< User talk:8bitjake

Rage icon.png This is a joke article, usually found on a userpage. Please don't take it seriously.
Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!

We recommend that before you ask a question, you search the archives first to make sure it has not been answered before:

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

Size of Community Portal: 48,879 bytes

Click the button below to leave a message!
Make sure it has a descriptive title so other users can see what you're talking about in a glance.

See Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done to contribute to discussions that are long-unfinished.

If your topic is a request for admin or EW action, please post it at Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Admin Requests.

To contribute to discussions on other article talk pages, see this list of talk pages with unresolved discussions.

Bulletin Board for Not-Done Topics

 Unresolved (see all...)

(this will never be done completely, so don't archive!)

Threads that need "long time and hard work" will not be archived, but moved to S:CPND.

Here's some things that we need your help for.

Other Topics

Topics that are not listed above.

About Scratch 3.0


About Wiki Management

Page Management

To make sure that your thread will not be archived put the template No Not done at the top.

Don't forget to replace it with the Yes Done template when the thread is finally finished.

Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,243edit 11:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

(I have edited this topic a little from its original version)
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
08:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Should we add a rejected topics section so that we know which ones to archive?
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  22:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Updated the list as the author.
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,243edit 09:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,243edit 10:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Logo of Apple502j.jpg Apple502j Talk/Activities 2,243edit 14:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Removed one now-archived topic, might need to redo this eventually.
Jammum Icon.png Jammum (💬 Talk - ✍️ Contribs - 🐱 Scratch) 08:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Logging server faults

 Unresolved (see all...)

See dedicated subpage
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

FINAL VERDICT from Twitter vs. X Megathread

Yes Resolved (since 19:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC))

Recently I made a post regarding the status of the discussion debating Twitter vs. X. I have made the following proposal, but it was archived. I have decided to bring it back without bringing back the full topic (since that would be insane). Here's the message:

@Purin2022, Co0lcr34t10ns, Mybearworld, BrilliantGamer6, Mrsrec, Vdiu, Kenny2scratch, banana439monkey, Lovecodeabc Alright. There don't seem to be too many major objections, so I propose this:

  • All instances of Twitter are replaced with X as a rule.
    • First mention is "X (formerly Twitter)"
    • All subsequent mentions are just X (as we seem to have determined that we can assume people somewhat know what X is)
    • This WILL be a mass edit, unlike mentioned earlier (since my proposal of mass-editing didn't get shot down), so all articles mentioning this will be change to reflect these new rules.
    • This will occur for ALL mentions, not just the ones that speak of X after its name change.
  • All links to the X main website will (this is new) link to x.com, because, as of 5/28/24, x.com no longer redirects to twitter.com.

If anyone has any major objections, please object by replying to this thread and {{@}}-ing me BEFORE June 1st. If there are no major objections by then, everything listed above WILL be done on all pages on the wiki.

Please don't object with small little tiny things that only apply to one or two pages. This can be discussed on that articles talk page, and just makes this massive conversation take longer. I am sorry if this seems harsh, I'm just trying to say things as matter-of-fact-ly as possible, to get this megathread conversation over with. Thanks for understanding.

Please reply to this message by June 1 if you have any major objections. If there aren't any the wiki community will start making the above outlined edits starting on June 1.
Note: obviously I cannot ban anyone from taking part in a discussion, but it would probably better for users to not join in on this discussion if they haven't already been a part of it. Almost every single humanly possible point has been brought up, so I'm not sure how that would help too muchThis is a suggestion, not a 'rule'
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 02:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 I'll repeat what I have said in the archive:
That looks mostly reasonable. There are a few very minor problems that haven't been properly addressed, but:
  • People don't read an article from top-to-bottom as they may read from a specific section (redirect exists). That said, we can assume that most people know Twitter => X so it should be fine.
  • There's no definitive conclusion on that 'what to use in headings' thing although it seems like writing "X (formerly Twitter)" in headings is somewhat a consensus. So I propose that to be used. (although there's only one such situations so far, namely Scratch on Social Media, so it can go to another page if someone objects)
    Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 10:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@han614698 "X, formerly Twitter" and x.com look reasonable but I object to further instances just referring to X; I do not believe that reflects the content of the discussion. It seemed split between giving equal weight to X and Twitter and giving additional weight to Twitter. Respectfully, it does seem like you are the only person in favour of X, so I think that one might not be used. My belief is that Kenny2scratch's proposal most closely reflects the consensus-- let's say "X, formerly Twitter" initially-- and after that point, either don't use a name at all (use context), or just say Twitter. Just saying X does not reflect the content of the discussion or any precedents, in my opinion. However, changing the links to x.com does make sense-- while it did not make sense at the time given that they were being changed from a direct link to a redirect, now that that URL is the direct URL it would make sense to do so.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mrsrec Ok, so we have to have the entire conversation over. I did forget to mention that we would use “the platform” when possible, but that doesn’t always work. I think we need to use X for that. The links are x.com, our first mention is “X, formerly Twitter”. Why would we suddenly call it Twitter for one sentence?
Do other people think it needs to be Twitter in this very specific case or is X okay?
Personally I think that this should be a talk page conversation in those articles - most articles mention X once.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 11:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@han614698, Mrsrec Okay, there are: one, two, three, four... four articles on the Scratch Wiki that mentions Twitter at least twice, excluding twitter.com and X... Grant it that the platform can be used in some of these articles, that still a bit too much in my opinion for individual discussions...
There's like seven mentions on Maintenance Mode, and like none would make sense with the platform. Take this action, "reminding the user to check their Twitter", as an example. If we replaced Twitter with the platform, then, well, who knows what does the platform refer to what platform. If we replaced it with X instead, then, "reminding the user to check their X", well, it works. The general consensus, as far as I'm concerned, is to use X in this (and many other case), it should be used. If anyone finds a mention where X is not suitable, prove me wrong.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 11:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Purin2022 I was under the impression, after the previous discussion, that it was to be avoided entirely. I also don't think it is suitable in your example, "check their X" could mean any number of things, especially without clear context. Therein lies the problem with just using X: it's just a letter-- and often one used to stand in for something else. What is the problem with the common name?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 13:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@han614698 I propose remove to remove the part If there aren't any the wiki community will start making the above outlined edits. My opinion is that kenny2scratch's last point is in order to avoid mass-edits that isn't too consturctive in terms of a reader.

@Mrsrec You have raised a good point that, after 42 days of discussion, has been forgotten. So I certainly agree that "X" could mean a billion things — variable names, letter names etc. Also re-reading the conversation there's not actually a clear consensus of any sorts — it's more like people coming up with their own proposal but there's always problems or alternative proposals to that proposal. In fact, there isn't any problem with the common name.

@Co0lcr34t10ns, Mybearworld, BrilliantGamer6, Vdiu, Kenny2scratch, Lovecodeabc So where are we leading this conversation to? This really shouldn't be a topic this long, so at some point we might have to do the last resort method: voting. This has been avoided many, MANY times before, but if we don't we just don't lead to anywhere. And my intentions is to not get this topic to S:CPND. Plus that it's mostly a debate with repeatedly-restated-evidences by now, where none of the sides/evidences are outweighing another. This is different to, for example, the Griffpatch Argument, where points are mostly-different-in-strength, thus far this topic has its argument had mostly simliar-strength arguments which could be manipulated for the other side. If you don't like this idea, say it.

Redacted by OP on 14:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 14:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Purin2022 I think, with everything that has been said up to now, we can leave this alone. We have covered all our bases and also ran around the field enough times to win the baseball game, if you get what I mean.
@Mrsrec I disagree with this point. While it's true that in all aspects of Scratch, there are many uses of X, in the context of all articles that mention X, it doesn't matter.
This is MY final verdict. I have no further grievances with this proposal, and I am fine with it's current state.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 15:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I think about some of these:
@han614698 — I think the best thing to do is mention both in some way, whether it's doing "X (formerly Twitter)", "X, formerly Twitter", "X/Twitter", etc. As I said originally in the archived version, this does not add much to the page size at all. Adding "/Twitter" adds only 8 bytes to the page for each of its mentions, adding ", formerly Twitter" adds only 18 bytes for each mention, and " (formerly Twitter)" adds 19 bytes for each mention. If a page were to mention X seven times, that would only be adding 133 bytes maximum.
@Purin2022 — Your first and third posts are fine, however I'm mainly talking about your second in this response. Saying "reminding the user to check their X" sounds a bit weird in my opinion, and it sounds like it would probably be confusing to others. However, it'd be somewhat okay to add more meaning to it that shows it's a social media platform, such as saying "reminding the user to check their X account" instead.
@Mrsrec — Yes, this is true. In my very first reply to the currently archived topic, I said that X could be interpreted with many different meanings, as shown on Wikipedia's disambiguation page for X. There's 159 meanings shown, if I counted correctly.
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 20:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I am trying really hard to not escalate this as Kenny2scratch pointed out, but I think I need to stop participating in this conversation so I don’t start getting rude. I feel like nothing I’m saying is being heard, especially the stuff about my proposal. I proposed that we have a mass edit for consistentcy, and instead of talking about the points, people just said that Kenny2scratch said we shouldn’t - the fact that Ken said we shouldn’t isn’t a point.
I propose that we have a vote since we really aren’t getting anywhere. I apologize for all of this but I am still of the opinion that Twitter is a deadname (of course no one will get offended) and we should not be mentioning it anywhere on this wiki as twitter does not exist anymore and it’s basically a slang term for C (even though the name X might be controversial).
Is everyone good with a vote? We can decide what exactly we’re voting on after the fact, but for now, can we choose that?
Alternate option: we replace all twitter.com links with x, and we have individual discussions on article talk pages instead of a mega thread about many different things.
I did not @ anyone since I’m on a phone and this is really hard on its own. If someone who sees this could reply with their response and all of the @s that would be nice.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 20:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I'm fine with voting. I really don't want to participate in this discussion anymore, so just set up the vote and I'll say my peace there. This is getting so draining. I'll @ everyone as you requested: @Purin2022, Mybearworld, BrilliantGamer6, Mrsrec, Vdiu, Kenny2scratch, Lovecodeabc
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 00:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns You forgot banana. @banana439monkey
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
leave me alone.
09:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I didn't forget Banana. They didn't want to be pinged, so I didn't ping them.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 09:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@banana439monkey, @Co0lcr34t10ns Geez, how should I know? I never saw anything that said this.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 11:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
They said that they didn't want to be pinged in [[1]]. Purin removed it. I saw the edit history and took note of it. So please stop pinging banana.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 11:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns It's off topic but note that I didn't remove the message in question. What I did remove was the last part of my 3rd reply, which I originally appended that part after an edit conflict of banana saying that message. It was this edit by someone else who remove the message instead. But either way, don't ping banana.
Back on topic. So so far no one said that they don't want to vote. Now not everyone had voiced their opinions on their vote so far but oh we really need to sort this out ASAP, so here is the situation:
This isn't perfect, but are everyone happy about this? Or simply we don't vote?
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 13:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Purin2022 No objections.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 02:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns, Mybearworld, BrilliantGamer6, Mrsrec, Vdiu, Kenny2scratch, han614698, Lovecodeabc — Welcome back to this horrible mess calm discussion. It has been two-or-more weeks since the last post, so I assume that nobody is against voting. Therefore, we can start voting. The voting would start now and end on Tuesday 2nd July, 23:59 UTC. Under my previous post, I'd cast my vote as Part A: 1st: 3; 2nd: 4; 3rd: 1; 4th: 2; Part B: option ii.
Thank you very much for your time.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Purin2022! I welcome you to this miserable hell friendly voting time :))))))) I vote 2. BTW I'm using 2 in Scratch on Social Media#X (formerly Twitter) as a placeholder before we come to an agreement.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 17:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not really sure that voting is a substitute for discussion, but if nobody can close it then I guess it can't hurt to say my opinion. I will go 3, then 1, then 4, then 2. And @Co0lcr34t10ns, you haven't given your alternative preferences yet, you've only voted for one option. You should rank them all in order of most to least preferred.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 21:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────2, 4, 3, 1. essentially reverse Mrsrec lol
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 23:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Here's my vote, according to what @Purin2022 said. I'd either vote 3142 or 3412. I think I'll go with 3, 4, 1, 2 though. As for part B, I'm not really sure what it's saying, so I can't really give a vote on that. That's just my vote for this intense argument mild voting.
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 00:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns, Mrsrec, BrilliantGamer6 — It looks like I need to apologise for not making part B clear. There was an argument between, (i), "mass-updating our existing articles for consistency", or, (ii) "clean up the rest of each article you edit in the process". Basically it's between whether you want consistency but clogging Recent Change, or the other way around.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 18:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I saw that, but I don't think the second part is necessary, because it's not our place to call a vote to prohibit certain types of editing, especially when doing so would undermine this discussion in the first place. I think anyone can change according to the results of the first vote if they see fit. How would such a rule even be enforced? By reverting them to things against the first result?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 20:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
@Purin2022 A: 2431 B: Option 1. (note that I have become very inactive due to some personal things)
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 14:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Voting Period is now over! Final tallies:

For A (the main bit)
Option Description Tallies Ranking
1 Always use "Twitter" 1+2+0+1+0 = 4 4th
2 Always use "X" 0+0+3+0+3 = 6 3rd
3 Avoid the use of either names where possible, but use "Twitter" if not. 3+3+1+3+1 = 11 1st
4 Avoid the use of either names where possible, but use "X" if not. 2+1+2+2+2 = 9 2nd

So it's pretty clear that we should, "[a]void the use of either names where possible, but use "Twitter" if not." As for B), although it was my bad at explaining stuff (oof), it seems like the "mass-update it all" (2 votes) is a bit more popular than no (1 vote). So you're free to edit a page simply because of this Twitter/X thingy! Just don't flame war...

Anyway this is FINALLY the end of this, wild, wild, journey, spanning across two topics. Now we can Finally resolve this topic!
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


Here are the thanks for May 2024.

User Thanks

MagicCoder330 (talk | contribs)
  • Thank you for your continued dedicated to small, but useful, changes. It all adds up!
    Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Jvvg (talk | contribs)
  • Thank you for your continued scheduled commitments to the wiki
    Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Purin2022 (talk | contribs)
  • Thanks for your respectful tone in controversial topics
    Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

See you next month Scratchers! Keep improving the wiki and being awesome while doing so!
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

S:PRO and summaries.

Does S:PRO apply to edit summaries? I was told to stay professional everywhere on the wiki, but I usually like to inser witty, fun comments while still trying to convey what the edit is about.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 17:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

No as far as I know. Of course I didn't made that rule so I can't be 100% sure but at the top of the section it says "treat all articles on the wiki as encyclopedia entries", which doesn't include edit summaries. Otherwise "I fixed grammar" is also incorrect. But if you're going to make it funny just make sure that people can actually read the summary.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns, Something like «whittled a little silly teeny tiny typo» should do the work. However, «42nd french street», «opyt a dexif» or «ꍏꀸꀸꍟꀸ ꍏ ꉓꂦꂵꂵꍟꈤ꓄» probably won't.

Jmdzti 0-0's LGTBQ userlogo.png Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (346) ) 14:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Asking for consensus for making a template

So, I've already made a prototype of a template (User:Jmdzti_0-0/measure) that can convert km to miles, meters to feet, centimeters to inches, and vice versa. I have 2 ideas for making this:

Not sure where in mainspace would that be useful.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 21:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The german Wiki needs Administrator Help please

Yes Resolved (since 8 June 2024)

Hallo ich grüße euch. Ich der deutsche Wiki Administrator benötige Hilfe von den englischen Administratoren. Das deutschschpachige Wiki hat ein Problem bei dem ich überfordert bin und keine Ahnung habe was ich da machen kann, https://de.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/ Auf der linken Seite des gesamten Wikis fehlen die Infoboxen mit den Links. Normalerweise werden dort die Links zu den Tools, Navigation & Spezialseiten angezeigt. Bei dem deutschen Wiki fehlen diese Infobaxen alle. Das Wiki ist somit komplett unbrauchbar. Ich habe keine Ahnung wie und wann das passiert ist. Ohne die Links zu den Spezialseiten bin ich leider nicht in der Lage der Fehler auch nur einzugrenzen. Unser Bürokrat Martin Wollenweber erzählte mir damals bei Problemen könne ich mich auch an die englischen Administratoren wenden. Jetzt ist es leider soweit denn ich habe keine Ahnung was ich da jetzt unternehmen kann. Ich hoffe ihr könnt da irgendwie helfen. Danke

I have a google translation: Hello, greetings. I, the German wiki administrator, need help from the English administrators. The German-language wiki has a problem that I am overwhelmed with and have no idea what to do about it, https://de.scratch-wiki.info/wiki/ The info boxes with the links are missing on the left side of the entire wiki. The links to the tools, navigation & special pages are normally displayed there. The German wiki is missing all of these info boxes. The wiki is therefore completely unusable. I have no idea how and when this happened. Without the links to the special pages, I am unfortunately unable to narrow down the error. Our bureaucrat Martin Wollenweber told me at the time that if I had any problems I could also contact the English administrators. Now, unfortunately, the time has come because I have no idea what I can do about it. I hope you can help somehow. Thank you
Lichtrebell (talk | contribs) 03:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Odd. I entered the DACH wiki and the info boxes were there. Does it matter if you have an account?
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 10:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. The info boxes are actually still there. My eyes aren't that good anymore and that's why I probably enlarged the pages too much. The English wiki must have a different width. I'm a bit embarrassed now. I really thought there was a bigger problem. Thank you
Lichtrebell (talk | contribs) 13:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

[SUGGESTION] View Source CSS of page without editing

This situation has happened to many editors: They find a page with some sort of fancy mechanisms or code or whatever. They view the source code by pressing edit source, which takes a long time to load. They then exit the editor, satisfied, but then it also takes a long time for no reason. If we kept separate pages with nowiki tags and called them Source pages or Raw pages, it would make life for a lot of editors easier.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 13:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

@Co0lcr34t10ns, you mean something along the lines of keeping the «View Source» button in every page (without being protected, of course)?

Jmdzti 0-0's LGTBQ userlogo.png Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (346) ) 14:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. The fact you have to go into the editor just to view source isn't great imo
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 14:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
But imo, viewing source without the color coding/highlighting is kinda confusing.

Jmdzti 0-0's LGTBQ userlogo.png Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (346) ) 14:56, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I agree but something is better than nothing
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 15:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns Ig so, but I kind of rely on highlighting, so it's kind of a nuisance

Jmdzti 0-0's LGTBQ userlogo.png Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (346) ) 15:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Although this is a great idea, I'm guessing (lucky shot) that this is a MediaWiki thing, and modifying it would be spaghetti code.

Jmdzti 0-0's LGTBQ userlogo.png Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (346) ) 19:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Not like they haven't done it before, check the Scratch Wiki GitHub.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 19:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jmdzti_0-0, Co0lcr34t10nsEdit Conflict If you have proper clean code then there probably wouldn't be spaghetti on the plate. However this looks like it is going to involve a bot or an extension of MW. The bot is going to fail a significant amount of S:BOTNEEDS (it isn't even necessary) so bots are no good. On the other hand the extension isn't impossible but it's not like extension development is easy and I don't think the devs would like to spend hours developing this thing that is unnecessary. So I don't think that is going to be a good idea.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 19:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@Purin2022 In that case why not just a view source button that automatically generates? It doesn't have to be a bot.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 19:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
If it was that easy to implement, the wiki would’ve added this already. However, sadly, it is not.

Jmdzti 0-0's LGTBQ userlogo.png Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (346) ) 08:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Thankful Thursday 53

Hi Scratchers. Here are the Thanks for June of 2024.

User Thanks

‎Purin2022 (talk | contribs)
  • Thank you for your continued verification of information accuracy
    Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

‎Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs)
  • Thanks for your nonstop tireless activity to clean the wiki of errors
    Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

‎Za-Chary (talk | contribs)
  • Perhaps it's a bit non-conventional to thank someone who doesn't have a wiki account, but I do believe that those who contribute from the Scratch site are those who evidently do just care about helping and improving; maybe they will request one day or maybe they just won't. Either way your contributions are important.
    Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

A bit of a non-conventional one but interesting nontheless. See you all next month!
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 20:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't have to thank me for error-correcting. Natural habit of mine, that's why I made the account. Also letting Za-Chary know rn
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 12:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

[Suggestion] An article about TurboWarp.

Yes Resolved (since 10:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC))

If we have an article about Snap!, Insanity, Tosh_(Scratch_modification) so, why don't we have one about TurboWarp? Should it be added, along with Adacraft?

Jmdzti 0-0's LGTBQ userlogo.png Jmdzti_0-0 ( talk|Scratch profile|contribs (346) ) 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

A rule that disallows the creation of pages about Scratch Modifications was added (see Scratch Wiki:New Page Policies#Modifications), but old pages that were created were remained to stay up. Really, I think that most of the old Scratch Modification pages should be deleted since they're no longer very relevant.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 16:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
It was made after the ban on mod pages, existing mod pages remain though.
UserIconAdzboy.png AdzboyTalkContributionsScratch Profile 17:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Welcome to the Grandfathering (wait that's American but I digressed) problem! This involves the question, "should our old articles be regulated under our (relatively) new rule?" There is quite a bit of problem with S:NP#Modifications, for one, most of the mods documented on the wiki are not "notable examples", but rather, "historical mods"; there is little-to-no mods documented post-1.4. And there are not, "several", mods documented, but rather, 18. TL;DR of the last two senteces: S:NP#Modifications is quite bad at documenting things. But again, I digressed.
The thing with Grandfathering is that it often gets regulated under the new rules after a period of time. Well in our case, that period of time must have been at least 5 years. So, uhh, we should delete those articles? Or that probably should go to another topic?
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Purin2022 I've made a separate topic regarding this under Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal#Removal of Scratch Modification Pages.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 06:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Twitter Adjustments

I worked on all of the Twitter/X adjustments. Is what I did good? Anything else we agreed on changing differently?
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 02:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Scratch Modification Pages

Currently, the creation of pages about Scratch Modifications is disallowed (see S:NP#Modifications), but old pages which were created before this rule were allowed to remain on the Wiki. Times have changed since then, and most of the pages under Category:Scratch Modifications are no longer relevant. Aside from BYOB, basically all of the Scratch Modifications with their own dedicated pages are no longer relevant to Scratch 3.0 or its community, with most people on the website probably having never heard of most of them (not really a "notable example").

As such, I propose to delete all pages which have "(Scratch Modification)" in their title (this doesn't include BYOB, as it turned into Snap!, which is not a Scratch Modification). While this may seem extreme, as I've said, none of the Scratch Mod articles are relevant today, and they're no longer in-line with the page creation rules found at S:NP. What does everyone else think about this?
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 06:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, let me list all the mods to see if they matter. How-to pages can stay, someone will find them important.
  • Snap: Yes Actively Updated This is our baseline.
  • Bingo: No Somewhat Dead Copyright is updated, but the mod is stuck in eternal V2.0 and the website is partially broken. You can still download it.
  • Chirp: No Dead but somewhat notable This is one of the first known Scratch mods to exist. Maybe we could work that into some sort of article.
  • CoCo: Yes Actively Updated It's a live collaboration project that essentially mixes Zoom with Scratch 3.0. This is the Snap of 3.0 to me.
  • Dream: No Dead This one is just dead. Not really much to write about either.
  • Enchanting: No It's not even a Scratch mod It's a Snap mod, why did we write this article?
  • Mod Share: No Sadly very dead Servers are up but nothing happens there and jvvg told me it's gone for good.
You get the point by now, most of them are dead but CoCo we keep. If anyone finds any updated 3.0 mods that are already on the wiki yet still updated let me know but otherwise they can be trashed.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 10:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns I think it's safe to get everything with "(Scratch Modification)" in its title as well as Mod Share and Scratch for Second Life due to their lack of updates and relevancy. CoCo (platform) can stay as it's not a Scratch Modification as far I can tell (I guess it's just it just integrates with Scratch without tampering it?). It's not like we're removing all mention of them from the Scratch Wiki, as they can still be listed in List of Scratch Modifications.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 12:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Is lack of updates of the thing the page is about a reason to delete a page though? The Scratch Wiki does document the history of Scratch, which these mods could be considered a part of (S:NP says they kept only "notable examples" of mods, so, at least at one point in Scratch history, they were considered notable). Also, is there any harm in keeping the pages?
Mrcomputer1 (talk | contribs) 12:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned by others, the inactiveness of a page is not why whether we should delete it or not. Otherwise, we should delete most of our Scratch 1.4 pages. Basically, it's either delete them all (to be consistent with the new rules), keep them all (grandfathering), or keep the absolutely notable ones (for "notable example"). Anything else would likely destroy the purposes of all sides. In my opinion, keep them all seems like a good idea since there isn't much of a reason to delete them besides for the sake of rules.
PS: Notable examples would probably mean that the TurboWarp argument would start again, because a lot of people would call it "absolutely notable". Maybe not a good idea.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 20:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
@Purin2022, Mrcomputer1 Yes, their inactiveness is not the main factor for wanting to delete the Scratch Mod articles, although it really isn't helping them. CoCo (which is technically not a Scratch mod but whatever) is currently in active development, so when completed, it will probably gain some popularity, especially if it keeps getting updated. Dream (which as far as I can tell has stopped development) does not, at least not in its current state, and will only continue to dwindle in popularity. Every page on the Wiki should strive to have a purpose, and it's pretty hard to argue this with the Scratch Mod pages in my eyes (although feel free to give any arguments against this if you have some). Reasons being:
  • Unpopularity: I really wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only person that visited the Dream page in 2023, as it's a 12-year old mod of an outdated Scratch version that's arguably inferior to the likes of Penguin Mod and TurboWarp (these are updated constantly, are based off the current version of Scratch, and are most importantly way more popular than any 1.4-mod in today's community).
  • Historical Irrelevancy: All of the 1.4 pages could technically also be classified as "unpopular", but they're relevant because they shaped how Scratch 3.0 is currently. I don't think that Dream has nearly the same level of historical relevancy. The idea of TurboWarp (a mod that speeds up Scratch) isn't something that existed before late 2.0 as far as I can tell, or at least isn't covered by any article on the Wiki. Even if it mods like Dream were historically relevant to mods today, that really should be covered in a "History of Scratch Modifications" article, not in a standalone one.
  • Rules: The S:NP#Modifications rule was put in place for a reason (at least I hope it was). I don't know why specifically, but I can think of a couple of good reasons for putting this rule in:
    1. It's basically advertising (user-generated content)
    2. It's not safe for kids (a bad actor could theoretically inject malware into their mod and make an article about it)
    3. It avoids cluttering the Wiki with hundreds of similar/irrelevant mods
What I'm trying to show is that the rule is there for a good reason. The Scratch Modification article shouldn't be evaluated solely on whether it was created before the rule, but rather if it breaks the rule in a way which doesn't break the spirit of what the rule is trying to achieve. I don't believe this is the case here.
It's confusing to see why TurboWarp can't get an article while an arguably outdated mod like Dream does, especially for new wiki editors. Sorry for the long reply, but hopefully I've shown why I think getting rid of the old Scratch Mod pages is a good idea.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 01:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gdxfor — Nothing should be classified as "irrelevant" just because it didn't shape today. For example, if Dream were very popular in the Scratch 1.4 days, then Dream shouldn't be deleted, as it is "significant". Simliar to Project Trends and other pages, it might be better to put a big, new "Scratch Mod" page that has each section as a mod, instead of the historical ones having an entire page and new ones have... absolutely nothing.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 16:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You may have misunderstood my original point. My point was that a Scratch mod that brings enough to the table to keep on the wiki must have a large userbase, backed by either a large amount of fans (Turbowarp) or the ST themselves (CoCo, Snap), and is updated at a consistent rate. Essentially something that is an alternative/separate from Scratch. In my opinion, Turbowarp is notable and important enough to be mentioned, while PenguinMod isn't, if we go by these rules. Hmmm, to Turbowarp or not to Turbowarp? This is a simple argument that only affects a few pages, but it is important to have anyway. Hold on, this reminds me of- *zones out*
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 19:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Co0lcr34t10ns Ahh, Twitter/X. Great fun. "Notable" is subjective (so its definition varies by person-to-person) so it shouldn't even be on the "why we don't create more Scratch Mods pages" page, and thus the line between keep/create, or delete.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 20:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Purin2022 I agree. I think S:NOSP is different when it comes to relevancy. Making an article about a tool that Scratchers use regularly without directly recommending anything is allowed, as long as we be careful.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 20:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@Co0lcr34t10ns, Purin2022 — I disagree - this is the same thing as us allowing kaj. I think that Turbowarp is arguably something more notable, and that's not subjective - it can be decided by community consensus. I'm sure there's a user out there who thinks they're more notable than kaj, which means that's subjective. This doesn't mean we can't create an article on kaj. So, my opinion - all Scratch Modification pages should be either deleted OR merged into one big article, similar to the List of Scratch Domains Article which a short blurb on each one. The exception to this (although I think it should only be Turbowarp) is that the mods the we come to a consensus on in the CP should have their own unique articles.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 01:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@han614698, Co0lcr34t10ns, Purin2022 Yes Support for han614698's proposal To Purin2022's first reply to my message: while yes, Scratch Mod pages like Dream (Scratch modification) shouldn't be classified "irrelevant" just because they're not used as much today, I should have articulated how the page in its current state is not providing anything that's historically relevant. Such a page would only provide use to people who want to look at what the mod has to offer (which is pretty much no one these days); you can't really figure out its historical relevancy by just looking at the page. Employing han614698's merging proposal would show why a mod was popular back in the day while also allowing for new and important mods to be added in.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 06:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@han614698 Actually that's what I meant, so I perfectly agree with you.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 10:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@han614698 Perfectly fine with that, although I would prefer to have the minimum number of exceptions possible. (and also it's what I meant)
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think @han614698's idea is good, merging them all into one article. However, I still have one question. Do we either: 1. Add all pages to the Scratch Modification page and add one or more sections showing the mods, 2: Make a new Scratch Mods page and put all the mods in there instead, or 3: Make a disambiguation page for Scratch Mods and put all of them in there. Which idea would we do? Anyone can also suggest more ideas too.
BrilliantGamer6 (talk | contribs) 20:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I vote 1. No clutter, just mini sections. Wait, how many lines is this now? 37? That's quite a bit... HUH! ...w w what was that? Oh no, I have a bad feeling about this. it's coming, we have to keep it short or else it will become a thing.
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs) 22:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@BrilliantGamer6, Purin2022, Co0lcr34t10ns, Gdxfor I think that we should just modify the "List of Scratch Modifications" page to include a multiline blurb about the mods we have information on. I don;t think a disambiguation page is relevant for this.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 01:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@han614698 I think that'd make the most sense for this.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 01:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@han614698 Yes that's a good idea. There's no need for more than one page on Scratch mods.
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:35, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@BrilliantGamer6, Purin2022, Co0lcr34t10ns, han614698 There's just one more thing that needs to be address, and it's which pages need to be merged into the "List of Scratch Modifications" page. I counted 10 Scratch Mods which need to be merged:

Feel free to discuss any that I've not mentioned or any you think shouldn't be merged.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 22:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Wait. That's it? No excruciatingly difficult, long, energy sapping, glorified argument? I could get used to this
Co0lcr34t10ns (talk | contribs)
@Gdxfor Isn't it all mods but Snap!?
Purin2022 Mini User Icon.png Purin2022 | 💬Talk | 📝Contribs | 🐱Scratch 17:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Gdxfor, Co0lcr34t10ns, Purin2022 — I wrote a response to this last night, but apparently it didn't save.
I don't agree. I think that most mods need to be condensed to the list page, which would include the following:

Note Note: I think that we initially need to include every single mod (including Snap!) in our proposed merge (we don't actually need to merge it), to be fair to everyone. Even before we merge, we can decide not to merge it, but as of now, that decision hasn't been made yet so it should be included.

Here's the list of all mods I could find that we would be focusing on:

Once we have the list established, then we can go about creating exceptions.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 19:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@han614698 The reason I didn't include Snap! is because it's not a Scratch Modification. While I would love to get rid of the Phosphorus Player page if TurboWarp can't get one, it wouldn't really be correct to merge in the List of Scratch Modifications page since it's not a mod, but rather a program written from scratch (this would include Tosh (Scratch modification) since that's a Phosphorus mod). If we were to merge these pages, it would have to be merged with a brand new "List of Programs Inspired by Scratch" article or something like that.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 00:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@Gdxfor To be fair Snap! is on the list of Scratch Mods AND in the Scratch Mods category.
Han614698 H Logo.png han614698 talkcontribs (2,087)profile 00:43, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
@han614698 Well then it's just wrong, GP for example isn't even related to Scratch apart from the fact that it kind of looks like it.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 01:52, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@BrilliantGamer6, Purin2022, Co0lcr34t10ns, han614698 There's been no discussion for a few days now. Since everyone seems to agree that all pages about things that are definitely Scratch Mods can be merged, I'll go ahead and add the This page's contents needs to be merged into (...) template to articles from my list.
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 11:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay maybe not that template specifically since it doesn't support linking to other Scratch pages
Gdxfor (talk | contribs) 11:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.