(Test edits)
(Creating stubs: Replied)
Line 21: Line 21:
 
:While articles that can never get out of stub stage don't really belong, articles that start as stubs but can be expanded (such as [[Scratch Tours]]) i support having. That way, at least it brings it to the attention of other editors, who can add to the article. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 07:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 
:While articles that can never get out of stub stage don't really belong, articles that start as stubs but can be expanded (such as [[Scratch Tours]]) i support having. That way, at least it brings it to the attention of other editors, who can add to the article. <scratchsig>Scimonster</scratchsig> 07:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 
:I agree with Scimonster. I often like to make pages kind of short (If it's the only way I can make it) because I assume that users can work together and expand the article. Then, we'd get some fine articles. <scratchsig>Legobob23o</scratchsig> 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 
:I agree with Scimonster. I often like to make pages kind of short (If it's the only way I can make it) because I assume that users can work together and expand the article. Then, we'd get some fine articles. <scratchsig>Legobob23o</scratchsig> 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 +
: I'd have to side on veggieman001 on this side. I think the key point that everyone has mentioned is that stubs are fine if there is enough relevant information to turn them into full articles - with the knowledge that they're important enough to be on the Scratch Wiki. But a few of the stubs Legobob created were rather light topics, and in my opinion aren't significant enough to belong on the wiki. An article about MIT, while relating to Scratch, is much more broad, and fits better on a place like Wikipedia. The other articles are also more like small pieces of phenomena or parts of the Scratch Website that aren't notable enough.
 +
: I'd like to remind everyone that what matters is the quality of articles, not quantity. I would encourage looking at existing articles and topic areas of the wiki and trying to expand on them with new information (especially with all of the new features of Scratch 2.0!) If you are creating a new article, consider asking on the Community Portal for people's thoughts about the topic (does it deserve an article? if so, what should be included?), and feedback about the created article from editors. The wiki works best when everybody is able to peer edit and expand on the information of others. :) <scratchsig>Lucario621</scratchsig> 02:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
  
 
== *sees you uploaded a file version with a lower filesize than veggieman001* ==
 
== *sees you uploaded a file version with a lower filesize than veggieman001* ==

Revision as of 02:04, 2 May 2013

Legobob23o
Userpage, Talk Page, Sandbox,
Archives: Archive 1
Welcome to Legobob23o's Talk Page on the Scratch Wiki. Please sign all your posts with four tildes (~~~~) (At top-left of keyboard) and no editing others' posts.


I recommend that before you ask a question or anything like that, search the archives to make sure it hasn't been answered before: Due to an error, you must type in "User_talk:Legobob23o" and then type in what you're looking for.



"King of Images"

I think that title goes to veggie. ;) Or wait, he's the image master. But what did you do to deserve the title?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah well. When I saw a piece of text on the Scratch Wiki and thought a screenshot should go with it, I'd look for stuff on Scratch or the wiki to take a screenshot of and put it on the wiki. That's what made me think I could be "King of Images". But now I could otherwise be the King of Screenshots. I guess veggieman001 should be the King of Images.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 20:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

new users

How'd you find out about all these new users?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw them like a list when Mathfreak231 welcomed all of them and they came up in the recent changes.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 14:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you need to welcome them a second time...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Creating stubs

Hey there! I've been noticing recently that you've been creating a lot of pages. Generally, this is really good; we really appreciate enthusiasm, especially on this wiki which can often get a little stagnant. However, I've noticed that a lot of these pages you've created as stubs (and properly labeled them as so). It's not really necessary to make pages for things if you only really have a miniscule amount of information about them; it's better to wait until you have enough information (and do some research!) so that they don't need to be stubs. If there isn't enough information to make anything more than a stub, it's probably not notable enough to merit an article here (and if you think it does but you can't find any more information, feel free to check in on the Community Portal to get help with research). (If you don't know what articles I'm referring to here, I specifically am talking about pages like Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Scratch Tours, Unfitting Music, and Script Poems.

Thank you, and keep on editing! :)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While articles that can never get out of stub stage don't really belong, articles that start as stubs but can be expanded (such as Scratch Tours) i support having. That way, at least it brings it to the attention of other editors, who can add to the article.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Scimonster. I often like to make pages kind of short (If it's the only way I can make it) because I assume that users can work together and expand the article. Then, we'd get some fine articles.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 11:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd have to side on veggieman001 on this side. I think the key point that everyone has mentioned is that stubs are fine if there is enough relevant information to turn them into full articles - with the knowledge that they're important enough to be on the Scratch Wiki. But a few of the stubs Legobob created were rather light topics, and in my opinion aren't significant enough to belong on the wiki. An article about MIT, while relating to Scratch, is much more broad, and fits better on a place like Wikipedia. The other articles are also more like small pieces of phenomena or parts of the Scratch Website that aren't notable enough.
I'd like to remind everyone that what matters is the quality of articles, not quantity. I would encourage looking at existing articles and topic areas of the wiki and trying to expand on them with new information (especially with all of the new features of Scratch 2.0!) If you are creating a new article, consider asking on the Community Portal for people's thoughts about the topic (does it deserve an article? if so, what should be included?), and feedback about the created article from editors. The wiki works best when everybody is able to peer edit and expand on the information of others. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

*sees you uploaded a file version with a lower filesize than veggieman001*

Respect, dude. Respect.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the TOC Tutorials one?
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 22:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
i fail to see how that is impressive, especially considering that the actual display of the image was changed (and made it so there's less semi-alpha pixels, which can't be compressed as easily)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking maybe the filesize was lower because when I made the arms look thicker, it made the brown the same brown as a lot of the other brown.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 11:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Test edits

I saw you made a test edit with hiddencat on Scratch Logos. You fixed it right away, and that's good, but you shouldn't really make them in the first place. Thanks!
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for reminding me!
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 21:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, sometimes you need to test outside of the sandbox, such as with templates and categories. I did some of that when i was a younger wikian. As long as it's only for a few minutes, it's OK by me. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I would generally recommend against testing with actual pages - whether they're articles, or templates, or categories. After all, that's what sandboxes are for! If you do it though, it's not a crime - just make sure you fix it afterward. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
That's basically what i said. After all, sometimes you need to see how some category feature works, or perhaps a template with a certain title.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
i've done just fine with learning by example
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)