< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archive This page is archive 44 of Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117
Unfinished discussions

Block Images Suggestion

While I was talking to fg123 one evening, it was pointed out that it would be useful to have the default values of blocks included in the images of blocks shown on articles. For a block like Move () Steps, it might seem trivial to change the image so the number ten is included in its input. But for other blocks like () of (), it may help visually to include the default values to make it easier for someone to recognize and more quickly understand the purpose of the block. There isn't much of any reason to exclude them on the wiki - there are default values in the program for a reason, and I think including them in the blocks' images would be very beneficial. What are your thoughts?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with this. This would also allow the default value(s) field on the infobox for blocks to be removed, and it can be kinda confusing with multiple fields.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good yeah :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Where do you keep talking to fg123? :P
I agree with this. I think i brought it up once, but maybe i can't find it right now.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
xD He talks to me on skype.
Fg123 (talk | contribs) 19:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Seems good :D
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, since it looks like most people like this idea, let's get working on it! Here's a list of the block categories and the ones that are complete or incomplete.
  • Motion Blocks - Yes Done
  • Looks Blocks - Yes Done
  • Sound Blocks - Yes Done
  • Pen Blocks - Yes Done
  • Control Blocks - Yes Done
  • Sensing Blocks - Yes Done
  • Operators Blocks - Yes Done
  • Variables Blocks - Yes Done
If there's a whole block category whose images have been all updated, you can edit this list. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Great job doing the Motion Blocks Bsteward! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Finished with Looks.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Veggie! I noticed you changed the {{Block}}... do you think we should remove the "imagewidth" property from all articles? While we're add it, "default value" can also probably be removed. What do you guys think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And yeah, I think it should be removed from all but I left compatibility for it in just in case something comes up and so it's backwards compatible. I agree with removing default value though.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
You don't need them in the code...
I removed them both. They won't show up on block pages (when the cache flushes). If anyone feels like it, they can edit the pages and remove them from the code.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Yay! My idea was used! :P Good job guys! :D
Fg123 (talk | contribs) 02:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Category for Scratch positions

Right now, articles such as Scratch Team, Community Moderators, Curator, and many others are in various different categories (Category:Scratch Culture, Category:Moderation, etc.) However I think all of these articles could also be fit under another category (which I don't have an exact name for). It would be for the different positions, or roles in the community. Category:Positions? Category:Roles? Category:Ranks? What do you think it should be called?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:Roles, because of the Curator one, that isn't exactly a rank.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 03:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. I like roles best too.
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 18:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Totally agreed. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, I've created the category and added a couple of articles to it. Feel free to add more articles to this article by adding [[Category:Roles]] to it at the very bottom of the article. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Totally nitpicky, but...

Shouldn't the subtitle read "...made by the Scratchers, for the Scratchers"? Sounds a bit better to me, though I don't know who can change it (JSO?)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the exclusion of the articles was done on purpose. It's using Scratcher as a general term to refer to a group of people. Similarly, I think it would be more appropriate to say "made by programmers, for programmers", not "made by the programmers, for the programmers". :) I do know how to change the message if needed, but I think it's fine for now. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:08, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess you're right. But if I remember right, it's "government of the people, by the people, and for the people".
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, it could be, but I don't know if that would sound better.
td76 (talk | contribs) 07:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
We're not the only Scratchers. If you added "the", it might make it sound like that.
The page with the tagline is MediaWiki:Tagline btw.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Good to know.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How about "Made by scratchers, for all scratchers." That sounds ok, I guess.
td76 (talk | contribs) 11:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

What just happened? 3 posts are missing.
td76 (talk | contribs) 12:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't un-archive posts. They're removed from the page for a reason. When you pasted the archive in, you also deleted some of the posts here.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

td76 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

"government of the people, by the people, and for the people" - that's because you confusing english speaking people gave 'people' a different meaning when used in its singular form with 'the' :P 'the people' is the group of all inhabitants of a nation, while 'some people' is just a group of a few individuals. As far as I know, the meaning of "Scratcher" is more straightforward :) I think it's fine without "the".
JSO (talk | contribs) 09:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Linking to the new archive in old archives before it's created

(I hope you can tell what i mean.)

In the code of Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archives it checks if the new archive exists. All this linking really boosts its location in Special:WantedPages, which goes by amount of links. I think it is enough to just link in Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Help Box. Anyone else?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archives is deleted? I think the page is useful for navigating the archives, and so it's quite useful to include it on every archive. I wouldn't worry about Special:WantedPages too much. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Personally I'm fine either way; the /Archives template isn't necessary IMO, but WantedPages isn't important either :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, i think the archive list is good to have. However, when a new archive is created, and the list is not updated, it gives a message saying that the list needs to be updated. The checking is what i'm talking about. I don't think we need the message, because whoever is doing the archive always updates it anyways.
@Jon: :O I use WantedPages to find valid redlinks and create pages. I did 2 pages from their yesterday, and made some redirects.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I still think the message is quite useful. Especially considering archiving only happens like, once a month at most, its easy to forget to update the list. Sure, Jonathanpb has done it quite a few times so he probably wouldn't forget, but if someone new is doing it, its a good reminder (rather than having the problem until someone else notices it). Again, having one extra page on Special:WantedPages isn't a problem at all.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 17:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki, or Scratchpedia

I have been thinking about this for a long time, and I think it is time to tell everyone what I think. I personally think that the Scratch Wiki should be named Scratchpedia. Obviously, this would be hard, but it gives this wiki a better tone to it. Tell me what you think.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 16:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If we would do this, it would be Scratchepedia, because it seemed to be missing a syllable. :P
Anyways, i don't think it's remotely necessary. What's wrong with Scratch Wiki?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I disagree; the wiki has been like this forever and I'd hate for it to change, and I don't see how it would be better to have it like that.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It is just a suggestion.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's fine how it is TBH :S
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Nice suggestion, but I think it's best to keep it the way it is.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)21:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olympics 2012!: New SDS

The new SDS is going live. An admin needs to update the news.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)18:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's updated now. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch plugin for people who make scratchblocks frequently

Not really a discussion, but more of an informative post that I didn't know where to put. I recently developed a Squeak plugin that allows one to automatically export Scratch scripts as error-less scratchblocks code. It looks like the wiki would be a very useful application of this plugin since many editors write in these blocks all the time. If you're interested, there's a post about them in AT here
LS97 (talk | contribs) 14:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This is very helpful.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)
Blocks Plugin is an ideal advertisement article.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I have updated the article. Not too adverty?
LS97 (talk | contribs) 13:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's OK. I might edit it a drop though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good! I like it :)
LS97 (talk | contribs) 08:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing this with us LS97! I'm sure a lot of wiki editors will find this to be useful. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, i used it myself when editing Mouse-Over.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad it's being used usefully! :P
LS97 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I discovered a REALLY weird thing...

I was messing around typing stuff like /loveit and that worked.Then i typed /feature and it actually gave a message saying "you do not have permission to do that".
Coinman (talk | contribs) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Well... you don't have permission to feature the project. How does this relate to the wiki though?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I know, i was just surprised that was how it worked.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 18:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe the Scratch Team has a button on all projects which says "feature", and links to /feature.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 10:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Stub sub-categories

Since we decided to keep going with templates automatically categorizing articles, so about going with Lucario's idea and having {{expand}} put pages into Category:Articles to Expand, a subcategory of Category:Article Stubs. Additionally, after reviewing the stub list, approximately half of them are mod articles. So what if we had another category and template: Template:Mod stub and Category:Scratch Modification Stubs?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you on both of these ideas.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)17:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I implemented Lucario's idea. I think that we should just change the current stub template instead of making Template:Mod stub. When we put a stub on a Scratch Mod we can just put {{stub|<mod>}}
Bsteward (talk | contribs)01:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Good ideas scimonster. I like the idea of {{Expand}} categorizing articles into a new category. However I don't think creating a new type of stub is necessary for now - the list of stubs is still very manageable.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Red links are not inherently bad

I've created some red links on pages before (example: troll on the Kaj page, which was subsequently removed). Sometimes they stay, sometimes someone (cough, cough) creates the article, and sometimes someone removes them. Wikipedia's policies state:

Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of what articles are in need of creation, and encourage it.

Wikipedia:Red link

So, i think it's OK and good to have some red links, as long as they are to articles that could be created. Also, feel free to go through the list of red links and create some articles! If anyone objects, please speak up.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point scimonster. When you see a red link, although fixing it is the right solution in many cases, if there aren't any existing articles about the subject, creating the article might be the right option. Thanks for bringing this up.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point, although Special:WantedPages is a cluttered with links on talk pages that are not relevant. Is there a way that we could clean up Special:WantedPages.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)17:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Not unless {{stub}} stops linking to talk pages.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

New Curator

Yepper do!
Joletole (talk | contribs) 21:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the news! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Admin? Please?

I love making the wiki a better place by making lots of behind the scenes changes. But unfortunately, there's not a whole lot normal users can do. I think that if I was an admin, I could do more to help the Scratch Wiki.

Please can I be an admin?
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 13:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been making many quality edits; i commend you for that. But adminship? That's big. :)
And it's not true; regular users can do quite a lot; almost as much as the admins. It's really only a couple extra things, such as deleting pages, editing the main page (and subpages), moving files, and protecting archives. And creating accounts, but even veggie can't do that.
So right now, i'm not all the way supporting, but keep up the great editing and i may change my mind. :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I'll do my best. :)
technoboy10 (talk | contribs)
Thanks Sci. :P
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 18:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Cat looks squeezed.

Is it just me, or does anyone see that the cat on the homepage looks a little squeezed.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 12:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Must have been when the image got changed... I'll adjust the size of it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
When an image looks 'squeezed' or distorted, make sure you try just refreshing the page first. This happens because your browser caches an image to make it load faster but when it changes, it tries to display the cached (old) image in the size of the new image so if they differ, it distorts the image.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Transcribing images

Although we've transcribed a lot of the wiki's script images to block plugin code since it was released, there are still a few articles that need images to be transcribed. Here are a list of the articles I have found. If any of you could help transcribe the images (and afterwards link us to the images that need to be deleted if you are not an admin), it would be greatly appreciated. Feel free to update the list in terms of completeness, or add new items. Also we can discuss if certain articles should have their scripts remain as images, if it is necessary.

Files to delete

  • Projectile.png
  • Projectile1.png
  • Plat tut4.png
  • Sprite_count_1.png
  • Sprite_count_2.png

Thanks! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

My 2 cents ahead. First of all, the only occasions I would keep images are with single images of boolean blocks -- because they're not supposed to be round :P Otherwise scratchblocks look exactly the same.
Just plugging in a link to my plugin that's useful for this job; free advertising :D
Also I might be converting a couple just because I have the time.

LS97 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ooh I'll be happy to help, I like transcribing those :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Done ^_^
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


I've noticed by zooming from article to article that a lot of links actually link to a redirect rather than the intended page. I don't know if this is well known or not, but I thought I'd point it out so we could maybe go on a hunt for these and fix them. :P Credit to scimonster for the term 'unredirecting' xD
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a problem. After all, what's the point of the redirects if:
  1. We're not using them in articles
  2. The search doesn't automatically go to them/cache them
I also think it might be easier to just go through the list of redirects, using the WhatLinksHere page. If you want, i can create a simple userscript to open them for you. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I suppose redirecting can be useful at times, especially when an article's name has recently been changed and the links to it haven't necessarily been updated. However it's sometimes okay to leave links to redirects just the way they as it can help us see which articles titles need changing. For example, if there are five links to redirect A which go to article A, it's worth considering if article A's title could be changed to redirect A's title for simplicity. But feel free to keep 'unredirecting' if you think it is useful, depending on the situation.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.