Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 31

This page is archive 31 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

What is happening :O

I can't sign in on my main account or my test account! And I can't go to any user pages! HELP! EDIT: Now scratch is down!
Nickbrickmaster (talk | contribs) 15:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing that they're moving servers.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Events

“	Was this such an important event that it needs a Wiki page? Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Yeah, and it seems to be over by now anyway. And even if we were to have a Wiki page for every event that happened on the Scratch site, this wouldn't be important enough. BWOG (talk | contribs) 14:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC) That's an idea, to have pages about events! Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)	”
– Talk:Email Impersonating (which might be deleted)

I don't think pages about events are needed. Including notable events of Scratch History in a history article is OK (I think you guys have already done that), but we don't want to clutter this wiki with events, of all things :/. What do you think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

Author:	Please do not make any further edits here, as this wiki is no longer being used to document Scratch.
Text:	“ Doesn't really matter :P ”
Source:	The old wiki

I think that's part of documenting Scratch. It includes articles on major events.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with scimonster. This would be cool, and helpful for people who don't know what Kaj is and such. (Gah forgot my signature!)
SeptimusHeap (talk | contribs) 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We already have a History page and a Kaj page.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the e-mail impersonation thingy really important enough to deserve an article (or even a mention)? Creating articles about this stuff is just going to encourage the wrong-doers anyway.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really about the email impersonation (which got deleted). This is if we should have pages about major events.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps having articles on events is OK, but I do not think you guys should go "all out" if you know what I mean. Broad, major events I'm talking about. Not "so-and-so invented a new scrolling technique" or "one of the largest platforming games on scratch was made" sort of events. What do you think? I think these are just good guidelines so we stay focused and don't get carried away on events. Do you think this is a good rule of thumb?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's good. The NOMCO affair was is probably big enough, right?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean NAMCO? (this is the pac-man conflict, right?) So if you really wanted, you could have a paged called "The NAMCO Conflict" or something around those lines (a handful of redirects would be useful), with some links to any information there is, and perhaps how to make sure something like that doesn't happen to you :).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I mean NOMCO. Obviously you weren't very active there. ^^

Yeah, OK.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh... why do you call it NOMCO? That doesn't really make much sense to me and if we were to make an article about it, we would have to use the company's proper name.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the thread.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't you just tell me?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone made a typo and it caught on.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone be nice and tell me what in the world this whole NAMCO thing is about on my talk page? All I know is that someone made a Pac-Man clone and now there's Scratchers for and against NAMCO, which why this clone is so special I don't know since there's lots of others out there, so why does this one make everyone for or against a company?
BWOG (talk | contribs) 13:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There are lots of others. And NAMCO targeted ONE. THAT's the big deal.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely NAMCO not NOMCO. Just google search it :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We all KNOW it's NAMCO, but we CALL it NOMCO. Period. :P

Now let's just make the page.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. It has a long title. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OH -- I see what you mean. Kind of an inside joke I suppose :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Helpful Hints?

I came up with a new idea for each page, a Helpful Hints (or some other friendly name) section for many pages. It would help new Scratchers who are learning the program learn about the blocks/features/sections of the site from the point of view of a newbie.
SeptimusHeap (talk | contribs) 23:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That, I like! :D
ProgrammingFreak (talk | contribs) 00:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe have it a special color, like a light blue or yellow, and located at the top of a page, with a hide/show box? If it is shown, all hints are shown until you hide one.
SeptimusHeap (talk | contribs) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Of course, I can't add this, so you'll have to wait for everyone elses ideas and suggestions :D
ProgrammingFreak (talk | contribs) 01:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Lemme work on that later.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks!
SeptimusHeap (talk | contribs) 13:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. However I just want to make sure that it doesn't distract other visitors from the main information of the page. There are many tutorials for how to use the Scratch Website and the program (especially considering the recent Scratch Design Studio) -- and articles on the wiki are arguably explained fairly easily. Additionaly there's the Scratch Reference Guide to use. Also you can right click on most blocks and get help -- so I don't think having a "Helpful Tips" for new users is needed. But having things such as "Trivia" sections (something done on some wikis) with interesting facts and tips is worth having. Also a Scratch Tutorial with a couple pages linking to each other with the basics of Scratch and "where to explore next" on the wiki would be cool (it could be in the "Scratch Wiki:" namespace). What do you think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Eh, why would they be distracted? I think it's a good idea.
SeptimusHeap (talk | contribs) 23:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you make a mock-up somewhere on the wiki (for example on your own personal sandbox page, User:SeptimusHeap/Sandbox)? That would help me understand what you're going for with this suggestion :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Uuh... how?
SeptimusHeap (talk | contribs) 14:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've done it. :) Clicky!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Now, just a better color? And can I be in charge of adding this to already created articles?
SeptimusHeap (talk | contribs) 17:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. But only after I create the template and documentation.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Your mockup looks nice, but based on that example, it seems that most of that information could easily be put into the article itself. Having a plain "Hints/Tips" section within the article rather than a pop-up at the top of the page I think would be better. After all the way you put it was having the helpful hints box at the top, then the main content after. I don't think this makes sense -- its sort of in the wrong order. It would make most sense if it was after, and in that situation, no fancy hiding/showing is needed. It can simply be a section 2 header. What do you think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, why not?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Workaround Sprites

If you look at the list of workarounds (which was greatly enlarged when I came XD), you'll notice some that are very long. Some of these are () * (), () / (), and Ask () and Wait. I chose those for a reason: [1] [2] [3]. They are already downloadable. Maybe on Scratch Resources there could be a section for wiki workaround sprites.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't seen this article before, and I have to say it's awesome! xD In response to your question, I think for those three specific examples that you mentioned, you should have it link to a Scratch Project, or as you suggested, perhaps a Scratch Resources page :). (Be sure to include comments next to the script of course.) After all, it does take up quite a bit of space on the page :P.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You've never seen my favorite page?! O.o

I actually meant the workaround on the page, but also a downloadable version, so that it would be easier to use, kinda like the Block Library has downloadable sprites. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe on the list of workarounds page the large scripts could be made into a caption thingy? I'll give an example:

File:Workaround for the division block.png

Hi :)

Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about space on the page.

What's the point of making these complex workarounds if people have a hard time using them? I'm going to upload these to SR and include links in the pages.

If anyone wants to do this, feel free! :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey hey people can click on the image to get a larger version :3
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh wait I missed part of your post ^^ That would be so cool! I likez :3
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I know, I want to make the scripts easy to use too. However it *also* takes up a large amount of room on the page, so I'm suggesting that you make the script small like a preview as Jonathanpb suggested, or just have links to the picture and Scratch Resources page. Does that make sense?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...

And I wanted the links on the separate pages, not the workaround list. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The <title> tags and the favicon

Following this discussion, I realized that the <title> tag in the top of the page is giving us the wrong title.

For you who don't know what it does, it gives the title of the page; for this: "Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 31 - Scratch Wiki". It should be "Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 31 — Scratch Wiki" (which will work if you do &mdash;) Right?

Also, we have the same favicon (that's the tab logo) as Scratch. Scratch Resources has a different one, and I think we should too. (Then I would have recent changes as an app tab. XD)

What do you think?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:51, 30 June 2011

I guess thats somewhat of a good idea, but does it really matter :P
ProgrammingFreak (talk | contribs) 19:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suppose we could use this as the favicon: linky. Also, a cool thing for (Most) images. The place where the favicon would be is usually the image itself.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 19:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it really does matter :P We should have the icon as the normal 'S' with a black 'w' on it. Like the logo. :D
ProgrammingFreak (talk | contribs) 19:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the title doesn't *really* need to be changed. Grammatically you may be correct, but it's really not necessary. As far as the icon, I'll ask JSO about it :-)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah yeah yeah...

@BWOG: Maybe, but I was thinking of what PF said.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It only takes a second to change it. :3
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point. I think "-" is shorter. Even the Minecraft Wiki and Wikipedia use "-".
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 15:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Every wiki I've been to has used "-".
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And most other sites too. ^^
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

How about making the title more Scratch-like? :P
Scratch Wiki | Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 31
And if you're editing a page: Scratch Wiki | Edit | Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 31
What do you think of that?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I also just made a favicon image,

If we will use it, I'll email the ICO file to JSO; I already made it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of it being more Scratch-like, but I'd rather the article name came first.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

@lucario621 you play minecraft? Woot! *high fives* also whats the fav icon for?
Dazman (talk | contribs) 23:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The favicon is the icon that shows on the tab.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

We need a limit for what modifications and collaborations deserve articles

Every so often an article gets created for a modification or collab that no one cares or even knows about — shouldn't there be a limit on which deserve articles?

I do remember that thing about "only create a collab article if it involves at least two people and they've created at least one project", but that's too broad — shouldn't we simply make the rule "create the article if plenty of people know or care about the collab/modification"?

Hmm this sounds a bit harsh, but I do think we need a line :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I feel that all modifications should be on here and collaborations that have made many (3+) projects and have at least 3 users. That way, two friends can't just start a collab and put it on the wiki. I do feel that all modifications should be here though.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 10:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think 2+ projects & 3 users.

Mods only if they're made, and if they're not, make sure they're being expected by a group. :3
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah mods only if they are actually released. We don't want stupid pages about up-coming mods that no one cares about. And I think 2-3+, but I feel 3 is better because then we restrict it to actual groups not just 2 people.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 10:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

How about for mods that haven't been made, if it's actually being developed, and not a feature a week, then we can have a page for it. If it isn't being worked on, we remove it. While we wouldn't be checking every day to see if they're being developed, but we would need to every once in a while.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 01:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh I like the idea about only having articles on released modifications :P

Um this collaboration thing is tricky ^^ IMO I think it would work well if we followed the rule for RPGs; there only seem to be RPG articles on well-known RPGs.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it's ok to discuss a particular case. Rules aren't always required. So basically, when you see an article that you think doesn't make sense for our wiki, why not just leave a message on the article talk page? Or we could also have a category of pages we might want to delete so they are easier to find.
JSO (talk | contribs) 17:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

You mean like this? Or we could make another one that doesn't make it sound like the articles aren't helpful.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 18:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

(posting to show I've read this)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than spending time arguing whether something is or isn't notable, I'd suggest spending that time adding or improving articles. There is virtually unlimited space for as many articles we want, so the only constraint is time. There are a lot of articles missing and others that could be improved. Let's devote time to that. For example, we could have more and better tutorials, more documentation of different important phenomena and trends, there are a lot of unknown fields in the List of Collabs articles, missing information or complete articles about influential collabs... among many other things. I feel the same way about adding all those redirects. They are not necessary, especially when it's just about different ways of saying the same thing. For example, "Forcing Scratch to Crash‎" and "Making Scratch Crash‎" are effectively the same, Google will find the article either way. No one goes around typing such long articles in the URL anyway. So I think it's not a very productive use of time.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 15:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Google might, but not MediaWiki, which I use.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well scimonster, I can guarantee you 99% of the viewers of the wiki use the google search ;).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 17:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects are also helpful for editors, though.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

hehehe I use Google search :3
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 01:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Although Andresmh feels that its a waste of our time to argue over this, I feel that we should have a quality of standards. If there is a page with really bad spelling, grammar, or incorrect material, we either delete it or fix it. So if a collab is not very high quality/popular/active then they should fix that or we should delete it. Wikipedia has something similar to that dont they? Like one time I spent 2 hours writing an epic article about myself and it was deleted after like a minute since apparently im not a notable person >.>
Dazman (talk | contribs) 03:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they have notability standards.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd lean towards fixing it rather than deleting it. At least for now.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 20:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We GOTTA Have This Extension

Extension:Scratch. :D

We can embed Scratch projects IN THE WIKI!!! JUST what we need for the Scratch Wiki!!!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Other than user pages, I don't see it being very useful. It'll just slow down pages. We can link to projects already anyway. In what way would this benefit the Wiki?
BWOG (talk | contribs) 18:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds cool, but besides user pages I don't see a real application for this. It would just make pages take longer to load.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 21:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see where we could use this, especially because we can already use links :S
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

This is yeah, would mainly be used for user pages, but would be SO COOL! I feel like it was practically made for this wiki.

And JSO said if there's an exact extension we want that could be useful, he would add it. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to hear why it would be useful. I see lots of cons, and no pros.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 13:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Because we could embed our projects in our pages, maybe have better tutorials, etc.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I came across this quite a long time ago, but I just didn't see how it'd help the wiki :/ If you all really want it I'll rewrite it to use the flash player instead of the Java one.
JSO (talk | contribs) 17:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Another use: For tutorials that are harder to understand in just text or even regular images.

A "Test This Workaround" section, so you can see it in action!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

JSO, did you do that?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

red links

On Wikipedia and other wikis, if you are at a page that doesn't exist, it has red links to the page/discussion links. I think it might be useful (somewhat) to have these here. I don't know CSS or how to edit the skin though...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I keep having to roll over the links to see if they go to the edit page or not.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 18:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the place where the .css files and stuff are.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 18:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There are red links, aren't there? PIES. Yeah. Or is it something else I'm not getting?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Go to this link. See the red links to the user page and talk page?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't, if you have a Wikipedia account, it wouldn't show.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 18:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I know.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the skin.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. If anyone can decode monobook and find that, and add it to the Scratch skin linked to above, thank you.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use Monobook, it uses Vector, though the red links are also build into Monobook. Also, only someone with FTP access to the site can add it to the CSS.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That isn't just styling, you have to add some detection to see if the page exists already too.
JSO (talk | contribs) 17:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Account Creation

Can you... uh... make it so I can create accounts?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think they need to make an admin account for you.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 21:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

JSO just has to add my login to the hard-coded list.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

why doesn't he just make one account for approving accounts and tell all sysops the password?
Dazman (talk | contribs) 21:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Because 1: That wouldn't make much sense and 2: You can't see who approved who.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 23:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why does it matter who approved who, and why doesnt it make sense. You can track the IP of who last logged in anyways :P
Dazman (talk | contribs) 01:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If it wouldn't matter why would I have added the tracking? And honestly what's wrong with the current system >< And the account approval system isn't even connected to the wiki accounts. You have to login with your scratch login and it just checks if you're in the hard-coded list of approvers.
JSO (talk | contribs) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO we don't need any more account approvers, but I'm sure you'd love to help anyway and that's fine with me :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

+1
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what all you folks think about it.
JSO (talk | contribs) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote:

Author:	why doesn't he just make one account for approving accounts and tell all sysops the password?
Text:	“ Dazman ”
Source:	This topic

That actually has some value; we just could just email you for the password and then we would create it on the wiki with our regular accounts. I have a feeling dazman doesn't know how it works. :P

Anyways, just do it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are any more account-approvers really needed?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 17:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well no - and actually now that we can post as many links we need without the wait, only one person is needed actually xD

But if veggie wants to help... um this is weird ^^
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 01:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there a reason why it would be bad to allow veggie in?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 02:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Security. In simplest form, the fewer people that are able to use the system, the fewer that can cause problems. Obviously nobody intends to cause problems, but account creating/approving permissions should be given as we need more account crators/approvers -- not given as an ability your account has that you can brag about and will be rarely used. I really don't mean to cause hard feelings, but I don't think more people are needed for now. And if you're wondering veggieman001, approving and creating accounts is really not a big deal -- its nothing that you should feel bad that you're not allowed to do. Trust me :).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that; I really just didn't know how many accounts are waiting to be approved.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

0, I just blasted 2. XD
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent MediaWiki changes

I made some recent changes to pages in the MediaWiki namespace. I hope people are OK with them... :3

Here's what I did:

• Changed the title of Special:Disambiguations
• Changed the link in MediaWiki:Noexactmatch
• Click the link on the bottom of this. Nothing is on the page anymore
• Changed the tooltip when you rollover the CP link in the navigation sidebar
• Added a line to Special:Upload
• Fixed grammar when you log out
• Created an accesskey (c) for special pages
• Created an accesskey (=) for unprotecting pages
• Created an accesskey (z) for going to the main page
• Changed the accesskey for project pages (c)
• Added something to this page
• Added "and restorations" to the deletion log

EDIT:

• Changed the text again here
• Added text to Special:ListUsers
• Changed cascading protection text
• Capitalized "Random Page" in the sidebar
• I hope no-one saw when I was capitalizing "Recent Changes"; that took a bit of maneuvering pages
• Added a line to Special:RecentChanges
• Changed the link when you Special:search
• Fixed the "edit" and "view source" tooltips
• Changed a word in the undelete tooltip
• Try editing my test account's user page

I'm looking for more that could be changed...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care much, this MediaWiki stuff is sorta confusing to me :P ^^
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just notifying what I had been doing in the MediaWiki namespace. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just posting here to show I still come on xD
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think in the situation of these mediawiki pages, if it's not broken, don't fix it. These are pages that are key to the wiki's system, so we don't want to be breaking anything really. I suppose what you're doing is fine -- just be careful ;).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 17:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm only editing stuff I know where they come up and what they do.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, just checking.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I finished going through THE WHOLE LIST OF SYSTEM MESSAGES. I edited ones on Scratch Wiki I thought would be useful here. :}
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Congrats for all the hard work

I just wanted to say that I am very impressed by all the work everyone has put into making this wiki. Virtual pat on the back to all the Scratch wikians. There are still a lot to be done but I hope we continue at this pace. Cheers!
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! But although I think this is really nice, I also want to say congratz to you all because if it weren't for you guys, this wiki wouldn't be as well made as it is now. I mean you've not only done basic editing, but you've put the work to make projects about the wiki (such as for the one Scratch Design Studio), and of course have the discussions you have all of the time on the Community Portal to spread new ideas for the wiki as well as making sure everything is going well. If this was New Years I would say "lets hope for another year of great editing," however that's not necessarily the situation. But we will certainly keep working as hard as we are through Scratch 2.0 and afterwards :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Andrès and Lucario!

I probably should have done as much to my schoolwork as to the wiki...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If I spent as much time on school as I did on my computer (over 12 hours a day) I would be already in college. But anyways yeah I'm really impressed. When we joined we only had like 300 articles or less D:. Now were a small thriving community :)
Dazman (talk | contribs) 09:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Grammar cop alert! Quote:

Author:	If this was New Years' I would say "let's hope for another year of great editing," however that's not necessarily the situation.
Text:	“ Lucario ”

Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Daz, I mean I spend a-lot, a-lot more time on the wiki than school. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I can tell XD
Dazman (talk | contribs) 17:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. But I do need to edit more ><
ProgrammingFreak (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Scimonster, this is the community portal. Not an article. Please be a bit more respectful ;)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done much, but thanks.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:52, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@Lucario: Sorry, but misplaced apostrophes are so annoying.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Why is everyone calling Scimonster disrespectful? I think he's fine.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 02:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know...

I try to be helpful, and include a little humor.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Commas or dashes for disambiguations

Which?
I just changed all hyphens to dashes, but should they become commas?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not commas. A Dash should be fine.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 17:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Letting non-registered users edit the Wiki

Yes, this has been brought up here and other places, and I'm bringing it up again. Quote:

Author:	I mean there is obviously going to be vandalism, but if you take wikipedia for example. I'd say about 40% of edits are from users without accounts and most are constructive edits. I also think that opening up this wiki to non-registered users would also bring an increase in the amount of users that register. Also, when we allow guests to edit, it greatly broadens the scope of who sees what on the wiki. A guest might notice a minor grammatical error or a page that no one noticed that should be deleted. The idea of a wiki is for ANY scratcher to be able to edit.If you don't want to open it up to anybody, you could at least make it so that a Scratcher logs into the wiki with their Scratch Account.
Text:	“ Dazman ”
Source:	The link above.

I think we should just log in with our Scratch accounts, and be able to edit.

This obviously means we would need some stronger security:

• Admins can ban
• A new permission, "Moderator", who can...
  • Rollback
  • Edit pages protected on "moderator" status (mods, admins, and bureaucrats (how can we abbreviate that word? XD)
  • Autopatrol & patrol
  • Move files
  • Upload from URL (which is broken last I checked)
  • Everything else autoconfirmed users can do :P

Non-registered Scratchers could...

• Edit un-protected pages
• Have user and user talk pages
• Use talk pages

If you really think we shouldn't let them edit pages, at least this talk page. :3
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(I'm quite sure it's impossible to use our Scratch website accounts on the wiki - they're completely different and unconnected.)

Dunno what else to say ^^

Oh yeah unregistered users were supposed to be able to edit the Community Portal, but JSO couldn't get it to work. (I think I remember something like this at least)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely different? What if we used the Scratch API to have users log in to the Wiki with their Scratch accounts. Then, tada: all Scratch users have wiki accounts!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If it were that easy to do, it would have been done :S

Scratch website accounts aren't wikia accounts btw
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 11:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikia? We're not running Wikia.

Maybe someone just had to look at it from a different angle; or give several good reasons why it would be safe. ;)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More users means more admins, and more work for ordinary editors. I could spend more time on the Wiki, but it'll probably get annoying reverting edits and marking 20 pages of 3-script projects for deletion. Which BTW we don't really have anything like that, and we probably should before letting everyone in. here's the Wikipedia page about what I'm talking about.

I don't see the good in this, since anyone who wants to help the Wiki would of most likely requested for an account. I think that it'll just cause too much trouble.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I know we would need more admins. :P

Well, we'd just have to set down the rules: "No articles on projects or users. If you would like to make one, please bring it up on the Community Portal. If you have found one, discuss on its talk page."
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

But there's still plenty of people who ignore the rules. Some project articles will still be made anyway.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It really only takes about 20 seconds to delete one of these pages though. I support. I'd put in the extra effort to clean stuff up.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many issues that make me think that this isn't really possible. To start off on your list of bullet points, we can already ban accounts on the wiki (called "blocking" -- but its exclusive to the wiki.) Secondly, I don't think an additional rank is needed, called moderators. Most websites have something like "Users, Moderators, and Admins", and our equivalent on the wiki is "Users, Admins, and Bureaucrats". And no, don't ask for the ranks to be renamed. Additionally, there is the worry that Scratchers may take this for granted like it's more like a "right" than a "privilege" since they don't have to get approved for it or anything. The wiki could seriously get out of hand with trolling, vandalism and other things, with people creating many unwanted articles. It's a nice idea that all Scratchers will be able to edit the wiki without account approving, but I don't think its going to happen. I'm thinking of some other solutions, but I might mention those at a later time.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 16:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask for ranks to be renamed: I prefer to be an admin than a mod. xP

Well, how about just this talk page?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I remember JSO mentioning that the Community Portal was supposed to be available for unregistered editors too, but he couldn't get it to work :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why I suggested it. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Leaving capitalizations for a lowercase name

It's OK if we have a lowercase letter as the start of a sentance if it's a name and they want it like that, right?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does it, so sure.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Why would someone want their name to be lowercase?
Dazman (talk | contribs) 00:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I want my username to be written lowercase.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

...Why? You make something lowercase because you want it to blend it. Uppercase makes the important things stand out like names and the beginnings of sentences.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Personal preference. I can't stand capital v. I think that we should respect users' wishes.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

veggie wants his name like that, so leave him be. I asked hdarken when he was curator, and he said lowercase male. sonicjosh has a template on his userpage.

I, on the other hand, prefer it capitalized, because now I use proper grammar and capitalization. Look at old comments by me, project notes, and closed forum topics on the last/second to last page of my posts. See what I mean? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For usernames, I would say it's fine to have it as the user's preference :). Whichever they like most.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 15:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Standards

We should set some consistency standards. For example, I went to Random Page, and got Go to Front (block). Look at the spacing between See Also and the navbox. Then click on the See Also link (which is a redirect, but that doesn't matter). The spacing is different!

For our own good, we should set standards and keep to them.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it can be confusing... at least it doesn't do any real damage. What standards did you have in mind?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing really... I just thought we should agree on the "right" way to do things.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I don't think mild inconsistency should be a big deal ^^
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lol I was feeling bored so I brought this up XD
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Simply check what formatting the majority of the other block articles have, and fix all of the incorrect ones to be correct. :-)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 12:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

A job for those looking for something to do. XD
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In other words, you :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 01:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I thought it was you who couldn't find anything to do. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:51, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Ohohohhhhh oops lol.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have a look in a few hours or so ;)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late, there were guests over yesterday so it was kinda inconvenient going on the wiki. Anyway, it seems that the 'See Also' has the A capitalized too (IMO that's ugly) and that there's not often a space between the template at the bottom of the page and the previous sentence/image/whatever (IMO that's ugly too).
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Think about what happened in the past when you lowercased that A.

I'd like a space between the bottom of the content and the navbox. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

@A: Yeah Lucario went mad, didn't he.

@Spacing: Same...
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 01:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it better capitalized. :3
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the space in between.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

How about we reach a consensus? (Know what that means? (I've taken to reading the wiki archives LOL XD XD XD.))

Instead of a large space, only a small one, such as 10 pixels. Check out the Motion Blocks article, between the two templates.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

That's 13, but okay. I'm down wit' dat.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

13 isn't so much bigger than 10. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

For those who wanted to see if people are online or offline...

If you have like, a wiki friends list, you can do this next to each user's name: http://scratch.mit.edu/redirect/url?link=http://blocks.scratchr.org/libstatus.php?user={username}&showonwiki=.png

If you want, add &type=square before the showonwiki variable to make a square one. Or change the "square" to "text" to make text: online/offline.

If you want, you could also host the images yourself. Add &online=imageURLOfTheImageYouWantForWhenYouAreOnline&offline=imageURLOfTheImageYouWantForWhenYouAreOffline, again before the showonwiki variable.

Just so you know, the showonwiki=.png is something I made up to show on the wiki using something JSO added: links ending with .png and starting with http://scratch.mit.edu/ turn into images.

The username is case-sensitive, so make sure to use the Scratch one. ;) It shows if you are online on the forums. Discuss...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm http://scratch.mit.edu/redirect/url?link=http://blocks.scratchr.org/libstatus.php?user=scimonster&showonwiki=.png
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wut wut wut o_O
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

zomg so cooooooooooooooooool
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank Sparks for it! :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

http://blocks.scratchr.org/libstatus.php?user=SeptimusHeap&online=onlineImg&offline=offlineImg
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't work. Follow instructions exactly in the first post. ;)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

References placement

Should we have it after the See Also, but before External Links like on Wikipedia, or have it differently?
BWOG (talk | contribs) 00:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Having it like Wikipedia sounds good to me.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There aren't many references for stuff like scratch. You could always have external links to the scratch support.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 04:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised at what I reference. XD

Quote:

Author:	Then, at the end of the article, (but before "extrnal links" if there is one and before any templates/categorizing), then if there isn't any references section, than add it. Make a section called "References" and add a <references/> tag right below it. There it will show the reference.
Text:	“ Lucario ”
Source:	Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 15#Nearing completion? :P

I think that's what we're doing...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dynamically updating projects

I hope I'm allowed to post here, Scimonster said that a user called dazman was looking for links and images that automatically update to show his newest projects for his wiki page and that I should explain what I've done on the wiki. I've built a small API which allows a user to, among other things, paste an URL into a forum post or signature that always shows a thumbnail and link to their n'th newest project. This image and link would work on the wiki too, and you can see the documentation for the API here: forum API
Sparks (talk | contribs) 19:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's somewhat about the wiki, so you can post here. :P

And I wanted my dynamically updating projects too: reduces the amount of edits I have to make. ;P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins I want to make a request

Can someone replace Scratch Wiki:Current Events#Other News with this at EXACTLY 11AM Scratch Time?

“

July 21, 2011 — Summer 2011 Community Moderator Elections Start! From 11AM to 11PM, Scratch Time, voting for the Summer 2011 Community Moderator elections will be held. Place your vote here for Harakou, Sparks, jji7skyline, or gettysburg11!

”

I will be out, unfortunately. :(
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Ignore this, I'm back. :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

User CSS

Could you pleas enable user CSS, bureaucrats?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is enabled. When I made my page I decided it was ugly, so I deleted it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It won't work for me then... I used code that is valid CSS and works on Wikipedia, but it won't work on here and that's the only explanation I can find.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Odd. As I said before.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you show me a screenshot of your CSS in action?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually... it doesn't work. :(
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Toldja so ;)

Anyway, I'd like it enabled.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm having trouble deleting files

I tried to trim the list of unused files, but I could only delete one of them :S All the other times it says that there are directory errors.

Is this happening to anyone else?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 01:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Happening to me, happening to veggie, and I don't think anyone else has tried it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Go bump JSO's talk page if you need.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's something to do with the directories being non-writeable on the server. It probably needs to be chmod'd differently.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, we should probably put a note on the files that they should be deleted when they can, so that we know which ones to delete.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 16:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Everything from Special:UnusedFiles.

And now

and

, and

aren't on there.

;P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird thing is, not all of those files are unused! That's probably why you can't delete them. RPG Variables, Valient Studios -- if you'll google search them, you'll see they are actually used. So I wouldn't worry too much.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 14:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it's because of a glitch in the coding. Meh.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding Links

Most people here add good links, but sometimes the way people do it drives me crazy! There is no point in doing something like this: [[Curator|curator]], and certainly not [[Scratch Wiki|Scratch Wiki]]! Also, you can do [[Scratcher]]s or [[Scratchers]] instead of [[Scratcher|Scratchers]]. Keep up the good editing, and remember these time savers! :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think its a good rule not to do [[Scratcher]]s. It is REALLY annoying and Scratchers is better. Thats why we have redirects ^_^
Dazman (talk | contribs) 09:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care if you do [[Scratcher]]s. It's the [[Scratcher|Scratchers]] that bothers me.

But yeah, redirects aren't used enough. ^^;
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

... >_< Tell me, what automatically makes your way of doing links the correct way?

If a word would be uncapitalized in a normal sentence, I'd expect the linked version to be uncaptalized too...

IMO doing Scratchers instead of Scratchers doesn't seem as neat to me :S

I know that this is just my opinion - but then again, there's nothing that makes my opinion automatically wrong or yours automatically right.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 11:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You know what's even crazier? You having to come along and perfect everything that isn't even wrong!
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to change anything, but it produces the exact same thing in less typing time. Just some time saving tips. ;)

And I never said mine was right or yours wrong, I'm just pointing this out.

And if anyone wants to know why I brought this up, I'll tell you.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think whenever possible, redirects should be avoided, since it increases the time it takes to get to the page (since you to go to the redirect page, then have the server redirect you to another page -- not direct). Both [[Scratcher|Scratchers]] and [[Scratcher]]s work well, and there's truly no reason to choose one over the other, except for the difference in length.

As far as [[Curator|curator]], you're right, but some people might not immediately know that the wiki will automatically capitalize the first letter of every page, so if you see it, simply fix it, there's no reason to make a big deal over it :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 14:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget you've done more than just this one; remember my user page? Exactly as you put it: "Replace all those hyphens with dashes: {{-}}. Grammar! ;P" Yeah, like you're not telling me to change anything. >_> IMO it'd be good if you could make it clear you're not demanding changes, but stating your opinion if that's the case.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 01:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It sure looks like you're asking us to change... maybe instead you could have created a discussion on how we should do our links here? At least we don't need the discussion now; yay for Lucario :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 01:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, sorry guys. I'll make an effort to be nicer in the future. >_>
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:26, 27 July 2011 (UTC)