Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 11

This page is archive 11 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

Remove Misspelling Redirects

I and fellow bureaucrats have decided that we do not need the Misspelling Redirects, so they should be deleted accordingly. The reasoning behind this is firstly, we looked at other wikis for examples. Wikipedia, and most other wikis out there do not use misspelling redirects. Most importantly though, it puts too much unnecessary work, including maintenance to do, so it should most definitely be removed. If you have a definite reason of why the redirects should be kept and keep being made, then please say so - but unless there is any really big decision-changing reasons, then start deleting them tommorow. Thanks,
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea. The lack of a good way to browse articles forces me to use the list of recent changes. The redirects were making it harder to find real new articles added. BTW I do hope you work on better ways of browsing through all the content on the wiki.
andresmh (talk | contribs)

Put Andrés's signature in for him. :)

Now - Lucario, why don't you let the whole community make a decision? After all, you've said that decisions are made democratically by the whole community - which is really what should be happening.

And why are you comparing other wikis with the Scratch Wiki? You've said a few times that the Scratch Wiki is completely unrelated to other wikis and that we shouldn't simply copy what they do. Are you creating and breaking rules simply to get what you want?

I won't delete any misspelling redirects until I get a good reason (instead of just "I and fellow bureaucrats (I hate the word "bureaucrat") have agreed on it" or reasons that break what has been said).

Grr, I'm getting sick of the dictatorship with Prism and the wiki. >_< Giving everyone an equal and worthy opinion would be really nice.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Uh... looking at other wikis? With the thing on capitalization you said to ignore other wikis and do what you say. As you said, "Chrischb - don't look at the other wikis. Let me deal with that." - uh, sure. Oh I'm confused, I'm having trouble typing. xP

While I think the redirects are rather unnecessary, I dislike the lack of community discussion. "I and fellow bureaucrats..." - a small community, and an exclusive one.

I don't like arguing, the ScratchR is right here. xD
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I personally don't see the harm anyway, forgetting about all the dictatorship and everything, they are fairly useful. The reason why you shouldn't compare them to other Wikis is that the Scratch Website is a children's website, and young children are more likely to make spelling mistakes.

Before we remove any of them, can we for once actually have a community vote?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 06:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

+1
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

+1 When can we have an actual community agreement on what to do?

Andrés's reason for getting rid of the misspelling redirects ("it floods recent changes") seems odd to me - if it floods recent changes, that just shows that people on the wiki are doing a good job. So we're not supposed to edit too much or something? xD
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not care about flooding if the flooding was about actual edits. Also I wouldn't care about flooding if there was a good, up-to-date and easy to browse list of all articles ordered by category. There are so many ways of misspelling things, so, to me, the redirects do seem like a waste of effort. But it's not my effort being wasted so I cannot tell you whether to waste your time doing X or Y :) --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm fine doing it by myself, but if people want them to be removed then fine... But only if it is made as a community decision...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh boy lots to reply to. Ok. Soo...

@Andresmh: Special:NewPages might help for you a bit :). But perhaps there can also be a manually created page that will show recent pages, so it is less hidden. And I'm working on "Scratch Wiki:Table of Contents" :).

@everyone else (xD): In my paragraph, I tried to put the least emphasis possible on other wikis. But perhaps I'm a little wrong. Honestly, I guess we should look at other wikis a bit. I am honestly considering changing "Scratch Wiki" to "Main Page" and "Scratch Wiki:About" to "Scratch Wiki" like you guys suggested in a discussion - but I'm still thinking. I did mention in the post that I want your reasons if you have something against the removal of Misspelling Redirects. Simply I didn't want to waste a whole long thought-out discussion of why we should and shouldn't and stuff - I just want you to speak up if you do, and if not, wait until everything is finalized, and then we can start deleting.

However, a community VOTE will NOT be done - and it will not be tolerated for any community discussion. It's simply a wiki policy. The Scratch Wiki goes by consensus, not voting.

@Chrischb: What do you mean "ScratchR"? I really think too many people use that term wrong >.>. ScratchR is the social media platform developed to support this website. It's not really an alternate term for "Scratcher".

Thanks,
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"However, a community VOTE will NOT be done - and it will not be tolerated for any community discussion. It's simply a wiki policy. The Scratch Wiki goes by consensus, not voting." Uh... can someone please explain the word "concensus"? ^^ Sorry...

About ScratchR: Well SORRY. (<-- go on, watch it :D)

Still not deletin' them, by the way =D

Oh - I do think they should be deleted. XD I'm just frustrated with the being bossed around... :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't voting an easy way to reach a consensus? By voting, you can see if there's good general agreement.

And about the misspelling redirects - actually, I think them quite useless, although removing them isn't something I'd 100% like. I just wanted a good discussion with the whole community instead of the bureaucrats ruling the wiki and choosing what happens.

The wiki wasn't and shouldn't be ruled by the bureaucrats - it shouldn't be ruled by anyone at all. The Scratch Wiki's users are supposed to be equal, right? :D

I'm getting a bit fed up with you guys controlling the wiki - for now, I'll leave it. It probably won't be permanent, but I just don't like working on this wiki when it's being controlled like this. Don't expect me to make many edits, if not none. Take my leaving as going on strike if you want; it sort of is. :| Look, I'm sorry! You know that I don't want to leave! :O

I'll just quote the FAQ, excuse me: The Scratch Wiki is not run by a leader, webmaster, president, or anything of the sort. Decisions are made democratically by the community. That is definitely not what the wiki is doing right now. Can we pweeze follow the FAQ? Otherwise, I'll have to change what it says. xD
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with Jonathan here, and go on strike. I'm simply not happy with the way things are being run here... I, like Jonathan, don't want to leave, but hey, I think it's necessary that for once we get listened to instead of treated as though we don't understand.
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Me too... Dx
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to rule the wiki, I'm just saying that 3 other important people agreed with me, (including Scratch Team), so it should arguably be done. Simply, I didn't want a 10 page discussion about this whole thing with all of the points of view, so rather than saying "What do you guys think? :)" I said "If you have a definite reason of why the redirects should be kept and keep being made, then please say so - but unless there is any really big decision-changing reasons, then start deleting them tommorow." The worst situation that could happen in which your current arguments would apply is me saying something like "So just start doing it now" without caring about your opinions. But apparently I worded it wrong....

Is this understandable? I'm truly trying to train myself best to not use authority and stuff badly... JSO was telling me earlier "when you give little kids "power" they always overuse it ><", and I'm really trying to be as least of that kind of person as possible.... so can you guys forgive me?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it is unlikely that users are going to make the exact spelling errors you can think of. Typos and spelling errors are very unpredictable, even if you try to include them all you will probably still only cover 10% of all possible spelling errors. I understand you want to help people that are making mistakes, especially because we're focusing on kids. However, instead of spending so much time making redirects, let's try to expand the other articles, make the wiki more complete, covering all aspects of scratch. I will try to find a better search feature. We could for example use Google Site Search, it it corrects spelling all by itself. Or maybe I can find some improvements for the default Wiki Search. JSO 20:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of democratic decisions on the website but there also some decisions that are made in a unilateral way. The Scratch Team will always have the final word on anything hosted on our collection of websites even if people vote against it. I typically tend to be OK with democratic voting as long as it is not a core issue for which I have a strong opinion about. With regards to the Wiki, a lot of the decisions have been and will be democratic. I thought more about this particular case, and I decided, in my role of Scratch Team, to make a unilateral decision of not allowing spelling redirects. I think they are very useful, they will never have all the cases of misspellings, and are wasted effort. In general, we should try to identify which issues are democratic and which are not. I think the deep structure of the wiki is not democratic (the redirects are part of that structure). Other things could be more democratic. I hope you decide to continue editing the wiki and to find ways to make things more democratic. --
andresmh (talk | contribs) 00:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Andres & JSO :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@WeirdF, Jonathan, and Chris: NNOOOO Please don't leaavee (teporally)!! D: | I think the reasons are fair. :) Jwosty (talk contribs) 00:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we're back, and we have decided we think they should be removed, therefore, since it has been made as a community decision, the process should commence... :)
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 18:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

xD We don't have a choice anyway; Andrés told us to. :P

Hope you don't mind deleting your work... :|
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I spent a heck of a long time on them, but I suppose I can see why they should be deleted... But hey, I don't mind THAT much! :)
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 05:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Done! :D That only took a day. GIVE US ALL COOKIES NAO FOR TEH HARD WORK
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You did all that by yourselves? :O Sorry I couldn't help... I was at school, so I could only do a few in the morning... :(
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Workaround/Behind the Scenes?

In a lot of block articles, there are sections which show ways to achieve the same effect of a block, by using other blocks, but some of these sections are entitled "Workaround," and others "Behind the Scenes." Which one should it be?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I think Workarounds is better... :). What do the rest of you guys think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed...
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Workaround is better - there are some workarounds that definitely aren't what goes on behind the scenes.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Same! :D Jwosty (talk contribs) 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna go through all the block articles and see if I can change them all...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WeirdF deserves a pat on the back. :3
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

*checks* he got them all. *pats him on the back*
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 07:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

+1
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :D
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Scratch RPG

Shouldn't it just be plainly "Role-Playing Game"? Because "Scratch RPG" sounds more like a title of an RPG. What do you guys think? :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh... I should have thought about that. Dx
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 23:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fixed.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 07:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

300 articles!!!

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D (And we used to think 100 articles was so amazing. xD)

The 300 article: Item I suddenly realized that it hadn't been created yet... it should have been done ages ago, it's quite an obvious article. :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Woo!
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

300 articles! Yeaah! :D
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome guys! Great achievement... :) There should probably be a Wiki Administrator Appreciation Day for you guys :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

NAO xD
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Not all "Common Uses" are common

I hate to be a pain, particularly since I haven't been able to contribute much lately (homework...), but I've noticed that a lot of the uses under "Common Uses" aren't particularly common. Some are very specific uses that, while cool ideas, aren't things that are done in many projects. Should these example not be used or should "Common Uses" be changed to "Ideas" or maybe just "Uses" to make the headlines consistent with the content? Or, maybe it's not that big of a deal and we shouldn't bother worrying about it. What do you think? scmb1(talk) 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Changing "Common Uses" to "Ideas" would be a great idea! What do the rest of you guys think? :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I like 'ideas' but I think it's a bit too general. I'd go for 'Uses' :p JSO 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to be a little bit general. "Uses" sounds just a bit boring to me :/
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "Example Uses"?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Uses sounds too "THAT'S WHAT THE BLOCK IS FOR", and ideas seems just like suggestions, which isn't exactly what we're intending for - I like Chris's idea of "Example Uses".
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

+1 for Chris's idea...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 15:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK then - example uses is good :). You can do that...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"You can do that" - you're not going to help us? :P Bad bureaucrat. xD
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Laaaaaaazy. :C
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, we didn't do any of it either... well, we would have, but scmb1 did it first. :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did it. scmb1(talk) 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

scmb1 deserves a pat on the back. :3
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's my line! xD
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 13:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Article ideas

Nothing big, but you guys should make the following articles: Volume (value) and Tempo (value) - because it's linked to in one article, and well, we just simply need it :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 13:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done! :)
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 16:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WeirdF deserves a pat on the back. :3 (xD)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 22:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

:D :P
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 07:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Home Page Disambig?

I don't think we need this page anymore, after all you can get right to the home page of the Scratch Wiki by clicking the logo, so if people search "Home Page", it should probably redirect them to the "Front Page" article :). What do you guys think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 15:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a disambiguation page? :O I just clicked the logo whenever I wanted to get to the main page... sure! :D
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 22:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. ^^
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Renaming "Operating System" to "Operating System Imitation"

All Scratch can make is an imitation...
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think we need to change it, I mean, when someone creates and OS in Scratch, they call it an Operating System, not an Operating System Imitation. In the very first sentence of the article it mentions that they are not real operating systems. What do the rest of you guys think?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WeirdF...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirects added. :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirects? We REALLY don't need "Operating System Imitations" redirects Chrischb - honestly. There are very low chances of somebody searching that. And either way, by searching that, you'll probably find "Operating Systems" somehow...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I agree with Lucario... should we delete them?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because they aren't really needed, doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. I agree that they are rather unnecessary, but invading Iraq was unnecessary... That didn't stop us. Admittedly that is completely different, but I don't see the point of deleting them.
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Still, we should delete them. It's a waste of space. On the wiki, part of our job is to be practical; and having that redirect is NOT practical.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know who's side I'm on:

• It doesn't hurt to have the redirects
• But they most likely won't be used

HALP :O
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

@Lucario: How do you know they won't be used? That's your opinion - and it varies from others.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 22:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

After all, Chris thought of Operating System Imitation... other might. :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good point... Although considering what Lucario said earlier, if one types in "Operating System Imitation" then the article is likely to come up. At the same time, it's quicker to have the redirect. What Lucario said about saving space doesn't really matter though, I mean, two redirects aren't going to crash the servers, they hardly take up any space at all.
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 08:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Shrink File:FlagRPG.png

There's SERIOUSLY too much gray space on the side. Plus, once it's added to the article, it should be made to maybe 50 percent it's size :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

50%? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO DON'T RUIN TEH BEAUTY OF THE BANNER xD
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of the extra space... I think the banner is a good size, actually. ^_^
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess so.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Links to Scratch Wiki pages

When you post a comment on the Scratch Website that includes a link to a Scratch Wiki page, the link will show up as "(link to wiki)"! Woo! :D
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

YAYZ :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 10:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? YAY! That's brilliant! :D
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! I requested that to andresmh a long time ago in the beginning of the wiki, but it appears that only recently he finally added it :) Great!
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

You can just ask him like that? Wow you're high in society.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 22:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that's what you get when you get added to Andrés's Skype. xD
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hehe :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)