Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 53

This page is archive 53 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

1.x info on Wiki 2.0

 Done

How are we planning on organizing the info from the current Scratch program and website after they change to 2.0? The main articles (such as Scratch Website) will of course be about 2.0. But how do we show the 1.4 info? Here are some ideas:

Link to the history (Lucario621)

Pros — very little work

Cons — Personally (and according to veggie), this idea is bad. It means it can't be edited, so if there are mistakes, or perhaps we need to update an image, we can't.

Put them in a Scratch 1.x namespace (veggieman001)

Pros — very good organization, not too much work, editable

Cons — won't show up in the wiki's article count, or Special:Random

Keep them in the main namespace, with a name like Scratch Website (1.x) (Scimonster, with a modification by veggieman001)

Pros — will count towards the article count, editable, easy to use

Cons — harder to set up

Have the info on the same page

Pros — easy to do, editable

Cons — potentially a bit confusing

So there are three four different ideas, with some pros and cons of each. I think my idea is best. :P How does everyone else think we should do it? Oh, and remember, please don't start this until we're done.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should do the third but only for major stuff. For minor things (blocks, front page rows, etc. etc.) , the info can coexist.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, i forgot about co-existing. I'll add that to the list. I agree with your view.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Website 1.4 Easy name. Just like how I moved Scratch Wiki Keys to Scratch Wiki Keys (PC), or somebody else did. I don't see what the problem is with setting it up. Just move the page.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay so with those options, I say we do something that's a combo between 3 and 4.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

We can use the {{Main}} template. Then that links to the new page and a small article is given on the old website. Maybe it could be called Current Scratch Website, that way a little blurb on Scratch Website 1.4 belongs there. An article on the Scratch 1.4 Website doesn't belong in an article about a Scratch 2.0 Website, other than the See also.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Basically what I'm thinking is there's an article on the 2.0 website, called Scratch Website. Then, there's an article called Scratch Website (1.x), although I'm hoping to figure out a different thing to put in the parenthesis because 1.x is kind of awful (Squeak might work, but it's still kind of meh). For articles like that, and, for example, the paint editor, there'd just be a see also. I don't think {{Main}} is a good idea, just because they're completely separate entities.

For other things, where differences are minor, the information could be incorporated into articles (e.g. with block articles, etc.) If those differences are major enough but still too minor to merit a full articles, they'd probably get a subheading (e.g. website concepts [flagging], etc.) Or at least that's what I'm thinking.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I like how you think. :P Squeak doesn't sound right; after all, the website isn't made in Squeak. :P pre-2.0? old? I sort of like Ccrab's idea of using {{main}}, but not exactly. Maybe we could have a new template (not sure what to call it) saying For historical information (pre-Scratch 2.0), please see [[{{PAGENAME}} (pre-2.0)]].
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I guess that'd work. I think we shouldn't really make the historical thing so prominent, but it's not that important. Also, I think something simple in the parenthetical, like 1.4 or 1.0, is probably best.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@Sci It's CC. Remember? Also, the new template sounds interesting. Make it in your sandbox so we can see what it would look like or do. Maybe a new category called "History" or "Archives" could generate with the template.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I came up with a name and made a version of it.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is we move all the major 1.x pages to --- (1.x). That's easy to scale to all the big pages. Blocks and stuff should just have a little note at the bottom of the same page. I'm willing to help out with this. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 05:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree!! Except I don't think it should be (1.x)—that term is never used officially and it could be confusing for new Scratchers. Glad to see you're back to help, though! I was afraid it was gonna be mostly me and Sci :P
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool! Yeah, (1.4) may be better. Will you do it like you planned to do sentence case migration?

P.S. Glad to see my highest nonadmin edit count record still stands!
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 05:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll probably do it, but once we've totally decided. We still have no bureaucrat support.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In fact, we had some bureaucrat opposition. 1.x is used on the latest SDS, so now it is official. :P Yay, Hardmath's back!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the namespace option as it provides good separation for search engine indexing and a clean structure going forward. As a relatively new Scratch user (most of my experience is with Scratch 2 over the past few months), my entry into the Wiki was via Google searches; it's likely that most new users will stumble upon the Wiki this way as well. Overall, the Wiki was tremendously helpful as a learning tool and I never felt too confused between versions.

It might be considering the Wiki migration process in two phases: (1) The need to support the 1.4 and 2.x communities simultaneously for a couple years (namespacing handles this well); (2) 1.4 is a historical version with very few users (option 1 handles this well).

Also, feel free to ask me questions on my user page if need a newbie perspective on any ideas. This was my first post in the Wiki :)
Learnegy (talk | contribs)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Divider 1

Lots of discussion. @Hardmath123 I'm about 500 edits short of your record. @everyone The whole 1.X thing makes sense. As Sci mentioned above it is in the SDS gallery and is official. Did anybody see the template I created? I still think it could be considered for the 2.0 page. Maybe some stuff could be changed. I realized the category and the words don't go together, which means 2 templates would be needed.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

SDS can't really be considered "official". I still think 1.4 is probably better. And the template is alright, although probably needs some slight tweaking. What do you mean that we'd need two templates? Can't we just categorise pages ourselves?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess we could, but the only problem is the text that displays. I fixed my Sandbox so that the templates are correct. They're ready to be put into the Template mainspace. Read the text and you'll see what I mean.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. I don't really think we'd need templates on both of them, though—maybe only on the old one? What does everyone else think? We still don't know if we need this, though; we haven't chosen an option yet. Let's wait and see how this plays out. :)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO, having the info on the same page, but reorganized, is fine. Having the 2.0 info first is better, then having the 1.x stuff in a section called something like "Past Versions" will be great.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 02:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the goal of the Wiki. If the Wiki is intended to be a learning tool, then discussions about older versions become increasingly confusing to new users over time. If the Wiki is for archival and historical record, then discussing multiple versions on the same page is ok. I find the Wiki more of a learning/documentation tool and would opt to not mix version-specific information on the same page.
Learnegy (talk | contribs)

It seems to be both, though, at least to me.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

+1. I still like #3 and #4 better.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really like there being a page called "Scratch 1.x" if there are already several pages called "Scratch 1.0", "Scratch 1.1", etc. It seems...I don't know...Repetitive?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's lots of repetitive pages, but nobody worries about them. Actually, being repetitive makes it easier to find things if it's in the same format.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

How about Scratch Team Blog (pre-2.0)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That feels kind of clunky to me :/ With that one, though, the new one is called Scratch Blog on the page.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm.

Maybe we should go with a fake namespace. So, it wouldn't be an actual namespace (so it would could toward the article count and show up in Special:Random), but it would look like it. We could also use Special:PrefixIndex to locate pages on the topic.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would honestly much rather use a real namespace than a fake one.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

But as i pointed out above, with a real namespace, it doesn't count towards article count, or Special:Random. It's also a bunch of setup, and i'd like to have it as easy as possible. This way we can also use it as a "template", or at least a precedent, when the 2.0 info becomes obsolete (daring to think that far into the future.)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The article count doesn't matter at all, although the Random thing is a shame. Its code could be modified, though, could it not? I still think we should do some sort of combination method as I've said previously.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I still don't see why we need to change anything. Why not just keep it the same?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Because we want to make sure the wiki is as usable as possible. And, we don't really have a uniform protocol right now, though it does seem to be a mix of #3 and #4.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to join this conversation late, but the combo of 3 and 4 sounds good to me too. So for big differences (like the Paint Editor, for example), there'd be separate articles, and the one about the old editor would be labeled (1.x) or (1.4) or (pre-2.0) or something? And for the smaller things, like maybe a description of the Featured row on the home page, the information would be in the same article?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That conversation ended a while ago. Right now we're trying to figure out we should work with the Scratch Wiki:Current Events page in an orderly way after the old blog goes away and the new 2.0 blog comes in. If you have any suggestions as to solve the problem, please say something.
~Curiouscrab (talk) 00:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, we are still continuing the discussion. Nothing was resolved.

@scmb1 Yes, that is the gist of it! It seems the simplest and most like other wikis.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So, the final answer? #3 and #4 seems to be the general consensus. But what format? [title] (pre-2.0) or Pre-2.0:[title]? And what do we put where i put pre-2.0. I think that that's understandable, and adaptable (pre-3.0 anyone? :D). Anyone got anything else?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I feel like it should be (1.x) at this point, but it should definitely be a parenthetical.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, (1.x) seems shortest and clearest. I'm not sure you'd ever want "pre-3.0" — wouldn't you be saying (2.x) instead?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i guess so. Glad to see you came around, veggie. :P BTW veg, if you see Luc, please pester him a bit to come give his opinion on this. Being that 2.0 is coming out in only a week and a half, we should have this ready.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a legit idea.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys-- so I've been talking about this with some other Scratch Team members, and we agree that your plan seems pretty great-- thanks for thinking it through. We were thinking that "1.4" would be a clearer tag than "1.x," since 1.x sounds pretty technical.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs)

Cool. That also provides room for expansion in case we find any major enough differences between features in the 1.x series. @veg, LB23o, HM123, blob, Mathfreak, any other active wikians: So, we have a consensus? Scratch Website (1.4)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not "active" as such, but yeah, sure, I agree. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You were active enough today. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have my bursts of activity… that's WikiTroll, right? Or Ogre? :D :P
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! 1.4 is prototypical of 1.x. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mixing how-to into information

Like on Friend and Curator. It just seems so weird. Plus, the info doesn't seem relevant enough anyways. Should the how-to stuff be split into a new page, kept, or deleted completely? What do you think?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Now that we're starting the How To thing (as soon as we have a bit more info about the format to use), that would be a good idea, as long as there's an easy link. Possibly keep it as a section, but only a few lines, and use {{main}}. See Also links are a bit too easy to miss.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Admin and bureaucrat pages

Click here to see a list of all the admins on the Scratch Wiki and it displays if they're bureaucrats as well. It seems to me that every SW bureaucrat is an admin too. So I thought we should make Scratch Wiki namespace pages that are a list of admins and bureaucrats. What do you think of this idea?
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 20:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but since that page (Special:ListUsers) can display a list of the admins and bureaucrats on the wiki, we don't really need a second list that has to be manually updated for the same information. If you need extra information about the admins, you can usually just look on their userpages.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

i think it might actually be somewhat convenient to see which ones are more active, etc.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason I thought of the pages was because the list would be easier for newer users to find. But if we're going for what you think, we could just make some Scratch Wiki-namespace redirect to the userlist page listing every admin + bureaucrat on the wiki.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 16:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The page to do is Special:ListAdmins. But i don't think even that is necessary.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even realize we had that link. That's quite a convenient shortcut.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't either until i entered Special:List in the search bar and that came up as a suggestion. I was actually planning to try Special:ListUsers/sysops, where that redirects to.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

2.0 countdown on Main Page

 Done

I have a design on User:Scimonster/Sandbox. How does the countdown look? What it says there is actually a countdown to Scratch Day MIT, because the date of 2.0 is not yet published. Does it look OK, and should it be added when the ST announces the date (hopefully any day now)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I do like yours. But I also thought up what's here.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 20:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

i prefer sci's, as it's more visible, but i think it'd look better with some padding.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a margin of 3px, and some text-shadow as well. How is it now?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I would say a blurry shadow with no offset would be better.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 09:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

http://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/User:Hardmath123/Sandbox#Countdown What do you think?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 09:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

That actually looks pretty cool. But what happened to your internal linking skills? ;P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

How it would look in production. But i did shrink the countdown by 25%.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been out of touch with the Wiki for a while… but thanks! Looking at it on the front page, I'd say a purpler text may blend in better, though the current text has a "2.0" feel to it (I used the same hex value used on the 2.0 site).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 10:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I really like that countdown. But I thought of putting some padding or header on it like I did here.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 10:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

@HM: I'd prefer to go with the "2.0-ish feel".

@LGB: IDK, i think leaving it without a heading is fine.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I personally prefer Hardmath's design, although it would take up quite a lot of room - something closer to the size of Scimonster's mockup would be more practical.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it is a bit bulky. But I made a mockup of how it could look on the main page here, and it doesn't look too bad. You can even put it below the contents.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 06:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a whole bunch of info to put up there. :/

I shrunk mine down to 50px text but bolded it, which is still pretty large. I think that should be fine. And i also think they should have the announcement nearly ready, if they haven't posted it yet...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, maybe that was overkill. But I think the newsfeed would look good (a plain counter is, well, plain).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Such styling is hardly plain. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I suppose being a CSS ninja makes you biased. :P
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:49, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection + Idea for CP Help Box

I can see that the CP Help Box isn't protected but it seems like it could like Scratch Wiki:Sandbox/Sandboxheader was (I just thought that Scratch Wiki:Community Portal could be protected too). I also thought that the words "the main talk page" on the CP Help Box could link to Scratch Wiki:Community Portal so newer users could find it more easily. What thoughts do you have?
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

i think it's better that it isn't, so that users can add links to archives when admins forget.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What relation do the words have to the link?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection template

I thought of an idea for a template. If a page was in request or discussion (if so) of protection then people could put the template at the top of the page notifying them. Here's a mockup:

This page is currently in request or discussion of protection. Please avoid modifying this page's contents until further notice.

Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 11:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. It's pretty rare that we would need it though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lightnin says thanks

Lightnin says thanks to everyone who's kept the wiki running during these past few hectic weeks. So, thanks! In particular, veggie, Legobob, Mathfreak, Blob8108, CC, and Turkey3! Scratch Wiki on! :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes! We're so grateful to all of you. And we're looking forward to when things cool off after the release so we have more time to be supportive of the wiki. And by the way, if any of you are coming to Scratch Day, please find me and say hi! (real name is Amos).
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote:

Author:	Keep personal information private. Don't share your email address, phone number, or other personal contact information.
Text:	“ Community Guidelines ”

xP
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lightnin, are you coming to Barcelona? :D
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No!! Which is very sad! (I've wanted to see Spain ever since I read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia, when I was about 15. And I am now much older than that.:P) The reason is a happy one though - my wife and I are expecting a baby in the middle of July. :)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Aw :( But cool! Have fun with that! :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yer welks! Too bad I don't live near Scratch Day @ MIT (or like any other) D:
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It is too bad! If you ever visit Boston, you should visit us at the lab. :)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 15:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome Lightnin'!
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I haven't been as active as I usually am, I got addicted to Papa's Wingeria all over again, and I can't find anything more to do on the wiki. But you're welcome! XD
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

New Curator

 Done

There is a new curator, OrcaCat. An admin needs to update the news.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 21:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

2.0 and 1.4 feature pages

 Done

As per the 1.x info on Wiki 2.0 discussion above, we ruled that for major article changes (such as Scratch Website), we have separate articles: Scratch Website and Scratch Website (1.4). Now, we need a way to connect them. I think a template similar to {{about}} would work, called Other Versions. You can view the template code itself at User:Scimonster/Sandbox, and an example use at User:Scimonster/Sandbox2. Is the text OK? It would go at the top of these style templates. Between #2 and #3 in Mathfreak's rules, and between {{Nutshell}} and {{Incorrect Title}} in Legobob's.

Is the text OK? This would also require having redirects such as Scratch Website (2.0) to Scratch Website.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool template! Though I'm not sure about the past tense in "as it was in version 2.0" -- seeing as we're currently on 2.0, can't we say "as it is currently" or "this is about the current <Scratch Website>" or something? Is that possible?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Better?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I like that template!
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think "this article" sounds weird though. Maybe "this feature"? "information about it as it was in Scratch x" (kinda wordy)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You could try that.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 20:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

They're still a little wordy. How about simply "This article is about version 1.4. For the current version, see [...]" and "For version 1.4, see [...]"?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, while I'm thinking of suggestions, you could have "This article is about [...] in version x"...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs)

I don't see why it should only take the base page name. I think it should use the whole page's name, otherwise it may not work on all pages and the link wouldn't go to the right page. So User:Scimonster/Sandbox in the template would be Scimonster/Sandbox (2.0), but when you go to the page the original page would be Scimonster/Sandbox as it says in the suppressed text. It would say ^{Scimonster/Sandbox}
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an optional argument in case the name of the page wouldn't fit? Just use {{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}. And curiouscrab, because it is being used in a sentence, using a name with the namespace or parent pages wouldn't look right.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I like blob's suggestion. Now it just says "This page documents an outdated/the current version of Scratch (version {{{1}}})." So i don't have to worry about weird grammar, sometimes wanting "the" and sometimes not.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the change, much less wordy.

When do we start updating all the articles? :D
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

After we get Luc's or JSO's approval. But i won't undo all your edits to the Scratch File Format stuff, because i'm 99% sure one of them will come through and agree.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Dang, I though we at least had consensus on the names... :P

Another question is whether or not the current article should be named eg. Scratch Website or Scratch Website (2.0. I think you were suggesting the former, and I agree; but in the case of the file format leaving it as Scratch File Format (2.0) might be better as the change is so large and the content so technical anyway.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this! Both the template and the naming convention seem good, but I wouldn't put the template at the top of the page - maybe at the bottom or a sidebar, where it's not too distracting. Most people coming to the page for the first time won't know anything about versions of Scratch (or even how to tell what version they are working with.) I think it makes sense to provide them with a pointer based on versions, as the template does, but not as the first thing they see when they start reading the article. (Btw - a good thing to do when designing is to try your best to imagine what it would be like for the user without much experience.)
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 13:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

We could have a link under "See Also" at the bottom, maybe?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, we can put the template at the top of See Also.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Images of 1.4 site

Since the site is switching to 2.0 soon, I am taking last requests for images to veggify of the current site, because this will be more difficult to do once the site switches over. If y'allz could round up all the images that have yet to be veggified, that would be mighty wonderful. Thanks!!
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You could try having a look at images in Category:Scratch Website Images and see if you can veggify any of those along with the images in the subcategories. Some specific ones could include File:Delete message.png and File:Scratch Suggestions link from FP.png.
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 00:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What about File:inappropriatecomment.png? Or you could try File:Welcome Userpage.png. Others: File:ST reviewing.png, File:SDS list.png, File:Galleries nav tab.png
Legobob23o (talk | contribs) 10:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a copy of ScratchR on my computer if you want me to take screenshots of any other features.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I think veggie also has ScratchR installed.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't actually have ScratchR installed, and I wasn't able to get all the screencaps I wanted so that would be nice. However, it would be best if it was done with Windows XP. Is that possible?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No, unfortunately. My computer runs Windows 7 and all of the other computers in my house run either Vista or 7.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why XP?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Unreleased Template

I guess we will have to go around to every page with the unreleased template and manually remove the template from the page. Does anyone, have any idea of how to make a bot. It will come in handy.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 14:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very hard to me. We just go into Category:Scratch 2.0 and go through all the pages in the category removing the templates.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 14:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we haven't really figured out how to make a bot yet, so we'll probably just have to go through them manually though it shouldn't be difficult, doing what Legobob said.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Or how about Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Unreleased? I still have a half-finished bot somewhere; I could probably finish it (given a bot account to test with! :P). When do we start switching the content to 2.0, btw?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Good Idea! I think the info would be more accurate that way.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 19:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, I managed to make a test edit from my bot!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

@Legobob23o, revision 60851 -- :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we should start switching content now.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree! Do we have to ask someone nicely first though? :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably should wait for the O.K. from Luc, JSO, or Amos first.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a script all ready to strip out the template from all the pages it's used in, which I think should work. I think I'm going to go ahead and run it; we are just before 2.0 release, after all. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Lightnin gives the go-ahead signal.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Done! (with apologies to the wiki's edit history and the server load :D) A list of modified pages can be found in User:Blob8108/PreviouslyUnreleased. We should really make a bot account if I'm going to do this too often. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's beautiful! *sniff* Can I have the code?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hah, thanks :P (It's really not...) Just for you! the code
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, error, I totally forgot str.replace only does the first occurrence... and that it's case-sensitive :P *facepalm*
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops. xP It looks like you also forgot that it might have a newline after it, but that doesn't matter too much, and doesn't even show visibly in most cases. But why does it look like it took the bot 4 minutes to run? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured I'd just leave the newlines, sorry :P Um... because it did?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well if you plan to use bots to help speed up your edits on the wiki, I guess I can't say there's anything wrong, as long as you're careful and stuff. :P Keep in mind that there were at least a few features like cloud lists that didn't make it to 2.0 yet (like cloud lists), so there could still potentially be features that need the template. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

So about giving him a bot account?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if someone wants to go through User:Blob8108/PreviouslyUnreleased and check that it didn't remove any it shouldn't have, that'd be great... :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I get an error when logging in:

TypeError: argument of type 'instancemethod' is not iterable

Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 13:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Traceback (most recent call last):

 File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
 File "scratch_wiki.py", line 218, in login
   data = self.post_request(**arguments)["login"]
 File "scratch_wiki.py", line 206, in post_request
   return self.request(_post=True, **params)
 File "scratch_wiki.py", line 194, in request
   if 'error' in r.json:

TypeError: argument of type 'instancemethod' is not iterable
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 13:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Try replacing r.json with r.json(). The requests docs were unclear on this.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Title protection

Like Lucario621 said in the Admin and bureaucrat pages discussion above, I think it would be good if someone could protect Scratch_Wiki:Administrators and Scratch Wiki:Bureaucrats.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 17:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where he said that and I don't see why those need to be protected.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Random topics

There are quite a few topics I've seen that aren't really Scratch related, like Python. Is there a guideline about this?
OrcaCat (talk | contribs) 02:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Python.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but is there a guideline anywhere?
OrcaCat (talk | contribs) 23:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, not that I'm aware of. But I think the point is that the Python article is Scratch-related. Use common sense. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Typo On News

The main page news says May 7th instead of May 6th. An admin needs to fix that.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 12:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

According to their Twitter feed, they are closing down the site "tomorrow", which i took to mean as the 7th. Do you have support?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Never mind; i just confirmed with the ST.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

News countdown issue

Currently the countdown is set to say "(days left) days". However, when 1 day is left, it will say "1 days". There should be some sort of expression to remove the S if only one day is left, or manually remove it on the last day.

I think that this would work: {{#expr: (1368075600 - {{#time:U}})/60/60/24 round0}} day{{#ifeq: {{#expr: (1368075600 - {{#time:U}})/60/60/24 round0}}|1||s}}
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

When they announce the time, i think we'll modify it to be hours (except it won't auto-update. But it's not like anyone actually stays there).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The countdown now does say "1 days". The alternative code that I recommend (which also has hours on it) is in my sandbox.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's been done!
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Broken signatures

Because signatures use the API on the old website to get the user icon, and that API is no longer available, they will result in errors on all talk pages. This should be fixed ASAP, to avoid triggering PHP errors. While not much can be done to fix this until 2.0 is released, in the meantime they can just show the Scratch icon or something. --jvvg

JSO isn't available to fix it right now. :S

Also, please at least sign your name and time, like i am. --Scimonster 14:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I Was Able to Access the 1.4 Site for the Last Ten Minutes!

For some reason i was able to access the 1.4 site for the last ten minutes!
Legomanz (talk | contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Both" sites?

 Done

I tried Safari, Firefox, and then Google Chrome and it was only beta.scratch.mit.edu that redirected to transition.scratch.mit.edu. Could an admin fix that?
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Picky, picky, picky...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Things down while Scratch 2.0 is being updated

ScratchSig has been disabled, because it relies on the old site to show user icons. It had been filling up the page with PHP errors, so Lightnin turned it off for now. A bit inconvenient, but we'll make do.

Please report any other problems while Scratch is down!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

MP news mistake

 Done

The MP news say "the two sites sow the content of transition.scratch.mit.edu". Shouldn't "sow" be "show".
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 18:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I was on the 1.4 site hours after the site had shut down.

Nomolos: Ok, so on my PC, I couldn't get in the site, cause it was closed. I got on my kindle browser, and baboom! I was on! I could post, go anywhere on the site, and do what I wanted, while being the only one online the entire site! (Creepy...)

It stopped a couple hours after, but I still got the last post by that. :D

That was probably a cached copy: I don't think it would save those posts.
Epicepicman (talk | contribs) 14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I saw his post, so it saved and I posted after him
Legomanz (talk | contribs) 14:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"_meow_" discovery

Does anyone know how _meow_ was discovered? It needs to be inserted in the page comment (website feature).

Updating articles for 2.0

I wanted a to-do list of articles that need tweaking now that 2.0's just about released, so I made a crazy plan in order to provoke further discussion. So, uh, discuss!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 17:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sci: I was thinking the "this documents an outdated version" template should go at the top of the page for the 1.4 articles (as opposed to under "See Also", such as Paint Editor (1.4)). We should warn users that the information isn't current. Thoughts?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. When Lightnin gets online i'll ask him about it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me!
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 13:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

a few things

The Main Page countdown is off and now the scratchsig tags aren't working. At least the wiki's working.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the first. See the sitenotice at the top.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Old Forums Deleted?

Were they? I've heard rumors about it. If this is true, the wiki will have a lot of work to do cleaning up all the forums links.
OrcaCat (talk | contribs) 03:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We don't know and won't until the site comes back up. Last I heard, they were going to be archived, but we'll have to wait and see. Since the forums on the 2.0 site are now /discuss/, we might not even have to update any links.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I'm being very impatient :P
OrcaCat (talk | contribs) 03:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

They should be archived read-only somewhere. People will not be able to log in or register. Links to the old forums will redirect. However, links to the new forums at /forums/ (their original location) will also redirect. That's a nice tricky regex, isn't it?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

1 day, -2 hours.

This is why you need someone in my timezone to have sysop powers (hint hint :P)!

Just kidding, but really, you should fix that. You don't want 1 day, -24 hours, do you?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 07:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

sysop powers: +1, me too! :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 07:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It shouldn't say "0 days" either…

@blob: Yeah, you should totally be a sysop.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 07:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not? And blob would be a good sysop... (do you go into character map to get that ellipsis, or do you have some special way?)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Because 0 days is implied, right? I don't tell my mom I'll be back in 0 hours and 5 minutes.

Oh, and alt-semicolon on Mac (nXIII taught me that one). (Sorry if I got the indentation messed up, I'm using this ginormous Dell monitor and am sitting like 4 feet away from it).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of countdowns say 0 days. Besides, we're not 100% sure about the amount of hours.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, if someone were to make it so, I wouldn't complain... ;)

• cough* Maybe that was too subtle? :P
  Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Hardmath's Dell: ooh, cool, which one do you have? The trick is definitely to just copy the colons off the line before and add one extra. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's actually my dad's. :)

It's broken, again. Unless they postponed the release by 24 hours (I doubt that).
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Previously it had been midnight, the very start of the day. Lightnin suggested 3PM as a more likely release time.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Now it says 0 days, -1 hours.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Writing Style

Do we have any sort of style guidelines for writing wiki articles? I'm thinking for stupid things like which person to write in (do weavoid "you" unless it's a how-to?) and how to refer to the currently logged-in user ("current user"? "logged-in user"? "you"?). Any thoughts? Is there something like this, and I've just missed it? :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We use the 3rd person except in tutorials, how-tos, and FAQs. In those articles, we can refer to the logged-in user as "you"; otherwise we (at least I) usually do "logged-in user".
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There's currently only unsaid ones, really, but I'm going to be working on a style guide at some point to propose to the bureaucrat(s) and community.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds cool!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have something here.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Countdown is broken again

 Done

The countdown is broken again. As of when I post this, it says "0 days, -4 hours". Now that there are under 24 hours, it should just be an hour countdown, IMO.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I get 0 days, -6 hours.
OrcaCat (talk | contribs) 03:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"0 days, 8 hours". Looks fine to me.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

@Sci: I think it got fixed, or it was just a temporary glitch.
Jvvg (talk | contribs) 12:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)