Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 62

This page is archive 62 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.

Community Portal Archives

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)

 Not done We need to re-visit this. Please view my ideas. I updated them slightly.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to reply! I like the page about template order and I think it's great. My only thought would be that the ones which are just text as opposed to graphics should go at the bottom because it somehow seems weird having them mixed in. My main worry though is that if this became the rules who would remember and how would we be able to deal with all the pages that are currently wrong?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 15:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I've seen you and others mass-fix pages. If we divide and conquer, we could get things done really quickly.

And I see this as not about "good looking" but in order of importance. I'd rather want to know why typing in something took me to the wrong page than that the page I'm on is a stub.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose so, I support. If we do this maybe we should make a certain order for See Also, References and External Links?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Image and Category Name Consistency

For categories and images, I think we should have a set of "guidelines" for naming them. As I scam through them, the namings' capitalization is all different and not in sync with one another. For example, there is the category "Scratch Program Images" and "Unsatisfactory images", except the "i" is not capitalized as in the first category. I also see some images with only the first word capitalized, and other images with all words capitalized. So, what is the system? I'd assume it's capitalization on all words (with exclusions of articles like "the" and what not). Maybe we should have some sort of guideline page, maybe in "Category:Help/Naming Guidelines". What do you think?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with you, but we're not like Bulbapedia's image archives as they require 150-550 Pokémon sprites per game or pair of games and they have strict naming conventions to keep everything organized. There are currently no naming conventions for categories OR files (besides uploading it under a name that makes sense), and I'd like to keep it that way for now.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I was planning on writing something like this up but I don't currently have the time. My personal recommendation and preference would be to make everything sentence case (except for titles of software, etc.), like Wikipedia, including page titles, section titles, categories, etc. This however has been disagreed with by some (including Lucario621, JSO) because most of the wiki is already in title case (capitalised except for some conjunctions, articles, short prepositions, etc.) and it would take a lot of work to move everything. I also would recommend removing the (block) and (Scratch Modification) parts of page titles that do not require them (and it would be only be required in the case of a conflict where the block/value/Scratch mod/whatever doesn't take precedence). I was also going to work on renaming images, but it would probably be more efficient with a bot with admin/EW privileges because images are linked on a lot of pages and all those links need to be changed; it took me like two hours manually to do the four or five on the front page that I did.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If I knew PHP or whatever, I would maybe turn my ThisIsAnAccount test account into a bot.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you could sort me out with a bot account, those kind of changes should be pretty trivial using the mini library I wrote.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Just make an alt on Scratch (or use an already-existing test account), leave a comment saying the account you're going to use, and I'll let it in. Then you can convince scmb1 to upgrade that account to "bot" and let it do its stuff.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"bot807"
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot template?

Now that we've got our first bot, I think we should have a template to show they're a bot, how about:
Removed so I can use my Sandbox for something else
I'm not sure I like how large it is and the image is not good (maybe a robot would be better) but I think the message is just about right so what do you think?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That does seem very large, and I was the message is too long, though at least quality. What do you think about this template?

This user is an automated bot controlled by {{{by}}}. It is used for making repetitive or difficult edits that would be hard for a human to do. Please check its contributions to see if it has been behaving itself, and comment here if you have any problems with it.

ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

That looks (and reads) a lot better, especially the robot picture!
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, we only have one bot, and already we need a template?! :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that we'll probably get others in the future, so it's safe to have, and it leads to better organization of the Wiki. Still, maybe it's not really needed. What does everyone else think?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I was somewhat inspired by Wikipedia to change the wording:

This user is an automated editor controlled by [[User:{{{by}}}|{{{by}}}]]. It is a legitimate alternate account used for speedily making large amounts of edits in place of a human. If it has been malfunctioning, please comment on the developer's [[|talk page]].

Reads even more easily. We need a way better image, though... :P

@Blob You could be right, unless again I turn ThisIsAnAccount into a bot...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I preferred Ernie Parke's version mainly because it linked to the Bot's contribs. I also don't think a link to the developer's contribs is necessary either and the developer's talk page is linked to at the end so we don't need it repeated.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 08:28, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

K, I took your advice. I still think mine is worded better.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Nice, looks good!
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 12:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think we're  Done because I already put the thing in the template namespace.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

New template?

I think we should make a new template to say why exceptions have been made for certain pages, such as Toki. It could look like:

This article would normally break the Scratch Wiki's guidelines. However, an exception has been made for it because of the decision made.

which is made by:

{{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo|because=of the decision made}}

What do you think?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I'd wait for one other person before creating it though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Is this something that regular users (as opposed to wiki authors) are going to be concerned with?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point there, because non-editors don't know what should be allowed, nor care: they just want info.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, this might be useful in the future with a plan of the Scratch Mentors; it's still being decided and worked on, so the template might not be needed, but we'll see.

Anyway, I support this template. I'd also like to see a parameter field that would allow custom reasons.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

If it doesn't meet the wiki guidelines, one should look on the talk page to see what has been done about it. I don't think the template is really needed.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 11:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Good idea! I also think we should create a page for Andresmh, and add that template.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 14:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@ErnieParke There are custom reasons! Change what is after the
because=
in {{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo|because=of the decision made}}.

Also, this template might possibly stop any confusion on why somebody wasn't allowed to make a page about something when there were other articles about user-created stuff.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It could also be better for new editors.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Joletole There was an idea a while ago to make a page about more prominent Scratch Team members (with perhaps small subheaders with more info). Is there a reason Andresmh merits a page over other Scratch Team members?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@EH7meow Aren't new editors the ones usually breaking the guidelines or, not being very bold, often bringing something up on the talk page too early? I still think it isn't needed, as the info will be on the talk page anyways.

...Then again, it could be one of those templates that is actually put ON the talk page like they have on Wikipedia...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot

There was a (now archived) thread about bots. I can't remember what we wanted one for. So, anything need automating?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think there was making category names consistent. Ones that I would want to see would be double-redirect fixing. A slightly harder feature maybe would be if you could make links to redirects link to the actual article.

For example:

[[Redirect]]

would be replaced with:

[[Article Name|Redirect]]

and:

[[Redirect|Lorem ipsum]]

would be replaced by:

[[Article Name|Lorem Ipsum]]
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure Wikipedia has some policy on *not* changing links that point to redirects...
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Really? In any case, we prefer direct links to redirects.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean direct links are preferred -- what you wrote parses as "links to redirects". :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Stupid English. What I meant was we prefer "direct links" to "redirects"; that is, direct > redirect.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 09:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It was originally some naming-convention discussion but then it went into the land of talking about bots...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? What needs automating right now?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a greet to new users? I dunno. The most useful purpose of a bot I can think of is if we were to like reorganise all the files into having like consistent filenames and stuff, we'd be able to update all those links for the moved images with a bot super easily.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, what consistent filename scheme do you want? I can do it, you just need to tell me what to do...
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

No, i think veggie means if we manually renamed the files, the bot could update the file links.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's harder, because then you have to manually specify which file links to update.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A daemon bot that activates whenever a file is moved, and updates links to the file.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Ew.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Why ew?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

scratchblocks testing

Hi, wiki people! I'm working on a new version of the scratchblocks plugin. It's pretty nearly a complete rewrite, and I want to make sure I haven't broken anything, so I need your help checking it's the same. Please see here: http://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/21002/ Thanks! :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 01:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I'll have to push it to its limits when I can. Possibly tomorrow when I'm working on my history homework.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate that. Lol, "when working" :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, it looks like I forgot about it. The next time I'll absolutely be free is Friday afternoon, when I get "study hall" (aka me and my friend slacking off in the LMC).

EDIT: Oh yeah, that's thanksgiving weekend. Shoot. Well, when I do get the chance, how should I report problems?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll probably have enough bugs to fix before then anyway! And you can just reply on the forum thread I linked. :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Surprise! I have about 18 minutes now. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Yay!
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I've just pushed an update that fixes lots of things. Please go find more bugs! :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

New template idea: Special stub/unfinished article

Ever have that annoying thought when there's an unfinished sentence at the end of an article, but it's been in progress for too long? What do you do when you can't fix it because you aren't a mind reader nor are you knowledgeable on such a subject? I am proposing a template that will fix this. User:Mathfreak231/Unfinished What do you think? The wording could definitely be improved. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea! Some people just post the template that they're working on an article and never really do definitely not me, though  :—|
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree; I never put up an in-progress template unless I know that I'm going to be working on the article. That's also why I still have Rope Physics under my user domain, because I'm working on it but very sporadically (I definitely need to get that done...).

Anyway, couldn't you simply take down the in-progress template and replace it with {expand}?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

But what if the person who was working on it left a random sentence at the end that they never completed? It's happened.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've forgotten about this discussion, but anyway, you can finish their sentence. Or, if you can't expand, then you can always tear down what's written till you find a point where you can start expanding. Besides, if you can't finish their sentence, is it even written well enough?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

New template idea

Should there be a new template idea that indicates a higher level of knowledge of scratch (blocks) to understand a particular article?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like that might work. But it may also be difficult to determine which topics require "advanced knowledge".
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 21:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Creating_a_Chat_Bot seems hard :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

When I made the article Creating a Chat Bot, I originally had it classified as a How To article. The How to header, however, says it is a step-by-step tutorial for new users. Realizing it was more complex, I brought it up here in the CP, now archived. I was told that if a tutorial is too advance for new users, instead of categorizing it as How to, just name it "Scripting Tutorials". Even more complex is Global High Scores and Checking if a String Contains a String.

Furthermore, I don't support this template, because if a new user is viewing the article and sees that template, they may be discouraged to continue on, and therefore won't learn from the article.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's true.  Discussion done!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done I Think We Should Have An "Advanced" CATEGORY, Not Template.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think we really need that; what Turkey3 says above already works for organising what's more advanced.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My page

I am not sure,but is it a good idea to move my page http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/User:KrIsMa/CSS to another article designed to help with formatting? I am still working on it :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You can merge it into Help:CSS. It definitely could use your lovely chart ;)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that comment The article and my page is a bit off, maybe a page that talks about making custom boxes and other cool things for pages, like your page and the cool boxes :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll merge them. The Help:CSS doesn't even really tell any CSS.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday

We Can Do New Years, But Nothing America-Focused. Since The DachWiki Is Released , We Can Assume Everybody Here Speaks English. Australia, England, United States, Pretty Much Everybody Speaks English. So We Can Only Do New Year And Scratch Day, But Others Might Get Upset By This Since ===I Officially Call Scratch Day Logo=== So How Will We Gently End This?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am a bit confused. We did New Years because it is a global holiday, and a Scratch Day one would probably be fine in (what, 5 months or so?). The Christmas one was turned down already because it was religious, and I think we already will refrain from all-American holidays such as Independence Day. New Years is great, though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's What I'm Saying.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 17:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)  Done

Would valentines day be okay. e.g.: Show your love for Scratch.
Fmtfmtfmt2 (talk | contribs) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Improvement for the {{Wiki Standards}} template

Currently I am thinking of a way to improve the template {{Wiki Standards}}, as seen below. Currently it looks like this:

This article or section may not have content matching Scratch Wiki editing standards. Please improve it according to Scratch Wiki:Guidelines.

However, since it is for unsatisfactory articles with many possible reasons for applying it to articles, is can be considered analogous to {{Bad image}}. Therefore, an addition to the template could be added, so if an article has poor grammar, it could be marked with {{Wiki Standards|Poor grammar}}, which would produce this:

This article or section may not have content matching Scratch Wiki editing standards. Please improve it according to Scratch Wiki:Guidelines. Reason: Poor grammar

If no reason was given ({{Wiki Standards}}), it would look like this:

This article or section may not have content matching Scratch Wiki editing standards. Please improve it according to Scratch Wiki:Guidelines. Reason: Unspecified

Also, it would make it easy for editors to know what the problem with the article is.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 01:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me. Perhaps we could even customize the main part of the template for common issues, so it won't just appear in tiny text as "Reason: whatever", but instead as it's own paragraph.

Of course, that might also just be too much work to be worth it. :P
PreoKid (talk | contribs) 03:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

How about we drop the "Unspecified" default and have it be like most templates are: defaulting to not showing the reason section. Take {{notUseful}} as an example.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that revision of KrIsMa's idea. It adds some more uniformity among templates, and I've found a few times before when it'd helpful.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

do we allow wikilinks in headers? like User:KrIsMa this?

my bot is getting mad, cause I keep skipping his edits :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I have seen it on a few pages before, but not many. For example, it is on the page Scratch Wiki:Table of Contents/Scripting Tutorials, but I think it looks kind of... Sloppy. Wait for an admin reply, though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Preferably not.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you can, use {{main}} or {{see also}} instead.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll let him know :-)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

bot edit hiding

the Recent Changes link should redirect to http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/w/index.php?title=Special:RecentChanges&hidebots=1 to hide bot made edits!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Bot edits are hid by default. However, they have to be made by a bot account.

EDIT: as in, an account in the bot user group. afaik.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Deletion

Please look at http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Category:Pages_in_need_of_deletion, admins. Thanks a lot!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

We could probably switch back to the normal wiki logo.

New Years did end about 3 days ago :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

4ever new year

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of keeping it up until a week after. But watevs.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

patrolled

i just realized, what does it mean to mark an edit patrolled?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We barely ever bother to use it, but if we ever do, it means an admin looked at the edit and thinks it's A-OK. It's really too much trouble to look at every single edit. Admins have their edits automatically patrolled.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

..and bots! Thanks! PS: I just found this page

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

unblock

No, I am not banned Can an admin check to see if http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/User:Molybdenum is still banned? The block message says this user has been blocked on the scratch website and therefore blocked on the wiki. If he/she is not blocked anymore, maybe it is a good idea to unblock him. Thanks!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Molybdenum is still banned (s/he complained to me via Mod Share that the ST said that they won't unban him/her, and I haven't found anything to suggest that s/he was ever unbanned).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I think s/he was complaining/spamming on the CP due to his/her ban...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

SHORTCUT

On the shortcuts section please add S:PORTAL
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Btw, if you need to edit that part of the page, it's at Scratch Wiki Talk:Community Portal/Help Box.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you!
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 07:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Bots?

What are bots and how do you make them?
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 18:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See Scratch Wiki:Bots :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you make the script and put in the bot anyway cause I have a user I would be able to use as a bot.
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 08:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You would need to know any of the listed programming languages there. For example, PHP. Then, you will have to find the programming language library that specializes in making bots. A PHP library might be the requests library. After that, the scripting process takes a long time. After that, it is done!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Uploading

Is there a way we could upload videos and sounds on the wiki, or is it only pictures? Can we put them in a ZIP folder and upload them? Just asking because then on articles you would be able to have video content!
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 11:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

We can only have images on the wiki. I think videos would actually be cool as for showing how to do things, but that probably won't happen.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You can upload them, but i don't think you can include them.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Embedding projects

When we get the embed code for projects does it work and show the projects?
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 11:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the wiki doesn't support that.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Would You like this template?

It's at User:Bbciplayer/TemplatesPlace/BotArticle
Bbciplayer (talk | contribs) 15:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it wouldn't make sense for a bot to create an article...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, bots are only supposed to fix problems in articles.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

still a stub?

im not sure if http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Encryption is still a stub. thx!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it isn't. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be better brought up on that page's talk page. And no, I don't believe it is.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It used to be a stub until I added the large section of "Encryption in Scratch".
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the addition!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

250 account requests!

We've now received over 250 account requests since the new system was implemented!
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

lockout

That wiki lockout felt like a ban, Anyone know why the wiki broke? :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It's on a really frail Amazon.com server.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

i thought that Amazon was a shipping company!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, but I guess it also has servers that you can buy or whatever. The Scratch Wiki is put on those servers. I heard Lightnin say that he's thinking about moving the Wiki back to the MIT servers.

I'm not 100% sure of how it works, I'm just saying what I saw or inferred.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I hope it is moved back to MIT servers, because that may fix the problems with email not working and the inability to delete files.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with moving it back to the MIT servers is whenever the MIT servers are down, the wiki is, too. And the scratch wikis are down a looot of time, expecially when scratch is constantly updating its website.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@jvvg: Building off of KrIsMa, did you notice how many new users Scratch got in the past couple of months? The base nearly doubled, and we're close to hitting a million Scratchers, up 500,000 from this Summer. This doesn't just means lots of more coding happiness, but a lot more load on the Scratch servers. Many features have had to be disabled, and we're not done getting new users yet. I wouldn't want the Wiki on the severs, because they're not too reliable at the moment, and it would slow the website down.

Edit: When I say users, I mean active users. Hopefully that clears things up a bit.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

New Scratch Design Studio

The Scratch Wiki News really needs to be updated. There's a new SDS. The theme is "New Year, New Resolutions".
Rumanti (talk | contribs) 14:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

already done! http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Scratch_Wiki_Home/News

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent Changes Question

I'm not sure why I never asked this. To the left of all the edits are ( diff | hist ) which I fully understand, but sometimes instead it is ( cur | pre ). What are the differences in the two? They seem to just show the changes if you ask me.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

so let me explain this to you. cur and pre are only visible while seeing history of pages. now, cur previews the edit you clicked to the one above it, rev compares the edit you clicked to the one under it. it might be a bit clearer if i tell you that the most current edit has no cir button and the first edit to the page has no prev button. hope i helped.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

cur actually compares it to the current (newest) revision of the page. But otherwise, krisma is correct.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

deny

whoever accepts new scratch account requests, do you denny some scratch entries? weird, the wiki requests project is full of comments, but only a few people are actually accepted!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 06:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

We actually have a lot of people who aren't specific in a way that meets our expectations. The most common reasons for getting denied are:

• not having good spelling
• not saying what they would do to help the wiki (e.g. "I would help new Scratchers!" well duh, but how) (another e.g. "I would create new tutorials" what kinds?)
• saying that they would submit ideas (not allowed)
• saying that they would create articles about them/other Scratchers/projects (not allowed)
• being too new (<2 months old or a New Scratcher)

etc.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, since we adopted the policy of letting users fix request notes by replying to the rejection comment, I've been stricter about request notes because they get a second chance almost immediately.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lag Article?

Would an article on lag be good? It could:

• describe why lag occurs in terms of computer science
• how to prevent lag
• what lags in Scratch and why
  Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "lag" is the correct compsci term. :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses "Lag" as the name. No one is going to search for something like "communication latency", as far as I know. Though, we can always use redirects.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

For you, Blob, I made the redirect Latency Delay. ;)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

userpage edit

The category Category:Merge_Request and Category:Move_Request both have one page that belongs to a user. Is it ok to edit the user page to remove the categorization of that page? I think the owner of that page left the wiki! Thanks!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, user pages shouldn't be categorized at all.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

account confirm kessage

Can someone check what I put as my confirm account message when I was being accepted onto the wiki? I am really curious :-) Thx!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean your request notes? If so, then unfortunately we can't retrieve those. Once an account is created, the details about the request (except for stuff that carries over into the account) are purged from the system. Also, for rejected requests, the details are purged after a few weeks.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

thx! Ps what does purge mean? Sorry idk what it means :-) I see the word purge on template documentations. Thx!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The dictionary.com definition is "to rid of whatever is impure or undesirable". In computing, it is usually used to mean getting rid of old or unneeded database entries of some kind. I have no idea what it means on templates, but in the case of account requests, it means that it deletes the old requests.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)