack Scratch = Slone troopers sent to hunt down Jedi. :P It was pretty slow right now, though, just to load the CP.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My Main Page Customization

I thought it would be cool if there were "Recent Articles" and "Recent Wiki Users" sections on the Main Page. View my customized Main Page here. The "Recent Articles" section would show three random of the most recently created articles (Though not user pages. That would go in the "Recent Wiki Users" section). And the "Recent Wiki Users" section would display three random of the most recently registered users. So it would be easier for people to see and maybe say on the user's talk page, "Have fun editing on the Wiki [user]". What do you think? It would be nice to have some opinions!
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 19:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It'd have to be something we could dynamically update, though, for it to be worth it, and I don't know how we could do that.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Well,Most of the time I'm doing Scratch/Wiki/Coding/XBOX/3DS So I Could update(If I get notifications)
Devloper123 (talk | contribs)18:46,25 Febuary 2013


Here I received a message from a user named kierseyna who said they signed up for a wiki account and it somehow got messed up. I think they would like to know what happened, and I'm curious as to what happened as well.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page:Scratch Program

Now that 2.0 is coming out soon, I think somebody should upload a picture of the Scratch 2.0 program (I always get bad images) and then when the time is right change out the picture of the 1.4 program on the Main Page.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi guys! JSO doesn't seem to have been around for a while, and it seemed like fun, so I've been working on a complete rewrite of the blocks plugin for Scratch 2.0, on Github here. You can try it out on this test page, and you can preview it on the wiki by pasting the following into your Javascript console:

   mw.loader.load('', 'text/css');
   $.getScript("", function(){

It supports all the new blocks, including custom blocks and their definitions, and it includes a few hacky fixes (list reporters, anyone? :D). It's released under the MIT software license (thanks to Lightnin for briefly trying to explain licenses to me!). I have yet to test it with IE8, but I'll get there...

Some questions for you:

  • Can we use it on the wiki? :D
  • What should I do about Scratch 1.4 blocks that were removed or renamed in 2.0? (There's a list on the readme page). At the moment they render as obsolete, which might help spot code that needs updating. But should I support 1.4 as well, so it doesn't break existing scripts?
  • How should it deal with unknown blocks? The old plugin sensibly rendered them as obsolete. This colours them as custom blocks -- but I could have the plugin search for block definitions and only render them as custom blocks if you've included the definition as well (kinda like I did for list reporters).

What do you think? :) Thanks!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 12:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The current [ v] reporter still needs work and now any obsolete blocks are purple, not red.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 15:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I mean: it colours unknown blocks as the purple colour used for custom blocks, because you might have defined a block by that name. I can easily add specific blocks as obsolete if needed.
What's wrong with the dropdowns? :)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Something that can't be fixed. I think some sort of code that detects whether a block has been defined or not should be put in so that there are both custom blocks and obsolete blocks.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 18:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Comments need to be created. The // stuff.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, they're the one thing left to do :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
This is super cool! I'd definitely support it being used on the wiki. I like the idea of having to define blocks for them render as purple and rendering others as obsolete. And I think it should support all the blocks from 1.4 as well, plus have some way to change the colour of blocks specifically (for articles on mods, obsolete blocks, etc.) Great work!
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Okay, I'll add the 1.4 blocks back in. And I think I'll switch to obsolete as the default, and custom if they're defined... the one issue is if the custom blocks are defined in a different script. For them to show up as custom blocks, they'd have to be defined in the same <scratchblocks> tag. Would that be a problem?
As for mods: technoboy10 was asking me if it'd be possible to make a Snap!blocks parser. The block library the plugin uses for colouring is written in the scratchblocks syntax itself (have a look at the end of scratchblocks2.js), so adding new blocks is really easy. Should the <scratchblocks> tag simply support blocks from lots of different mods, by default, all at the same time?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it should, otherwise it would need even more complicated coding and stuff.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I pushed a new version that adds 1.4 blocks, and makes unknown blocks obsolete. Custom blocks still work, as long as you define them in the same code (not necessarily before). Comments are still to come. Try it out!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! What I mean by for custom colours is that we could do something like
wait until < (variable) = [100] > {#FF0000}
to make it a different colour, so it can support every mod, without much effort.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
What happened here?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Other than the fact that "[dist v] to ()" isn't a block? :P The parser doesn't like it if things start with inserts — this is because it uses the first character to determine the shape. (Standalone reporters work just fine.) I'll have a look, but I'm not sure if it's fixable/worth fixing.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
A lot of refactoring and a quick hack later, and it is fixed! I needed to tidy up that bit of code anyway... Now this example works perfectly. Note that reporters still need to be wrapped in brackets ( ) to render correctly — this is just to demonstrate that leading reporters don't break the parser. Thanks for reporting!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Just tried this out. Awesome! You did a nice job. Perhaps i should add this temporarily to MediaWiki:common.js, so that ScratchBlocks can work again? #admins
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Please do :) Try this:
   mw.loader.load('', 'text/css');
   $.getScript("", function(){

Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This does look like a cool project you've been working on Blob8108! I definitely agree that the block plugin should be updated/fixed in some form for the release of Scratch 2.0 - when this will be possible, I'm not sure. Though I will definitely consider the different possibilities and show JSO the work you've done when I get a chance.
@scimonster: While I know you have good intentions, you shouldn't change the Common.js or Common.css page without the permission of JSO or I or the Scratch Team. It's simply a matter of keeping the wiki in working order and keeping the wiki's code as manageable as possible - while these pages might be convenient to use, sometimes there are better places for updating the appearance and function of wiki pages that are better for MediaWiki's modular structure. I hope you understand. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

page size

Wow! I'm surprised by the number of lengthy conversations on the portal that the portal doesn't show up in Special:LongPages, or is that only mainspace pages? Anyways, I think the page should be archived soon (or at least the finished topics) because my browser is lagging badly. Maybe a half archive if only half the topics are finished (another reason for Yes Done and No Not done).
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually did just archive it a few days ago, but there are many unfinished topics that couldn't be archived.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this topic needs archiving. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Improve Trigonometry Page

One day I was looking in alphabetical order for the "Translating Scratch (website)" page, and then after finding it, I realized we had a "Trigonometry" page as well. I read through it, but found it to be short and fairly incomplete. Trigonometry (and 3D modeling) is probably the only thing in Scratch I can't do yet, so I was hoping I would be able to learn it from here, but it taught only "Trigonometry" (which I already knew) and not much "Trigonometry in Scratch" (which I was hoping to learn). The example of an application given is really short, and the examples they tell you to try are almost impossible to complete without other help (well, the first two are not too bad). Specifically, the last one: 3D modeling. It's kinda hard to make 3D figures when only knowing those 6 trigonometric functions and their inverses. I think someone who is advanced in this topic should write more about it, and perhaps, split them into different categories. Currently, we have very few math tutorials, and having more, especially for trigonometry, would be nice. Can someone please write some more tutorials on Trigonometry in Scratch so all of those Scratchers like me can learn? Thanks ^ ^
Kayybee (talk | contribs) 05:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wrote a lot of that page and I agree with you: i's too theoretical and doesn't give enough real-life uses of trig. I'll try and add some stuff—thanks for the inspiration.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)