Line 11: Line 11:
 
:::I agree that the page was definitely not up to scratch (pun intended), but was deletion necessary? Maybe it could include something like the ST's position on them, history, general types of sites. That would emphasize the connection to Scratch better. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 
:::I agree that the page was definitely not up to scratch (pun intended), but was deletion necessary? Maybe it could include something like the ST's position on them, history, general types of sites. That would emphasize the connection to Scratch better. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 
::::As I stated above, with the original page, making it fit Wiki guidelines would have basically required a complete rewrite. As such, I saw it more fit to delete. It can always be re-created.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 
::::As I stated above, with the original page, making it fit Wiki guidelines would have basically required a complete rewrite. As such, I saw it more fit to delete. It can always be re-created.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 15:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 +
:::::Yeah, I agree. I didn't really put much information on how its related to scratch. Perhaps it should be written by multiple people. Permission to rewrite? <scratchsig>Realtheawesome67</scratchsig> 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:15, 6 May 2014

I made this page

Ok, yeah.


Realtheawesome67 (talk | contribs) 00:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


This page should not be deleted.

It is related because there are alot of fourm post to user created sites about scratch.
Realtheawesome67 (talk | contribs)

I also think that this page could exist on the wiki, though not necessarily the way it is currently written. It is, after all, a part of Scratch Culture. jvvg, do you want to explain why you feel it should have been deleted?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
At least the way the page was originally written, it didn't talk about the connection with Scratch at all, it was just talking about websites. Making it more Scratch-relevant would basically have required rewriting the page from scratch (no pun intended).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 11:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the page was definitely not up to scratch (pun intended), but was deletion necessary? Maybe it could include something like the ST's position on them, history, general types of sites. That would emphasize the connection to Scratch better.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
As I stated above, with the original page, making it fit Wiki guidelines would have basically required a complete rewrite. As such, I saw it more fit to delete. It can always be re-created.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I didn't really put much information on how its related to scratch. Perhaps it should be written by multiple people. Permission to rewrite?
Realtheawesome67 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.