Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 22

This page is archive 22 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

Squeak tutorial

Sparks had a suggestion. Make a page all about squeak, a tutorial. Is this allowed? On a related note, can the Block Library have a page?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there are a lot of Scratchers that play around with Squeak Scratch, an article would be nice :D

The Block Library would be nice too, but it's just a forum topic... :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I can start that soon. (I'll copy and paste.)

"Just a forum topic?" Excuse me? :P Some people (Sparks, Pecola1, SSBBM, me, meowmeow55, TheSuccessor) disagree. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

HEY! I speak for myself! Hmmm... I have thought about this before but didn't want to bother about it. It could link to helpful forums. I would say The Local Block Library IS just forum, but its iTopiced, and is more than just a iTopiced forum, they are developing a website, a reason why it IS more than a forum. I think if scratch modifications get their own page, the block library should too! I am also a librarian so I could help with the page, IF it is allowed. If I had found the block library earlier I would have known squeak much quicker.
Pecola1 (talk | contribs) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

So can we do a few important topics? Now the trouble of finding which ones... :/ Here are a few I came up with:

• New Scratch Members
  • Sticky: ITopic: New Members...introduce yourself here!
  • Sticky: Guidelines for New Scratch Members Forum
• All About Scratch
  • ITopic: THE ALMIGHTY SCRATIONARY!! (for Scratch Illtererate Users)
• Advanced Topics
  • ITopic: Welcome to your local block library!
• Suggestions
  • Sticky: READ THIS BEFORE SUGGESTING ANYTHING/Suggestions that have been resolved already (correct old title, Chris?)

As you can see, they are all stickies/ITopics, so they are already important.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

are redirects worthwhile?

the header says it all: are they really needed on this wiki? on nearly every single wiki running mediawiki (including wikipedia) uses redirects for redirecting a user to a different page automatically when they type it into the search box. because we use a google search on this wiki, are redirects really necessary? if you type something into the box (say "scratch" for example) it doesn't automatically take you to the page titled what you typed in. it takes you to a page of google results based on how often pages are accessed. this may make the page you are searching for very far down the list if it's an uncommonly accessed page. therefore, redirects are unnecessary. i propose either we remove redirects, or switch to the regular wiki search. if anyone has a reason why redirects are absolutely necessary with the google custom search, please inform me of such a reason.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel that redirects are important for keeping proper capitalization. I dont want to have to do [Looks Blocks|looks blocks]. I would rather have a redirect so i just type [looks blocks].
Dazman (talk | contribs) 01:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

actually, with lowercases it automatically in the software redirects because pages can't have lowercase titles. see?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've asked several times about the redirects, but Lucario says we're keeping them... at least if we ever swap back to the previous search engine (it worked with redirects) we'll be ready. In my opinion we should just keep doing redirects for now; we might need them later.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh... if you're interested, this explains why the Scratch Wiki uses Google Custom Search :P

But more importantly - redirects do work in pages. For example, take the article "Scratcher" - if I didn't know what the correct title was and linked to User, it would be a nonexistent link. But since we have a redirect for "Scratcher", the link will work - it'll take you to "Scratcher".

So even if redirects don't work in the search engine, they'll still work on pages :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh ^^
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I use the old search. I have it right in my search bar in the top. If any of you use Firefox, click the down button next to your Google or Yahoo search. Click "Scratch Wiki (en)". Pressing Ctrl + E puts your cursor there.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh... lol? :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just sort of cool how you're using the old search :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 11:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Woah! The old search is way better than the google search.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 13:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why I use it. ;) I wonder if the other will ever be put back...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

yeah, it's really cool. and responding to jonathanpb, aren't the redirects supposed to be convenient to browsers, not editors (though they can be for both). i think we should switch back to the old search; it works really well and looks a lot better.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

+1 But I still think we should keep redirects.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually a bit disappointed that everyone keeps complaining about the "new" (6 months old) Google search. I honestly believe this new search is way more helpful for our young, learning audience (which ofcourse goes very unnoticed, only the editors discuss...). As Jonathanpb linked, read the discussion we had about the Google CSE. I think I'll go for a typical comparison table most Antivirus sellers use as a last attempt to convince you :(

	Default	Google 0.00$/yr only!
Search!
spelling correction?
keyword search?
track search stats?
and use them for improving the wiki?
user friendly?
related pages?
page content search?
save 1 click by linking to page directly
Used by wikipedia

lol :p Who wins? xD
JSO (talk | contribs) 21:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL The only thing to argue about is how useful people consider those bits - but while it's a burden somewhat, I kinda like this one; that list of search queries was so interesting xD
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 22:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol, nice table xD (I think everyone's just sore about the one click :P)

BTW, is there a way for people to access the search stats? I (and other editors too, I'm quite sure) want to see them :3
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 22:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

actually, the default search is used by wikipedia. also, the default search can use keywords, search page content, is user friendly, and can show related pages. all you really have to do to access most features is to click "search" instead of go.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

actually, I looked through all available mediawiki search engines before I chose the google CSE, wikipedia doesn't use the default Mediawiki search (they have spelling correction for example), and the search still displays awful results.
JSO (talk | contribs) 00:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

then why not use the wikipedia search? is it available? cuz then it'd be

	Wikipedia	Google 0.00$/yr only!
Search!
spelling correction?
keyword search?
track search stats?
and use them for improving the wiki?
user friendly?
related pages?
page content search?
save 1 click by linking to page directly
Used by wikipedia

just sayin'
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

LOL xD Though I think that chart is a bit silly because the Wikipedia search is the same as the wiki one JSO mentioned, right? :/
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd rather have the search stats than the saving of one click... :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was speaking to JSO a while back on Skype, and he said he might implement the old search back just for editors.

“	I'll think about the secret wiki editors' defualt search :) should be easy to add.	”
– JSO

WeirdF (talk | contribs) 06:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The search stats alone are more then enough to convince me to use google. I'll try to make them available for all of you. Wikipedia uses a Lucene-based search engine: [1] (that or a newer version). I couldn't install Lucene search on this wiki because it requires a MySQL Lucene backend to be added, otherwise I would have done it.

“	2.1 - used on all WMF wikis Features: "Did you mean..", highlighting, ranking based on proximity, relatedness and anchor text, distributed search, scalability, basic ranking, accentless search.	”
– Lucene plugin page on mediawiki.org

all things the default search doesn't have. (time to update my table :P) The default search is actually supposed to be replaced. I know it sounds weird but it's the truth. The default search that comes with MediaWiki (which is not used on the WikiMedia Foundation wikis, including Wikipedia), relies on the search capabilities that are available in the server database software (MySQL) by default, so that every setup of MediaWiki has some search function. Sadly, MySQL is just not really capable of good search operations. That's why it has to be replaced. Then you have two options: 1) you extend your server software to support better search engines. 2) you rely on 3rd party servers. As I couldn't do 1, I did 2. And Google is just a very good search engine to use. I just had an idea to make the old search available for editors. I'll see what I can do but maybe not now (exams)
JSO (talk | contribs) 08:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be awesome if just editors could use the default search.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 15:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I think both searches should be available to everyone, whether logged in or not. :D Google search should be the default though...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 22:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

+1
Dazman (talk | contribs) 22:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

+1 No being forced to use a specific one there :D (more work for JSO?)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

forum topic template

I would like to propose a new template: one for forum topics. It is viewable here. It is for easily linking to forum topics. It is used by typing {{User:Veggieman001/Ft|Topic Number|Link Title}}. For example, the latest announcement. It even uses plainlinks! Thoughts?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Cool but unnecessary in my opinion since you can simply use an external link...
Dazman (talk | contribs) 05:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, unless we added a button on the edit bar, its faster to just use external links.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 05:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, using plainlinks would be much slower.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really think it is necessary.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

+1
Dazman (talk | contribs) 18:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

And veggieman, what will happen when you change your sandbox?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

+1
Dazman (talk | contribs) 23:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well if we'd use it, we'd give it a name like Template:Ft, so then it would be really short and use plainlinks.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh and Scimonster can you archive the last 10 discussions on the community portal.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 23:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

THE SANDBOX IS JUST AN EXAMPLE. Seriously! >:[
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, as forum topics are external links, I think we should keep them looking that way :P And if we follow what I just said, having that link template would be unnecessary. :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

+1 to Jon: Otherwise it looks like you're linking to Wikipedia. :P (well, I know the color is a bit different, but anyway it is an external link)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the same color: http://scratch.mit.edu/ Wikipedia:
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

But

1. It really doesn't look as nice with the little arrow on the side
2. It's short and easy to use

Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

1. So do plainlinks
2. It takes a second to do the whole thing by copy & paste.

I say no.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's just so much faster if we use the template. If you go by that logic, why do we even have templates at all? Can't we just copy & paste the wiki code from another page?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs)

I honestly think it is significantly faster to just copy and paste a forum topic. Veggieman im sorry, but I have no idea how you think your template is better. No offence intended.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 01:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

About the arrow not looking nice... hey, the arrow is there to show that it's an external link - and forum links are external, right? Removing them would be a bit like lying, if you know what I mean... :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:44, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting the Scratch Wiki:Talk bit to the Community Portal

I can easily imagine someone looking for the big discussion area and trying to Talk button the main page - why not redirect it here?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Any objections?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The talk page of the main page would be Talk:Scratch Wiki not Scratch Wiki:Talk (sorry to be pedantic). But also people may want to suggest changes to it, and since they can't edit it it's useful to have a talk page... Having said that, I'm neither for nor against it.
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 16:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. That is the correct title. :P

“	If you want to make some minor changes to this page, post the changes you want to make on the Community Portal discussion page.	”
– Scratch Wiki Main Page

So, why not?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

If you click the the discussion tab then it goes to Talk:Scratch Wiki, and there you can see that somebody previously tried to use it as a discussion page for the wiki but it was deleted, so if we do this then that'll surely be the redirect?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. Actually, I think someone tried to at least twice! First it said deleted by JSO, now Jonathan.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should redirect to the community portal.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 04:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like enough support. I'll go do that now :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Add the old search

For those who want the old search (Special:Search), why not add it to the bottom of Scratch Wiki:Search?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

+1
Dazman (talk | contribs) 22:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have exams now >< I'll add the old search properly afterwards, for you wikians who just can't get used to a better search :P
JSO (talk | contribs) 23:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)