Revision as of 01:36, 8 May 2013 by Lucario621 (talk | contribs) (Unreleased Template: Replied)

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
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: 116,275 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).

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 http://wiki.scratch-dach.info/, 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)

In our Dach-Scartch-Wiki we already have a link in many german article to the coresponding english article. This is true for alle articles in this DACH-Scratch-Wiki-Category:En-Link. Even if you don't understand german, you'll find the link to your english Scratch-Wiki in the so called "Service-Kasten" at the end of each german article. So, because the links in one direction already existy, it would be very easy to switch to a professional use of Interwiki as soon as the technical solution for Interwiki works in both Wikis. By the way: Is somebody of you visting Scratch Connecting Worlds 2013 in Barcelona (homepage)? I'm planing to be there and to speak about the german Scratch-Grassroots-Movement and how the german Scratch-Wiki helps it. It would be great, to have Interwiki until then, to give communities of other languages a good example how they could start their own native Scratch-Wiki. -
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 11:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I took a look at the German artikles and didn't notice anything that led to an English page except for on the homepage where it said "english speaker? See: Scratch Wiki:About" and led to a page in German, which I think should be in English if it's linked to for English speakers, or have a duplicate page or a link to this wiki. I think Lucario621 and JSO may be waiting to see how the German wiki is formatted and the German wiki is waiting for us to do something and nothing is happening since nobody knows what to do. I saw the link to the "official" way of doing this, but I didn't understand it that well. I agree with MartinWollenweber that we should have the Interwiki ready for the 2013 Scratch Connecting Worlds conference in Barcelona.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
a) "except for on the homepage where it said "english speaker?" See: http://scratch-dach.info/index.php?title=Scratch-Wiki:About ... Funny - for me it seems to be english ;-)
b) every single german article listet here: http://scratch-dach.info/index.php?title=Kategorie:En-Link has a link to the english Scartch-Wiki (mostely in the box at the end, sometimes, in category-pages at the top)
c) the Interwiki ready for the 2013 Scratch Connecting Worlds conference in Barcelona: Yes!!! ;-)
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 23:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
a)Strange, earlier I viewed it and Google Translate picked it up as German and I looked and saw many strange characters that were German.
b)The German Community is organizing pretty well, although I had to go through three subcategories to get to an article on Blocks. I like where the link was put, and I could read parts of it such as US-Scratch-Wiki and then the link was in English, but maybe to make things easier the stuff explaining the link should be in both languages. Perhaps some sort of Interwiki template could be used for this purpose and would have something like To see this page in English, see Wiki talk:Community Portal http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal which in code is ''To see this page in English, see [http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}} {{{2|http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}}}]''
c)We need to do something or figure something out, otherwise it won't be done in time.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I made a mock up of the template. Currently it is in the italic style where it's just words in italics and links. I'm not sure if we would like to make it into a box template, but feel free (admins) to edit my sandbox as testing ground for the template if you decide to use it. User:Curiouscrab/Sandbox
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't such template have to be in German, though? :P
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 06:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I made a German version of it, but I had it in English so that English speaking Scratchers who see it could read it if that were on the Scratch-DACH-Wiki. It would be in German if it was here.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Please start with Interwiki: At Scratch Connecting Worlds 2013 in Barcelona

What has to be done, to solve Interwiki professionally, can only be done by the wiki-admins and is explained in Manual Pages for Interwiki. For a Wiki-professional it should only last a few hours to set it up technically (I am an admin of DACH-Scratch-Wiki, but we have no "wiki-professionals"...we have to learn it all ourself ;-). The second step would be the linking, that can be done by all wiki-authors: With an interwiki-bot the linking has only to be done at one side, at the other side the bot does back-linking automatically. At Scratch Connecting Worlds 2013 in Barcelona I hope to meet the Scratch-Wiki-Admins and to convince other language communities (e.g. Spanish an French) to build up native Scratch-Wikis, that could all be linked by Interwiki, like it in Wikipedia. By the way: It could be, that Scratch and BYOB are actually represented much better in the german wikipedia, than in the english one. Who of you want's to change that? (see: Article that lists all Scratch-Links in the german Wikipedia)
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 07:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe to help with confusion, we could do what Wikipedia does. All homepages would have links (link display in native language where it links to) to other Scratch Wikis in different languages. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about Interwiki as much. How does that sound?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia has Interwiki in the sidebar.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
They have this. It's a list of all the wikipedias in each language. I think we were making this Interwiki stuff way too complicated then it actually is.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
They do indeed have such a list, but they also have links on the sidebar like this, which are much more helpful in actually finding things, especially when pages on the different wikis have titles that aren't direct translations from one another.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Still, it shouldn't be this complicated. We seem to have ideas as to how to do it, but we just aren't doing anything. As veggie just said, there's a sidebar. Maybe we should have that.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
That is the Interwiki this entire discussion is referring to.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 :-) yes...just read: Scratch Wiki:Interwiki carefully
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 14:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I see. I thought it was adding a link to projects from there to that same page in other languages. Although, I still don't understand why it's so complicated. Just add a toolbar with links, or is the meeting at Barcelona where we find other Scratch Wikis in different languages and add them to the list that will be in the sidebar. Or are we doing both?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

A plugin needs to be added to allow this, and only JSO (or Lightnin) can add plugins. I don't know anything about the meeting in Barcelona, but I believe Martin is trying to find people in communities in languages like French and Spanish and encourage/help them to start their own wikis. Apparently JSO is helping to organise it, so I'd guess he would be there.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I understand why he is going. I like that idea. I haven't seen JSO on in a while. Maybe Lightnin will be our only hope.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 03:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support. I also hope to meet JSO and if there are other Scratch-Wiki-Authors in Barcelona, I hope to get in discussion with them all.

Could you please do me another favor and have a look at my english proposal. As my native language is not english but german, it's not easy for me to find always the right words. Here is the link to my Proposal text. Please have a look and don't hesitate to change everything you think is wrong direct there in my text, by perserving the meaning that I hopefully was able to express ;-)

P.S. I also contacted JSO at his user-page.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs)

No problem. There's just one thing, what if let's say French Scratchers are only 5-6 years old. It will be complicated to form a wiki off of that. Not all Scratchers know how to make a wiki. Maybe at Barcelona, you could also propose another wiki just in case Mediawiki's wikis are too complicated or unable to be created/hosted. The first Scratch Wiki was made using Wikia and maybe French Scratchers could make a wiki there to start off and call it Scratch-Français-Wiki and Italian Scratchers could have Scratch-Italiano-Wiki.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 14:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Just so you know, I created the DACH-Scratch Wiki article. You can update it with big events happening. Currently it lists the big event as Interwiki being enabled.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank You very much. Great! Some helping links:
      1. Look careful : One part of this german article is in english!
      2. Wouldn't it be good, to have an Barcelona Conference article here to?
Sorry, but I had to disable that third link in the list. It's not clean apparently and caused my computer to almost crash 2 times.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't you mind to find out if that's perhaps a local problem at your computer/browser e.g. by asking other, if they ever had the same problem? I have no problems with that page and posted it to many other people and nobody did complain. It would be very important for our Wiki, to find out if there is any general problem. Can you test more and give more information about your configuration/browser? Thanks in advance! -
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 15:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I created the French Scratch Wiki here if you want to send anyone over there. I decided since this Scratch Wiki originated from Wikia, why not do the same with other Scratch Wikis.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Now Spanish here.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Great! Hope you find Scratcher that start Scratch-Wikis in French an Spanish language. We found out that most important thing is not the "founding" but the "running" of Wikis: You need lots of people, because mostly only 5% of 100% registered users do the main part of the work. ;-) -
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 15:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure, but wouldn't it be a better idea to open threads about making spanish/ french wiki in the french/ spanish forums rather that just creating a wiki? Shouldn't the french wiki be created by french Scratchers? I noticed that Google Translates often translates wrong... :|? -
LiFaytheGoblin (talk | contribs) 17:41, 2 May 2013 (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)

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)

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)
How about Scratch Team Blog (pre-2.0)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
That feels kind of clunky to me :/ With that one, though, the new one is called Scratch Blog on the page.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm.
Maybe we should go with a fake namespace. So, it wouldn't be an actual namespace (so it would could toward the article count and show up in Special:Random), but it would look like it. We could also use Special:PrefixIndex to locate pages on the topic.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
I would honestly much rather use a real namespace than a fake one.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
But as i pointed out above, with a real namespace, it doesn't count towards article count, or Special:Random. It's also a bunch of setup, and i'd like to have it as easy as possible. This way we can also use it as a "template", or at least a precedent, when the 2.0 info becomes obsolete (daring to think that far into the future.)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
The article count doesn't matter at all, although the Random thing is a shame. Its code could be modified, though, could it not? I still think we should do some sort of combination method as I've said previously.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I still don't see why we need to change anything. Why not just keep it the same?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Because we want to make sure the wiki is as usable as possible. And, we don't really have a uniform protocol right now, though it does seem to be a mix of #3 and #4.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to join this conversation late, but the combo of 3 and 4 sounds good to me too. So for big differences (like the Paint Editor, for example), there'd be separate articles, and the one about the old editor would be labeled (1.x) or (1.4) or (pre-2.0) or something? And for the smaller things, like maybe a description of the Featured row on the home page, the information would be in the same article?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
That conversation ended a while ago. Right now we're trying to figure out we should work with the Scratch Wiki:Current Events page in an orderly way after the old blog goes away and the new 2.0 blog comes in. If you have any suggestions as to solve the problem, please say something.
~Curiouscrab (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, we are still continuing the discussion. Nothing was resolved.
@scmb1 Yes, that is the gist of it! It seems the simplest and most like other wikis.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
So, the final answer? #3 and #4 seems to be the general consensus. But what format? [title] (pre-2.0) or Pre-2.0:[title]? And what do we put where i put pre-2.0. I think that that's understandable, and adaptable (pre-3.0 anyone? :D). Anyone got anything else?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel like it should be (1.x) at this point, but it should definitely be a parenthetical.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, (1.x) seems shortest and clearest. I'm not sure you'd ever want "pre-3.0" — wouldn't you be saying (2.x) instead?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, i guess so. Glad to see you came around, veggie. :P BTW veg, if you see Luc, please pester him a bit to come give his opinion on this. Being that 2.0 is coming out in only a week and a half, we should have this ready.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a legit idea.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys-- so I've been talking about this with some other Scratch Team members, and we agree that your plan seems pretty great-- thanks for thinking it through. We were thinking that "1.4" would be a clearer tag than "1.x," since 1.x sounds pretty technical.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs)
Cool. That also provides room for expansion in case we find any major enough differences between features in the 1.x series. @veg, LB23o, HM123, blob, Mathfreak, any other active wikians: So, we have a consensus? Scratch Website (1.4)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm not "active" as such, but yeah, sure, I agree. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You were active enough today. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I have my bursts of activity… that's WikiTroll, right? Or Ogre? :D :P
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Agreed! 1.4 is prototypical of 1.x. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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)
veg, should we make this official at Scratch Wiki:Scratch Modification Pages Guidelines?
On a (somewhat) related subject, do we need them to say (Scratch Modification) at the end of a title? I think not. Apparently, veggie agrees (source).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:32, 1 May 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)

template ranking

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

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

Mixing how-to into information

Like on Friend and Curator. It just seems so weird. Plus, the info doesn't seem relevant enough anyways. Should the how-to stuff be split into a new page, kept, or deleted completely? What do you think?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that we're starting the How To thing (as soon as we have a bit more info about the format to use), that would be a good idea, as long as there's an easy link. Possibly keep it as a section, but only a few lines, and use {{main}}. See Also links are a bit too easy to miss.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin and bureaucrat pages

Click here to see a list of all the admins on the Scratch Wiki and it displays if they're bureaucrats as well. It seems to me that every SW bureaucrat is an admin too. So I thought we should make Scratch Wiki namespace pages that are a list of admins and bureaucrats. What do you think of this idea?
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but since that page (Special:ListUsers) can display a list of the admins and bureaucrats on the wiki, we don't really need a second list that has to be manually updated for the same information. If you need extra information about the admins, you can usually just look on their userpages.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
i think it might actually be somewhat convenient to see which ones are more active, etc.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The reason I thought of the pages was because the list would be easier for newer users to find. But if we're going for what you think, we could just make some Scratch Wiki-namespace redirect to the userlist page listing every admin + bureaucrat on the wiki.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The page to do is Special:ListAdmins. But i don't think even that is necessary.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't even realize we had that link. That's quite a convenient shortcut.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't either until i entered Special:List in the search bar and that came up as a suggestion. I was actually planning to try Special:ListUsers/sysops, where that redirects to.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

2.0 countdown on Main Page

Yes Done

I have a design on User:Scimonster/Sandbox. How does the countdown look? What it says there is actually a countdown to Scratch Day MIT, because the date of 2.0 is not yet published. Does it look OK, and should it be added when the ST announces the date (hopefully any day now)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I do like yours. But I also thought up what's here.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 20:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
i prefer sci's, as it's more visible, but i think it'd look better with some padding.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I added a margin of 3px, and some text-shadow as well. How is it now?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I would say a blurry shadow with no offset would be better.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 09:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/User:Hardmath123/Sandbox#Countdown What do you think?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
That actually looks pretty cool. But what happened to your internal linking skills? ;P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
How it would look in production. But i did shrink the countdown by 25%.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've been out of touch with the Wiki for a while… but thanks! Looking at it on the front page, I'd say a purpler text may blend in better, though the current text has a "2.0" feel to it (I used the same hex value used on the 2.0 site).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 10:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I really like that countdown. But I thought of putting some padding or header on it like I did here.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
@HM: I'd prefer to go with the "2.0-ish feel".
@LGB: IDK, i think leaving it without a heading is fine.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I personally prefer Hardmath's design, although it would take up quite a lot of room - something closer to the size of Scimonster's mockup would be more practical.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, it is a bit bulky. But I made a mockup of how it could look on the main page here, and it doesn't look too bad. You can even put it below the contents.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 06:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that's a whole bunch of info to put up there. :/
I shrunk mine down to 50px text but bolded it, which is still pretty large. I think that should be fine. And i also think they should have the announcement nearly ready, if they haven't posted it yet...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, maybe that was overkill. But I think the newsfeed would look good (a plain counter is, well, plain).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Such styling is hardly plain. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I suppose being a CSS ninja makes you biased. :P
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection + Idea for CP Help Box

I can see that the CP Help Box isn't protected but it seems like it could like Scratch Wiki:Sandbox/Sandboxheader was (I just thought that Scratch Wiki:Community Portal could be protected too). I also thought that the words "the main talk page" on the CP Help Box could link to Scratch Wiki:Community Portal so newer users could find it more easily. What thoughts do you have?
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

i think it's better that it isn't, so that users can add links to archives when admins forget.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
What relation do the words have to the link?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection template

I thought of an idea for a template. If a page was in request or discussion (if so) of protection then people could put the template at the top of the page notifying them. Here's a mockup:

This page is currently in request or discussion of protection. Please avoid modifying this page's contents until further notice.

Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 11:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. It's pretty rare that we would need it though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lightnin says thanks

Lightnin says thanks to everyone who's kept the wiki running during these past few hectic weeks. So, thanks! In particular, veggie, Legobob, Mathfreak, Blob8108, CC, and Turkey3! Scratch Wiki on! :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes! We're so grateful to all of you. And we're looking forward to when things cool off after the release so we have more time to be supportive of the wiki. And by the way, if any of you are coming to Scratch Day, please find me and say hi! (real name is Amos).
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Quote Icon.png Quote:
Author: Keep personal information private. Don't share your email address, phone number, or other personal contact information.
Text:  Community Guidelines 
xP
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Lightnin, are you coming to Barcelona? :D
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
No!! Which is very sad! (I've wanted to see Spain ever since I read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, when I was about 15. And I am now much older than that.:P) The reason is a happy one though - my wife and I are expecting a baby in the middle of July. :)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Aw :( But cool! Have fun with that! :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Yer welks! Too bad I don't live near Scratch Day @ MIT (or like any other) D:
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
It is too bad! If you ever visit Boston, you should visit us at the lab. :)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome Lightnin'!
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Lol, I haven't been as active as I usually am, I got addicted to Papa's Wingeria all over again, and I can't find anything more to do on the wiki. But you're welcome! XD
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

New Curator

Yes Done

There is a new curator, OrcaCat. An admin needs to update the news.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

2.0 and 1.4 feature pages

No Not done

As per the 1.x info on Wiki 2.0 discussion above, we ruled that for major article changes (such as Scratch Website), we have separate articles: Scratch Website and Scratch Website (1.4). Now, we need a way to connect them. I think a template similar to {{about}} would work, called Other Versions. You can view the template code itself at User:Scimonster/Sandbox, and an example use at User:Scimonster/Sandbox2. Is the text OK? It would go at the top of these style templates. Between #2 and #3 in Mathfreak's rules, and between {{Nutshell}} and {{Incorrect Title}} in Legobob's.

Is the text OK? This would also require having redirects such as Scratch Website (2.0) to Scratch Website.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool template! Though I'm not sure about the past tense in "as it was in version 2.0" -- seeing as we're currently on 2.0, can't we say "as it is currently" or "this is about the current <Scratch Website>" or something? Is that possible?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Better?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I like that template!
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I think "this article" sounds weird though. Maybe "this feature"? "information about it as it was in Scratch x" (kinda wordy)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
You could try that.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
They're still a little wordy. How about simply "This article is about version 1.4. For the current version, see [...]" and "For version 1.4, see [...]"?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Or, while I'm thinking of suggestions, you could have "This article is about [...] in version x"...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs)
I don't see why it should only take the base page name. I think it should use the whole page's name, otherwise it may not work on all pages and the link wouldn't go to the right page. So User:Scimonster/Sandbox in the template would be Scimonster/Sandbox (2.0), but when you go to the page the original page would be Scimonster/Sandbox as it says in the suppressed text. It would say Scimonster/Sandbox
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be an optional argument in case the name of the page wouldn't fit? Just use {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}. And curiouscrab, because it is being used in a sentence, using a name with the namespace or parent pages wouldn't look right.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I like blob's suggestion. Now it just says "This page documents an outdated/the current version of Scratch (version {{{1}}})." So i don't have to worry about weird grammar, sometimes wanting "the" and sometimes not.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I like the change, much less wordy.
When do we start updating all the articles? :D
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
After we get Luc's or JSO's approval. But i won't undo all your edits to the Scratch File Format stuff, because i'm 99% sure one of them will come through and agree.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Dang, I though we at least had consensus on the names... :P
Another question is whether or not the current article should be named eg. Scratch Website or Scratch Website (2.0. I think you were suggesting the former, and I agree; but in the case of the file format leaving it as Scratch File Format (2.0) might be better as the change is so large and the content so technical anyway.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this! Both the template and the naming convention seem good, but I wouldn't put the template at the top of the page - maybe at the bottom or a sidebar, where it's not too distracting. Most people coming to the page for the first time won't know anything about versions of Scratch (or even how to tell what version they are working with.) I think it makes sense to provide them with a pointer based on versions, as the template does, but not as the first thing they see when they start reading the article. (Btw - a good thing to do when designing is to try your best to imagine what it would be like for the user without much experience.)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
We could have a link under "See Also" at the bottom, maybe?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, we can put the template at the top of See Also.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

2.0 style Main Page

The current Main Page has a rather 1.4 feel, what with the header bars. For 2.0, we should have a more 2.0 feel. I have two styles. One is basically the current page restyled, here. The other is based a bit more in the 2.0 front page, which you can see here. I have two featured images there (but we could revert to only one), and the contents looks more like Scratch News. Which do people think we should use?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the second one. It makes things more visible.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 19:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I do like your idea, but I thought it could "stand out" some more by adding more color to it. I made the outside space of the MP sections 2.0-ish blue and added text shadow up top to see if it would be necessary. Also, the red "Scratchers" represents Scratchers on the wiki finishing edits and the green "Scratchers" represents other Scratchers coming to see the edits. What do you think?
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 21:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I prefer the one in your fourth sandbox.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I definitely like the second more; it's a nice, more modern look.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
@Lego: Well, i had it be gray because that's the style used on the site. The colored "Scratchers" looks nice, but i'm a bit hesitant about the shadow.
@CC: Why? The more classic look?
@veggie: :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
New style, based on sandbox5. User:Scimonster/Sandbox6. I used Lego's idea of green and red "Scratchers", but that's not the important change. I moved the FA to occupy the entire width (and not have a set height), and put a section explaining a bit about the wiki (with a link to sister projects [namely the German wiki]). How does it look?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I like that idea. I like the layout of the page (I wanted to say more than just "I like that idea").
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 16:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I like the styling on these! Six is good, but the FA is too wide, and the page looks a bit too busy. Can we cut down the amount of "stuff" on the homepage generally? I think the Scratch Wiki section should be more prominent. And I'm not sure about the coloured "scratchers". The red in particular is a bit distracting.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I really like the second one better. The first one is kind of boring and has the same long page feel it does currently. I specificly like the second one because there are two columns, which we were not using before.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 21:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
All of these seem nice to me - I prefer #6 most of all. But I think once we come to general consensus about style, it's fine to just go for it and put something out there. We can always tweak it later.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 13:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Images of 1.4 site

Since the site is switching to 2.0 soon, I am taking last requests for images to veggify of the current site, because this will be more difficult to do once the site switches over. If y'allz could round up all the images that have yet to be veggified, that would be mighty wonderful. Thanks!!
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You could try having a look at images in Category:Scratch Website Images and see if you can veggify any of those along with the images in the subcategories. Some specific ones could include File:Delete message.png and File:Scratch Suggestions link from FP.png.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 00:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
What about File:inappropriatecomment.png? Or you could try File:Welcome Userpage.png. Others: File:ST reviewing.png, File:SDS list.png, File:Galleries nav tab.png
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 10:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

2.0 style templates

No Not done

(Yes, i know i'm making lots of 2.0-style topics. It's easier to address each separately.) We have basically two options for templates such as {{stub}}. Use Luc's style (nice and roundish), or use the style currently in {{Unreleased}} (no round bottoms, like on 2.0)? I think the second style (perhaps even white, not gray) is more authentic, because what these templates remind me most of in 2.0 is at the bottom of a forum list, where you can choose standard/mobile, and credits DjangoBB. For sidebar templates, Luc's style is just fine. The only real question is for ones with no header. I say no round bottom. And as for color, for most, use white, but for currently red ones ({{NotUseful}}), use gray.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I kind of like Lucario's 2.0 template style. It looks smaller and just more normal. Though I think {{unreleased}} can stay as it is. For the color style, I think just having every template like {{stub}} and {{notUseful}} the same grey/white makes those templates seem like "just other templates". I think we should have a unique color style for the templates depending on what we use them for (Like notUseful is red and Stub is blue). I think we could have the currently blue templates have that grey/white you talked about. Templates like notUseful could have some red border around them like what I did in my sandbox here.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 18:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
And {{BYOBimgs}} could have a yellow border like the normal template as well as {{BrokenImage}} having orange-ish border. It could still have that grey/white you were talking about but I just decided to mention it.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 18:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
The don't think we need borders for most, though admittedly it might be good on the red templates, The ones you most recently mentioned have no need for other colors. But as a mentioned, the flat bottom is most authentic, and does look nice for the templates that go on top.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I vote the second style; it looks cleaner. And I imagine it'll match the wiki theme once it's updated for to match 2.0. The coloured backgrounds are kinda distracting. I think use the second style with the grey background for all of them, and let the different icons provide the colour.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I tried previewing the images handling the color in my sandbox, and I think it would look best if the border (space outside of template) was a certain color. Also, the reason I like the first style is that it makes the templates look more organizable. We all have opinions...
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 11:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I made the radius smaller for {{notUseful}} in my sandbox, top and bottom, but then, I decided I could give the templates a flat bottom, but smaller radius than {{unreleased}} so it still looks organizable.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 18:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

White text on BC templates

On the Block Category templates, the text on the the templates is always a darkish blue. So even if the heading color was a darkish blue like {{Motor Blocks}}, you could hardly see the text. I thought of idea for an option on {{navbox}} or {{collapse top}} to make the text blue or white. That way, the text would come up easier. What do you think of my idea?
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 23:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because the it can only be made white inside of the link. So, technically impossible. Sorry.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
We could use a class and put it in Common.css or whatever
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, that does sound like it would work.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Unreleased Template

I guess we will have to go around to every page with the unreleased template and manually remove the template from the page. Does anyone, have any idea of how to make a bot. It will come in handy.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 14:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very hard to me. We just go into Category:Scratch 2.0 and go through all the pages in the category removing the templates.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 14:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we haven't really figured out how to make a bot yet, so we'll probably just have to go through them manually though it shouldn't be difficult, doing what Legobob said.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Or how about Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unreleased? I still have a half-finished bot somewhere; I could probably finish it (given a bot account to test with! :P). When do we start switching the content to 2.0, btw?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Good Idea! I think the info would be more accurate that way.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ooh, I managed to make a test edit from my bot!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
@Legobob23o, revision 60851 -- :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I think we should start switching content now.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree! Do we have to ask someone nicely first though? :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Probably should wait for the O.K. from Luc, JSO, or Amos first.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a script all ready to strip out the template from all the pages it's used in, which I think should work. I think I'm going to go ahead and run it; we are just before 2.0 release, after all. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Lightnin gives the go-ahead signal.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Done! (with apologies to the wiki's edit history and the server load :D) A list of modified pages can be found in User:Blob8108/PreviouslyUnreleased. We should really make a bot account if I'm going to do this too often. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
That's beautiful! *sniff* Can I have the code?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Hah, thanks :P (It's really not...) Just for you! the code
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, error, I totally forgot str.replace only does the first occurrence... and that it's case-sensitive :P *facepalm*
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Oops. xP It looks like you also forgot that it might have a newline after it, but that doesn't matter too much, and doesn't even show visibly in most cases. But why does it look like it took the bot 4 minutes to run? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured I'd just leave the newlines, sorry :P Um... because it did?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Well if you plan to use bots to help speed up your edits on the wiki, I guess I can't say there's anything wrong, as long as you're careful and stuff. :P Keep in mind that there were at least a few features like cloud lists that didn't make it to 2.0 yet (like cloud lists), so there could still potentially be features that need the template. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Title protection

Like Lucario621 said in the Admin and bureaucrat pages discussion above, I think it would be good if someone could protect Scratch_Wiki:Administrators and Scratch Wiki:Bureaucrats.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where he said that and I don't see why those need to be protected.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

2.0 style "new message" thing

I saw a 2.0 styling of the "new message" thing in User:Lucario621/Sandbox9 and I thought of putting some improvements on it in User:Legobob23o/Sandbox2. What do you think of the ideas so far?
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 23:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks kinda upsidedown, and with a strange border color. Perhaps we don't even need that though. If JSO can make a good enough skin, perhaps he can include that in the header. :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The reason I have it "upside down" is because it looks as if a message is coming from the top of a screen saying "you have received a new message" like on mobile devices such as iPhone. But if you really prefer having it like all the other 2.0 style templates, I won't mind.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 09:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sidebars for most pages

Something Lightnin said above gave me an idea. "... a sidebar ...". So, we don't have sidebars on most pages, only block, version, and mod pages. But why not? Wikipedia has on many many pages. So, we could also have on website feature pages, programming feature pages, and forum pages. If we're doing this, it might also be helpful to have a meta "sidebar" template (like WP), to easily create other sidebars.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. A good one too. I tried out some mockup coding in User:Legobob23o/Sandbox2 and transcluded the coding to show an example use in User:Legobob23o/Sandbox3. Is it good so far?
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice start. I don't think we need an image space for the forum one. Also to include for forums: topics (e.g. 3000+), posts (e.g. 50000+), topic creators (e.g. Scratch Team and Community Moderators, posters (e.g. all).
For program & website features, it could have these (just brainstorming): image, category (e.g. projects/scripts/front page), i don't know what else. Maybe that doesn't sound like enough for a sidebar. :/ But the forums we could.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Random topics

There are quite a few topics I've seen that aren't really Scratch related, like Python. Is there a guideline about this?
OrcaCat (talk | contribs) 02:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Python.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Okay, but is there a guideline anywhere?
OrcaCat (talk | contribs) 23:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Scratch in the Physical World

Greetings! We're linking to the How_to_connect_to_the_physical_world page from the lower right sidebar of the main Scratch 2.0 Help page. Originally someone helping us was supposed to fill it out, but he didn't get very far. Can you guys help?
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 03:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i can't, because i myself don't have any of those devices, or know how to use them.
BTW Lightnin, when you want to add a new topic, click "Add topic" at the top. It keeps it formatted nicely, and gives it an automatic edit summary with a link to the new topic.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Category changes

No Not done

Some of our categories have gotten quite large and deserving of new subcategories. Some categories seem to have the wrong parents. And a couple don't seem to be necessary anymore. I created an updated category tree here. I didn't include every category in there. Basically, the rule is, if no subcategories are listed, it doesn't change. What do people think about these changes?

Additionally, is it time to kill Category:Scratch 2.0 and Category:Scratch 2.0 Images? We can then put 1.4 images into the two categories i designated for that.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the category tree you made. It's descriptive.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo On News

The main page news says May 7th instead of May 6th. An admin needs to fix that.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

According to their Twitter feed, they are closing down the site "tomorrow", which i took to mean as the 7th. Do you have support?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Never mind; i just confirmed with the ST.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

News countdown issue

Currently the countdown is set to say "(days left) days". However, when 1 day is left, it will say "1 days". There should be some sort of expression to remove the S if only one day is left, or manually remove it on the last day.

I think that this would work: {{#expr: (1368075600 - {{#time:U}})/60/60/24 round0}} day{{#ifeq: {{#expr: (1368075600 - {{#time:U}})/60/60/24 round0}}|1||s}}
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

When they announce the time, i think we'll modify it to be hours (except it won't auto-update. But it's not like anyone actually stays there).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The countdown now does say "1 days". The alternative code that I recommend (which also has hours on it) is in my sandbox.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
It's been done!
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken signatures

Because signatures use the API on the old website to get the user icon, and that API is no longer available, they will result in errors on all talk pages. This should be fixed ASAP, to avoid triggering PHP errors. While not much can be done to fix this until 2.0 is released, in the meantime they can just show the Scratch icon or something. --jvvg

JSO isn't available to fix it right now. :S
Also, please at least sign your name and time, like i am. --Scimonster 14:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I Was Able to Access the 1.4 Site for the Last Ten Minutes!

For some reason i was able to access the 1.4 site for the last ten minutes!
Legomanz (talk | contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Both" sites?

Yes Done

I tried Safari, Firefox, and then Google Chrome and it was only beta.scratch.mit.edu that redirected to transition.scratch.mit.edu. Could an admin fix that?
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Picky, picky, picky...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Things down while Scratch 2.0 is being updated

ScratchSig has been disabled, because it relies on the old site to show user icons. It had been filling up the page with PHP errors, so Lightnin turned it off for now. A bit inconvenient, but we'll make do.

Please report any other problems while Scratch is down!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

MP news mistake

Yes Done

The MP news say "the two sites sow the content of transition.scratch.mit.edu". Shouldn't "sow" be "show".
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 18:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I was on the 1.4 site hours after the site had shut down.

Nomolos: Ok, so on my PC, I couldn't get in the site, cause it was closed. I got on my kindle browser, and baboom! I was on! I could post, go anywhere on the site, and do what I wanted, while being the only one online the entire site! (Creepy...)

It stopped a couple hours after, but I still got the last post by that. :D

That was probably a cached copy: I don't think it would save those posts.
Epicepicman (talk | contribs) 14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw his post, so it saved and I posted after him :P
Legomanz (talk | contribs) 14:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"_meow_" discovery

Does anyone know how _meow_ was discovered? It needs to be inserted in the page comment.

Updating articles for 2.0

I wanted a to-do list of articles that need tweaking now that 2.0's just about released, so I made a crazy plan in order to provoke further discussion. So, uh, discuss!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sci: I was thinking the "this documents an outdated version" template should go at the top of the page for the 1.4 articles (as opposed to under "See Also", such as Paint Editor (1.4)). We should warn users that the information isn't current. Thoughts?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

a few things

The Main Page countdown is off and now the scratchsig tags aren't working. At least the wiki's working.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)