Revision as of 05:56, 13 June 2013 by Chrischb (talk | contribs) (Scratch skin up again!)

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: 115,597 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)

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: ... Funny - for me it seems to be english ;-)
b) every single german article listet here: 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 Wiki talk:Community Portal which in code is ''To see this page in English, see [{{{1|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}} {{{2|{{{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)
The arrows link to a page about automatic edit summaries, not sure if it's necessary or whatnot, but could be good to have MF231 20:13, 16 May 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)
We totally need guidelines. Too many people try too hard to make their mod's page look good or something, and there have been some minor incidents. MF231 20:17, 16 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)

2.0 style Main Page

No Not done

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)
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)
I like your designs scimonster, and I definitely want to update the main page as soon as possible to keep up with the page of Scratch 2.0. The only problem is that they seem to have some problems with the test 2.0 skin. I'm not sure if this is due to your CSS or the actual wiki skin, but it might be worth waiting for JSO to fix the skin first before continuing... what do you think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I fixed sandbox5 and 6. I think it's a problem with the CSS specification. :P
It seems like the majority wants the one in sandbox6, so i think that's what we'll do.
PS: When will you learn? I prefer Scimonster, with a capital S (like how it shows up here!)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Eh, I'll learn some day scimonster lol.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was supposed to be sC1m0n5tRr.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 09:03, 25 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)

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)

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)
I'm not sure about killing Category:Scratch 2.0 -- after all, if we'd already had a Category:Scratch 1.4 right now, then that would be very helpful :P Maybe keep it for now?
For your category tree, maybe put the page examples at the top of the category, to make it easier to follow? I'll need to have a better look at them later. :)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sci: are we really killing Category:Scratch 2.0? :/
Blob8108 (talk | contribs)
I think so. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Why? It seems a lot easier just to keep it (than to re-create it when there's a v3... :P)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I volunteer to organise the images and will do so next week.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

New wiki skin for Scratch 2.0!

Hey all, I just pushed a new 2.0 skin to the server. Find it in your settings (it's called S2Cookie). Please try it out and share all bugs so we get get the wiki in full 2.0 action as soon as possible :)

the sidebar content type identification boxes are based on page categories. More on this (and probably quite some changes) later :)

Thanks a lot.
JSO (talk | contribs) 16:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey JSO! (Seems you've been gone a while... :D)
It looks nice! Though the search box is a little funny: the magnifying glass obscures "Sea-" in the placeholder text. And it doesn't like narrow windows very much (screenshot). (I'm using Chrome on OS X.) Looks cool, though! :) Very 2.0ish.
Also, feel like adding the new scratchblocks while you're at it? ;) :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
w00t! I'm on it now,looks awesome! Can't find any showstopper bugs. Maybe we can make it the default soon.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 16:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
One other thing is the table of contents needs styling, but I'm sure you know that... :P I just found the menu at the top right, clever! It gets the wiki-editor-specific stuff out of the way quite nicely.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I love it! Neat! The search thing is the only glitch I can find (maybe bullet points should be lght blue or gray? Or orange?
Floating images need more padding:
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 16:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Awesome! Grouping edits in recent changes doesn't load the necessary JS.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
This isn't bold.
That's a bug, right?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey JSO, could you fix ScratchSig to work with the CDN Scratch is now using, and re-enable it? (Lightnin took it down.)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
There are lots of scrollbars in weird places, such as when viewing a diff.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the links could go somewhere. Scratch to Main Page, Create to Scratch Wiki:Create an article, Explore to Special:Random, Discuss to here, and Help to Help:Contents.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The Contents box is just a bunch of links.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
No more red links. They're all blue.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I like that skin you made! Nice to get into the 2.0 shape!
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 21:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The Warning template transclusion is messed up (Note Warning: )
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
The search at the top looks a bit weird and doesn't show the dropdown, and the table of contents on each page doesn't have a box around it. Still pretty nice, though.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah. The general page layout looks like a good rough version so far, but the main problem is that the font size and spacing of the main content is a bit messed up. I think it should be reverted to the previous size/spacing (like on most other wikis) so our templates don't get messed up (as curiouscrab pointed out).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I looked up User:KrIsMa/Templates to see how the templates are going on the S2Cookie skin and {{ListTOC}}, {{Not done}} and {{Done}} mess up.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 11:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick heads up: thanks everyone for the testing, and I'll try to look into the bugs and fix them as soon as possible; Maybe it would be useful to create a quick bug list? Maybe Scratch Wiki:S2Cookie Bugs ?
JSO (talk | contribs) 12:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Done! Can someone check I didn't miss anything?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Another issue is that links to pages that don't exist still show up like normal links (i.e. blue not red).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I filed that one as "Broken links aren't coloured red."
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks great. I don't know if this is helpful, but I'll post anyway. I made a mediawiki skin based on 2.0 site too. I think it follows the layout and style of the 2.0 site a little better than yours, but it has a fairly small width for the content space and has some problems with large space consuming menus. I have been testing it on a server here. You can download the source here.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Doh! The new skin is disabled temporarily. We should have it back shortly, along with some fixes.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Yea! Can't wait to test some more.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Porting authentication to 2.0

If you need help porting the authentication system to Scratch 2.0, I have experience in PHP and have programmed a comment-based verification system on Mod Share.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Please test scratchblocks2

Blob8108 made a good replacement for JSO's Block Plugin that supports 2.0 blocks. Lightnin said they might add it "on Monday" which might or might not mean tomorrow, but in any case, he wants a bit more testing on the wiki before installing. SO, please create a userscript to run on the wiki with the following code:

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

Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I did notice that the header's z-index needs changing on s2cookie (scratchblocks2 uses z-indexes ~100), but that's a one-line fix. It's fine on the default theme. :)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that too.
One thing that we would need: the scripts to run when live preview is refreshed. (Live preview is an experimental MediaWiki feature that i'm using - it uses AJAX to load the preview, instead of reloading the page.)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about that :P Maybe adding it to Common.js, or however we end up enabling it on the wiki, will also make it work on the live preview thing anyway...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Added as a wiki extension - please test!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 21:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:18, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Everywhere! Except if you're using JSO's new s2cookie theme, in which case it doesn't seem to load at all for some unfathomable reason. But otherwise, it should work everywhere!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am using s2cookie.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Switch back to Vector, then :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't like using skins that are incomplete—it makes it hard to concentrate. 16:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi guys! I started a new list of bugs in my userspace. What do you think of the style? People could discuss the bugs under where they are listed. MF231 00:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed template

Line (Scratch Modification) has a warning saying the article was disputed. So I thought that there could otherwise be a template to say so. What do you think of the idea?
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 10:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be used so rarely, i don't know if it's worth it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
That's really what the Warning template is for. It can go almost anywhere. As Sci said, not too many uses for it. Maybe a box could be put around it so a mod to the template could make it so instead of {{Warning|TEXT}} you'd have to put {{Warning|TEXT|yes}} to get the box around it.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The wiki standards one could also be used with a note on the talk page... I mean, if it comes up again then we could consider it but IDK that we need it right now.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Links to old forums

All of the links to the forums since Scratch 2.0 was released are broken. Are the old forums still accessible in an archive? What should we do to update these links?
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Working on that, but it's rather tricky. I hope to have them up this week, but it's an old, tricky system. We'll post in announcements when they are ready.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 14:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Sig extension

Greetings all! The Scratch Sig extension depended on the old Scratch API, which is no longer running. It looks like it could be refactored to display thumbnails based on user-id, but you'd need to find a way to store / associate Scratch user id with each wiki account. To get user id (and thumbnail) just open a user icon on a profile page in a new tab. The icon should have a url like this: If folks don't love the scratchsig extension, it's probably easiest to not fix it. But if you do, here's the current code in case it helps come up with a new strategy.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 14:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

How about using Gravatar based off the user's email address?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Getting the image from the username is annoyingly easy in Python:
r = requests.get("")
soup = BeautifulSoup(r.content)
print soup.find('div', {'class': 'avatar'}).find('img').attrs['src']
Now to hack together a semi-decent HTML parser in PHP :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe when users join, they are given a random profile pic and they can upload an image and change the image by letting the user edit their sig or a subpage of theirs or in Special:Preferences.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
You can do it client-side with an xhr, you know… ;) 03:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
But it's on a different domain. :S
@blob: PHP has DOM parsing abilities; i'm just not so good at it. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:23, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured out the DOM and sent Lightnin an email with the code!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Cool! (P.S. you forgot about D: ) 14:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I actually never knew about corsproxy.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I was kind of talking to blob8108 (we were discussing this on the BYOB3 discussion thread). But check it out, it's great for JS geeks who don't like sandboxes. :)` 16:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I dunno, client side would be kinda meh :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
D: You're mean. :P 22:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
But what about people who disable JS?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
No scratchblocks. 23:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
D: I'm not mean, I'm lovely! :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Separating 1.4 and 2.0

The articles are mixed and mashed in the TOC. Many are still on Scratch 1.4, but many on 2.0. Some were updated, and some remade. To organize this, and for ease of use, I think we could probably either in each TOC page separate 1.4 and 2.0 into categories because there are still are many who use 1.4, and its good to still have those pages for history instead of updating them all to 2.0 and forgetting about the old pages. Or, instead of making separate 1.4 and 2.0 divisions on each TOC page, we could create a new section on the main page all on 1.4, and that will include the 1.4 program, tutorials only related to 1.4, and the website. Then, in the original 3 categories on the front page, they will be all Scratch 2.0 pages, and all the 1.4 articles will be under the 1.4 section. However, blocks would not go into the 1.4 category; they'll stay in their own section. I think this would organize it.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) May 18, 9:56 a.m.

Have you seen the general plan for the articles at User:Blob8108/UpdatesFor2.0? The general idea is to keep 1.4 pages for history, but adding (1.4) to their titles. We're trying to have most of the wiki content refer to Scratch 2.0 features, but just call it "Scratch" to avoid confusing new users that don't know what version they're on. The new articles have links back to the 1.4 articles where relevant (under "See Also").
With that in mind, then, I'd suggest we keep the TOC for current stuff (v 2.0). We could put 1.4-specific articles in their own TOC -- but since most of the new articles link to the old ones anyway, we probably don't need to.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

new things for articles or new pages

I was thinking about users who want specific information from Scratch Wiki articles, but see a bunch of info on just about everything else. I was thinking have a section that answers almost like a common faq about that topic. For example, "What's the difference between Bitmap and Vector?" We could make a section on both of those pages called Difference between Bitmap on the Vector page and Difference between Vector on the Bitmap page that talks about the differences. What's everybody else's opinions on this?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't we seem to have those kinds of stuff? And about that particular example, i think it could earn an entire page to itself, instead of being on Paint Editor.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Here's the thing: On User:BWOG/Edit Rankings, it displays KrIsMa's (as an example) edit count as 1000+, but on his/her actual editcount, it displays it as just under 1000. Is this a glitch or something?
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 18:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think they might just count it slightly differently. In any case, it's not really even a glitch worth fixing.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, even some of the other users' edit counts are a bit off based on that test. But it's not really a big difference, so it doesn't matter.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Modification page guidelines/manual of style?

Veggieman001 suggested guidelines to which Scratch Modifications are notable, and I thought it was a good idea. Now I look at other Scratch Modification pages, and some of them could really use some work. I also look at the history sometimes and see that the creator of the mod edited the page to look somewhat like an advertisement. So I'm thinking of editing guidelines for mods specifically. Any takers? MF231 21:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Once school gets out and I do some other stuff, I'm going to be working on a draft style/content guide for the entire wiki (which I'm going to propose to Lucario & people and see what they think about it before revealing publicly) and that'll probably going to be like mid-June to July.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I created something here already.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
My guide will be more comprehensive and laid out differently, more like the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Forum Links Warning on Front Page

Maybe right now there could be a warning on the front page about links to old forums won't work right now to prevent confusion and/or complaints.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary because it won't affect most users of the wiki plus I haven't seen any complaints so far.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Template idea

Something that tells that the article is out of date and needs updating. I haven't come up with the exact words for it yet. Read this, then tell me we don't need this. (not really of course) Mathfreak231 Talk to me! I did that! 20:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No Not done

We have several topic that aren't done yet. Is it possible for us to resolve them?

Can we get back to some discussions?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

We can't do too much with Interwiki right now and I thought we already finished the front page 2.0 styling with your sandbox5.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 17:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Could you archive the ones that are done, just to clear things up a bit?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
@CC: I thought we agreed on the one in sandbox6.
@blob: Good idea.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
@Sci Woops, I didn't refer back to the post when saying that.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

ST Redirects

Should we create redirects that are ST members names? Sometimes users may want to look up Lightnin and I think it could redirect to Scratch Team.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Not right now. However, i was thinking about a different idea similar to this... I'll post it soon.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Pages about Scratch Team members

To start with: I know about Scratch Wiki:Scratchers and Projects don't deserve articles. However, my idea is to have pages about them as Scratch Team members, not Scratchers. Info such as that John Maloney (johnm on Scratch) is the lead programmer on the Scratch Team; Amos Blanton (Lightnin on Scratch) mostly does community interaction for the ST; Sayamindu Dasgupta (sdg1 on Scratch) is in charge of cloud data, mostly. These articles shouldn't be the target of any vandalism. How does this sound?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may of gotten this from my idea above. I don't think there's enough for an article, but maybe for sections on Scratch Team.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Why's it matter where he got it from?
In any case, I agree w/ Sci in the case that there's enough information about them; what I fear (like Curiouscrab) is articles that are too small.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually got the idea a few days ago, but was still working it out. If we have, we can also include some more info about them, such as how they joined the ST, what their history in programming is (such as that Johnm helped develop Squeak and Morphic).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a good idea; it'd be useful to be able to look up who does what. Maybe have List of Scratch Team Members with redirects from eg Lightnin to headings there?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That sounds OK. But as i said before, if we happen to have some that can be longer, we can expand them into complete articles.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, ex-ST-members like andresmh. :) 15:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Articles about Scratch Modifications on the Scratch Wiki

It seems that there are many articles about insignificant Scratch Modifications on the Scratch Wiki. I think we should make it a rule that Scratch Modifications must be released before they can have an article.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 02:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

veggie was going to write up some rules over the summer.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I'll probably be starting on my style guide probably when I'm up in Canada, this coming weekend. Once I'm done, I'll show it to Luc and then Sci for feedback and then I'll post it publicly (for more feedback).
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New curator

No Not done

I'm going to be a front page curator later today, so the news should be updated to reflect that.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats, although I noticed you already updated the articles. I think the admins prefer if you wait until you are curator.
50px Curiouscrab (talk|contribs) 19:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
It was just a couple hours off. I don't think that it's a big deal.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Scratch skin up again!

We just pushed the Scratch Wiki skin with some fixes. You can see it by changing your skin in your preferences. Could you try it out and let us know if there are any catastrophic bugs before we set it to the default? Thanks!
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks good. I think Blob8108, you, and I did a good job. :)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Agreed - thanks to you, Blob8108, scmb1, and JSO for fixing up the skin! It's looking good.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 21:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The one issue I see is that <scratchblocks> don't work. I think Blob8108 said he was going to work on that.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok skin is live! I think we need to update the ScratchBlocks code, and teh ScratchSig code.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 21:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
K, adding ScratchSig.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 21:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Awesome -appears to be working. Thanks Blob8108! And nice work! :)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 21:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Yay! Here's a link to the list of bugs: Please add any that you find! :)
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Seems to work well. The Scratch Wiki looks better than it ever has before.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 00:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh goodness, this ScratchSig is so much better than the old one.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Looks awesome :o
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)