< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archive This page is archive 92 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
Unfinished discussions

References and Profile Comments

I've seen lots of people use profile comments from ST profiles as references in the wiki. However, when trying to click on them to check the source, it takes FOREVER to load in some browsers, especially if it's an older comment. Scratch has to load in every single comment on their page, and if it's old, that'll be a lot of comments to load. I think instead we should take screenshots of the comments, and upload them to the wiki. We could use those as references instead, no?
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 02:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good to have a link to the comment for reference, but I wouldn't mind putting a screenshot in too somehow.
Hamish752 (talk | contribs) 02:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
That works better, actually.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot is probably better than waiting 10 years for a profile comment to load. However, it can also get annoying if we start having to put the screenshot on the page just to prove it. It would almost be better if we could take the screenshot, upload it to the Wiki, and then reference the image itself. So it would actually be a reference that points to an image on the Wiki, which sounds weird but I can't think of any better option unless a different image host is used to host the screenshot, but then it may potentially be overwritten, deleted, or be hosted on a site with inappropriate content.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 05:12, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a slightly better idea. How about we have, for once, an actual format for references? So we do something like 'Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>' This way we can see the original comment (or at least the relevant bits) while still having a link if people need to see proof. We could add this guideline in Help:References. What do you guys think?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Turkey3 I meant for it to be like that, yes, instead of having images in the references. It could also have the original link to the comment on the file page. @Kenny2scratch That, too, sounds like a great idea. It's better than just a really long loading screen. XD
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 14:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
You aren't able to reference an image on the wiki? I thought you could. That does seem like a good solution to me if we do it.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 14:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It just seemed weird to me. It's almost like referencing yourself in a way. Ken, I don't quite frankly understand your suggestion. If we say "Paddle2See. (25/7/2017)" that doesn't really tell anything as we still need to reference what he said on that day, which is when we use <ref> tags. And that leads right back to the problem of a comment never loading because it is 100 pages down on their profile. What could be done is a double reference, so upload a screenshot and reference that screenshot, and then right after make a second reference with the link to the actual source of the screenshot, the profile comment.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 18:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with that, @Turkey3. Linking to a screenshot, and then linking to the source, is probably the best way to do that. The source on the screenshot can prove that it hasn't been modified with Inspect Element in any way before taking the screenshot, and it'll be easier to read without a large loading time. It could be a progressive change, though; after all, there are lots of articles where comments are referenced, but as we find them, we can add them in as screenshots over time.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Turkey3 I don't think you read the full reference format. I'll put it down here:
Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>
We have the relevant bit of the comment after the date, before the link. That, then, would go inside <ref> tags. Get it?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
02:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
But what if you really don't want to type the actual quote into the article? I like it better when references are references and remain as those teeny square boxes with numbers. Once you start inserting the actual reference itself into the paragraph it can mess with the flow.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 04:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
When you put content inside <ref> tags, the only place it shows up is inside the <references/> tag! So here:[1]
Goes to here:
  1. Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>
  2. Got it?
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    06:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    I like that idea.
    Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 16:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
    So, we have two great ideas; should we do this change, and if so, which one should we use? The reference to an image, with a screenshot, or @Kenny2scratch's way of typing out the quote itself as a reference, with a link to the source?
    WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 16:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think Ken's idea works best.
    Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    I like Kenny2scratch's idea too. It gives you the needed information easily.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    So, should we slowly start converting references to the way @Kenny2scratch came up with, or should we hold off for a little while longer?
    WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 16:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    That depends on whether we were planning on using an official citation method or not. :)
    Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 18:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
    We seem to have already agreed on using one, and were just coming up with a method. Now that we (apparently) agree that the method I suggested is best, I think I'll add that as a regulation in Help:References.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    06:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    We could come up with our own, or use a more official citation form such as MLA, Chicago or APA.
    Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 23:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Makethebrainhappy We've already decided on the format; it is as follows:
    Paddle2See. (25/7/2017). "I think this glitch is caused by this issue." <link>
    I would say this is now Yes Done, as it's also on the "Help:References" page.
    WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 02:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, I added that there. This (very long) topic is finally Yes Done.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    Update: I found this :P. Also, I updated Help:Welcome/3 to let people know that there's a format.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    00:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

    SDS helpers

    I noticed that on the wiki, we don't have an article for SDS helpers. If you don't know what they are, they are people who are seen helping around in the current SDS, and are invited to curate by one of the SDS curators with the job of adding projects and answering questions.

    I am thinking that we should note them on the wiki, since despite not being an official rank, they do exist, and can commonly be confused with SDS curators given that they curate SDS'.

    I was asking here if you think we should make a new article for this, or if we should instead add them as a section in SDS Curators. Also, if for any reason you think that we shouldn't do this at all, it's good to check in here first.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 21:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

    I definitely don't think they should have their own article, as I don't think we would be able to find enough information about them for a whole article. The problem is, there is that kind of SDS Helper, and then there is the other kind, which is just unofficial people who like to help out in the SDS. So there are kind of two definitions.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Anyone else got an opinion on this?
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:26, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I would add a section on the SDS page about the official ones who curate the studio. Both defintitions could also be clarified, but I do not believe that this really requires a new article. That would probably cause more confusion :).
    Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 04:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I second that. Also, I don't think there is enough information out there for a whole article.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Just to clarify, you propose that we have it on SDS rather than SDS Curator, correct?
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 23:41, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I personally think we'd do it on SDS Curator because SDS Helpers and SDS Curators are so related. If you or Makethebrainhappy think otherwise, tell me :P
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 23:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    Or anyone else, in fact :P
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 00:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Just contributing my bit here:

    I think that SDS Helpers should be a section in SDS Curator, like most of you. However, additionally, I think that SDS Helper should redirect to SDS Curator#SDS Helper or whatever the section will be called. I don't think that the position is broad enough to warrant an article of its own, but that title can still redirect to the section documenting it.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    01:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    By unanimous decision, I have added in a section about it in SDS Curator. If any of you would like to look or improve it, just go there. I have not made the redirect page yet since I'm waiting for more approvals of the idea.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 12:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    @Kenny2scratch Yes, I agree. @Duckboycool Cool! I'll go look at it and see if I can add anything. :)
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 13:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks for helping all. I can't believe I forgot the duties of SDS helpers. It was the first reason I wanted to make the section :P.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 15:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    You can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this is Yes Done since the section has been created on SDS helpers.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 18:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

    We need a system for when to archive

    Lately, with the election there has been a lot of CP activity. This has resulted in some long threads and irregular archive times. So I think we need a system for when we archive.

    We have a few options:

    • When the bytecount reaches a certain amount[note 1]
    • When the number of topics reaches a certain amount[note 2]
    • When the page takes a certain amount of time to load[note 3]
    1. What I would go with
    2. Plausible but thread length is variable
    3. Probably not this, it's hard to measure

    So what do you guys think?
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    11:18, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    I agree, and think the best thing is when it's 125,000 bytes or over. This seems at about a good time to me.
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 12:23, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    2 As a bytecount could archive an unfinished topic. (No, I literally mean a post half archived)
    Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 13:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    You wouldnt include the unfinished topics.
    Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I'd go with #1 -- because there could be a lot of topics, or there could be not that many and they're really long, so it's the most universal between what could happen on the CP that makes it so long.
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    I am marking this as No Not done as this will be archived very soon.
    Edit:It was actually archived as I said this, and therefore unneeded, as this is still here anyway. :P
    Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 15:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    We don't just naively archive the community portal. It's important to look over topics to check whether or not they're finished. :)
    That being said, we have had a very inconsistent archive schedule, so a rule would be nice.
    Archiving serves the main purpose of making it easier for wikians to see the current discussions in the Community Portal. The main challenge is how much dead content is there versus current discussion, which is difficult to measure.
    So instead, archiving should be based off of load times, which is directly influenced by bytecounts.
    @Duckboycool: 125,000 sounds about right.
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This topic is Yes Done
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    06:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

    Checking InterwikiBot

    Hi everyone! I've rewritten the interwiki portion of User:InterwikiBot, seeing as PyWikiBot is broken. I've uploaded the bot proposed edits here: User:InterwikiBot/Proposed Edits

    Can someone look over a few proposed edits and confirm they are valid?
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

    Update. I got Jvvg to confirm everything looks good, so I will be officially running the interwiki portion of the bot now.
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
    This topic is Yes Done
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    07:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

    Editing not working

    I am trying to edit my profile page, but nothing happens when I press the pencil. What has happened?
    Eco fox (talk | contribs) 03:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    When you press the pencil, a list of things to do will pop up. Choose "Edit".
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    04:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sometimes, if the page takes a really long time to load, then the pencil buttons will not show for awhile.
    If this problem persists, try switching to a different skin in your preferences > Appearance. I recommend Vector.
    ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 04:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    "I recommend Vector" well Vector is the only skin available besides SWS so that should be obvious... But in all seriousness the SWS has multiple problems while Vector has none of those.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    05:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    It isn't the website because I tried it on another device. I am on Vector now. Thanks for telling me! It works!
    Eco fox (talk | contribs) 05:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
    No problem! This is Yes Done now.
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    05:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

    A new namespace for AF pages

    Yes AF pages are now under Scratch Wiki:April Fools.

    As most of you probably know, jvvg is going to become inactive after the summer. One question that currently stands related to that is: who will manage the AF pages?

    I have an idea. Instead of the AF pages being under somebody's userspace, how about we create a new namespace (probably AF:) and move all the AF articles to it? This would make it a) kinda more accessible since it's easier for editors to look for "AF:Scratch Wiki Home" than "User:Jvvg/AF/Scratch Wiki Home"; and b) it would be more SW community-oriented, since there wouldn't be any person controlling the entire thing (still with admins and EWs moderating, of course!).

    So what do you think?
    Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
    10:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)