< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archive This page is archive 57 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.

Archives (oldest first):
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116
Unfinished discussions

Scratch in the Physical World

Greetings! We're linking to the How_to_connect_to_the_physical_world page from the lower right sidebar of the main Scratch 2.0 Help page. Originally someone helping us was supposed to fill it out, but he didn't get very far. Can you guys help?
Lightnin (talk | contribs) 03:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, i can't, because i myself don't have any of those devices, or know how to use them.
BTW Lightnin, when you want to add a new topic, click "Add topic" at the top. It keeps it formatted nicely, and gives it an automatic edit summary with a link to the new topic.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Category changes

No Not done

Some of our categories have gotten quite large and deserving of new subcategories. Some categories seem to have the wrong parents. And a couple don't seem to be necessary anymore. I created an updated category tree here. I didn't include every category in there. Basically, the rule is, if no subcategories are listed, it doesn't change. What do people think about these changes?

Additionally, is it time to kill Category:Scratch 2.0 and Category:Scratch 2.0 Images? We can then put 1.4 images into the two categories i designated for that.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the category tree you made. It's descriptive.
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure about killing Category:Scratch 2.0 -- after all, if we'd already had a Category:Scratch 1.4 right now, then that would be very helpful :P Maybe keep it for now?
For your category tree, maybe put the page examples at the top of the category, to make it easier to follow? I'll need to have a better look at them later. :)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sci: are we really killing Category:Scratch 2.0? :/
Blob8108 (talk | contribs)
I think so. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Why? It seems a lot easier just to keep it (than to re-create it when there's a v3... :P)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I volunteer to organise the images and will do so next week.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Pages about Scratch Team members

To start with: I know about Scratch Wiki:Scratchers and Projects don't deserve articles. However, my idea is to have pages about them as Scratch Team members, not Scratchers. Info such as that John Maloney (johnm on Scratch) is the lead programmer on the Scratch Team; Amos Blanton (Lightnin on Scratch) mostly does community interaction for the ST; Sayamindu Dasgupta (sdg1 on Scratch) is in charge of cloud data, mostly. These articles shouldn't be the target of any vandalism. How does this sound?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you may of gotten this from my idea above. I don't think there's enough for an article, but maybe for sections on Scratch Team.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Why's it matter where he got it from?
In any case, I agree w/ Sci in the case that there's enough information about them; what I fear (like Curiouscrab) is articles that are too small.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I actually got the idea a few days ago, but was still working it out. If we have, we can also include some more info about them, such as how they joined the ST, what their history in programming is (such as that Johnm helped develop Squeak and Morphic).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
It's a good idea; it'd be useful to be able to look up who does what. Maybe have List of Scratch Team Members with redirects from eg Lightnin to headings there?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
That sounds OK. But as i said before, if we happen to have some that can be longer, we can expand them into complete articles.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Also, ex-ST-members like andresmh. :) 15:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Isn't andresmh still part of the Scratch Team, or did something happen while I wasn't looking?
Oh, and although I don't like the idea of users getting new pages, I think the ST should be able to have their own pages, just like how Wikians get to have their own pages. So I support the idea.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Andres moved on to other projects.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. And also, I noticed while updating the ST article that Jens had a reference for his leaving. Should I add on as well for andresmh? If yes, where would I find one?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How should we decide what accounts to approve?

Now that users can request accounts, what should our criteria be for approving them? Is anyone familiar with the old process? How did you make the decision before? What was good about that process and what should be changed? We think it's really important to have a diverse crew of Wiki editors and we want to make sure the criteria for accepting account requests helps with that.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs)

I need to know what holding a request does besides move it to the held list...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, do we have to create the user's page right away instead of letting them create it themselves?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
From what I previously went through, the only piece of criteria there was required you to be at least 6 months old (on the site), though I might be wrong on that. The rest was based on a case by case scenario, and on your request to become a contributor (which was a typed up paragraph on why you wanted to become a contributor, what you would accomplish, ect...).
Anyway, from what I think, I think that it should still be a case by case scenario because even though a scratcher might meet the requirements, are they ready for the position? Still, I think a few criteria would be nice. A rough outline of what I'm thinking is:
Must have been active for the past 4 months.
Must have at least 80 forum posts.
Must be a Scratcher.
Oh, and I've also found a page on joining the wiki, so you might want to look.

ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This might also be relevant.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
That needs some updating. I'm thinking we use ErnieParke's idea. I don't think the 80 forum posts is necessary since I rarely use the forums (don't bother checking) but I do think it's important for them to be active and be a "trusted" Scratcher. Also, maybe you could grade their request. You can look for simple spelling/grammar errors and based off that decide whether or not they're a good candidate. Maybe also watch them for a week or so to see what their projects are like and make sure they're friendly. Like a nice parole officer. I think we have enough Wiki editors here to watch all of the users that request an account. Thoughts?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Um, if you've been following the question above this one, you would've noticed that Wiki editors won't be the people who can create new accounts, but instead Experienced Wikians (I'll be abbreviating to EW). Also, although I agree with the grading part of your idea, why would you need to follow a user for the week or so? It's not as if there are Stencyl spies out there trying to wreck havoc on Scratch, and I believe simply looking at how they behaved before hand/currently is simply enough.
Oh, and thanks Scimonster for clearing up that matter; I think the 6 months was from some other position, though I can't seem to remember from where...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Since apparently i'm the only active person who used the old system, i'll try to explain what happened. There were no really defined criteria, we just used our best judgment. Brand new users were usually told to wait. Someone who used good grammar and gave an example on how they would help, that gets immediately approved. Reasons such as "because i've been on Scratch for a while" don't usually get approved, regardless of grammar. Between obvious approve and obvious reject, we just go with what we feel. If you don't know what to do, just leave it for someone else.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I feel like saying my account was only 3 months and 3 weeks old when i joined the wiki.
Hexagon400 (talk | contribs) 07:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I think I was pretty new to Scratch (the website) when I first joined, but I'm a pretty quick learner when it comes to programming. :P I also like Sci's post.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Problem: I tried to hold a couple of requests that didn't have a reason, but when I did include a comment, it said "Unknown error with PHP mail() function" or something like that. You have to include a comment when holding. Help?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm seeing the same issue. jvvg, do you know what may be happening?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the brainstorming! I agree that it's a good idea to require some extended experience with Scratch-- so maybe we probably only accept Scratchers and not New Scratchers? I agree with curiouscrab in that 80 forum posts aren't really necessary. The forums are only one part of the Scratch communities and a lot of really involved and knowledgeable community members don't use them at all. Remember that we want wiki editors of all types and forum users are just one type of Scratcher. So, scimonster, with the old system, you mostly considered the content and grammar of the application? Did you ever look at the users' Scratch activity to try to scope out their writing ability or areas of expertise? Did you ever encounter Scratchers with compelling reasons for wanting to join the wiki but sub-par grammar? What did you do? (Sorry for all the questions!)
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Forum activity doesn't factor in at all. Yes, a bunch was focused on the application itself. I did (and still do) check out their Scratch page to see how many projects they have, what type they seem to be, and stuff like that. The old system did give how many projects, but if i'm visiting anyways... whatever. When someone had a good reason for wanting to be an editor, but didn't use grammar, i would often append a message to my note, asking them to make sure to use good grammar when editing. I can't say it worked every time, but a few.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, this seems to make sense to me so far. Is there a page somewhere here on the wiki that explains the account approval process in detail w/ criteria for approval? If not, could we start one?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
There's this, but it's not much... S:CONTRIB#Tips has a few tips on what to and not to include in a request, which also shows a bit of what we look at.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. OK, do you think we could start a new page that perhaps works off of those two to give detailed instructions to account approvers? The more people we have approving accounts, the more important it is to standardize the process.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, partly because of the standardization that you mentioned. Also, if a wikian becomes an EW, then they'll need to know how to use their new powers, and this page would help with that.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs Updated to Scratch 2.0 Template

I still see many articles that are on Scratch 1.4. Maybe we should have a template for articles that still need updated to Scratch 2.0? That way they'd all be categorized also and would be more organized. Or is there already one?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There's a list of articles that need updating.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking just a general "needs updating" template for readers to see to let them know about out-of-date info. Not every person who visits the wiki knows about your user subpage. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. This is a great idea for a template, and it doesn't even have to be specifically updated to 2.0. It can just be needs updated in general. Shall I do the honors and create it? Or someone else
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
How does this look? I made it because I had Mathfreak's somewhat word.
The subject of this article or section has changed dramatically and requires updating. Some information or images may not be accurate or relevant to the current version of Scratch, the Scratch website, or the article subject. (Date?)

Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be titled "Needs Updating"... "Needs Updated" is improper grammar.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Titles don't need good grammar... The point of titling a template is to make it short, concise, and easy to type, but it should still describe what it is.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Erm... yes they do. Especially if the text will be appearing on the template itself.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can't change the title, but I'll change the text to "needs updating" in the box. Also, on Template:Outdated, I tried to make every page with this template add to the page "Articles that Need Updated", but they won't add. Can someone more experienced do this? On the pages where I have this template, it shows that it is in the category "Articles that Need Updated" at the bottom, but when I click on the page the article isn't there. See Project Tags to know what I'm talking about. Also, maybe we could change the name of the template to just "Outdated". I kind of like that better. Anyone else?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Check those pages again.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, except the pages with {{Outdated}} don't automatically categorize on the page "Category:Outdated Articles".
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Fixed. The template was acting up before when I tried the correct code, so I tried a workaround. Now it's back to the correct code.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 19:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Create a Compiled Page of Physics Engines?

Okay, so on here we have the Wall-Jumping page, Wall Sensors, Velocity, Jumping, and Simulating Gravity. Those are five pages that all contain physics-engine-related parts, but we have no page of just pure physics engines which contain all of those properties in one. And also, some of these pages like the Wall-Jumping one include velocity and gravity within it also, and the Wall Sensors page contains velocity and gravity within. Most of these articles contain parts of each other, and it is very difficult to find an article of just pure physics engines which include all five of these properties into one. Know what I mean? I see lots of people trying to find a physics engine on the forums, and I think the wiki has too many split up parts of physics in different articles, and it's way too confusing for some new users to put together those scripts scrambled around different articles. I'm not saying delete those articles, but create an article of all of them combined: a script with velocity, gravity, wall sensing, wall jumping (in some), and jumping, all combined into one, well-defined script with comments so people actually can understand what on earth they are putting together. Should I make this article? I found a phenominal engine here, and it's never glitched for me.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Use of Minor Edits

I use "mark this edit as minor" all the time, but I feel like others don't use it appropriately. Shouldn't everyone always mark an edit minor when editing a talk page or sandbox? I also very often see small changes not marked as minor. I see many user pages not marked as minor. On the recent changes, half of it is filled with minor edits and user page changes. Shouldn't there be some specific rules on minor edits? I like to see what major changes have occurred. Also, maybe it should automatically be minor based on the amount of characters changed.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 16:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This has some guidelines as to what a minor edit it is. It seems to say a minor edit is for really small stuff.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Minor edits are edits that anyone could do. Let's say UserA doesn't understand trig, but UserB does. So UserB helps the article expand, but makes a few minor errors such as capitalization of the wrong words and spelling errors. UserA can go in and fix those errors for UserB, even though UserA doesn't understand trig.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't exactly consider talk page, user page, and sandbox edits as minor, unless they are. To me, a minor edit is something like fixing spelling/grammar, a link, an image — things that don't affect the page too much. But we really don't enforce this stuff at all.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sound Formats: Independent Page and Conversion Info

I have 2 questions in 1. The only page I've noticed that really mentions what sound file formats Scratch can read is the Sound Editor. I hear many people on the forums wondering why they can't upload sounds, or, in particular, I see many questions on how to convet sounds to .MP3 and .WAV formats, especially in iTunes. My question is, do you think an article called "Sound Formats" is worthy of having its own page? It'd include:

  • What the file format of a sound is.
  • Different sound formats list.
  • Descriptions of how electronically stored sounds work.
  • Why Scratch can only read .MP3 and .WAV formats.
  • how to convert the sounds to .MP3 and .WAV format.

Question 2: still on the sound format thing, I made this section in the sound editor article, How to Convert Sounds to MP3 Format in iTunes, but I use Windows. Can someone else validate if the information is also accurate on Mac computers? If its the same process as on a Windows computer? Thanks!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an individual page would be good.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
A Sound File Format page would be good. But, How to Convert Between Sound Formats could be a page of its own.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I made it Sound File Format. I still need validation on the iTunes converter (see first post), and the Sound File Format page needs more to the list of formats, if anyone would be happy to add to it.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:53, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Assistance Needed: Login Troubles

See here. 7734f is having serious login troubles.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Keeping or Deleting Several Pages

No Not done

Several days ago, a discussion arose in Talk:List of Project Series, and it has sparked a debate on wether or not to keep the article. A few other pages got brought up soon after, and I thought I might as well bring the discussion over here since it now involves multiple articles. Here's the complete list at the moment:

List of Project Series
List of Operating Systems
List of Collaborations
Anthros Unite (RPG)
Jigglers (RPG)
ConquestStone (RPG)
Warriors of the Forest (RPG)
Hogwarts (RPG)
(Note: Feel free to add more articles if you feel like they should be removed.)

So, what do you think about these articles? Should we keep them or remove them? By the way, I recommend that you look at the Talk:List of Project Series page because it has several pretty good arguments that shouldn't be skipped over.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You saw my opinions, and part of veggie's.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I know, but that page isn't the best place to discuss the issue, considering it's about multiple pages now, not just List of Project Series. That, and now this topic is in a more viewed spot, so more people will chip in, which is needed.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll repost what I originally said:
My view is that I quite like the collabaration stuff because they involve multiple people and multiple projects (usually). This article is multiple projects but only one person. On the other hand at the time they would probably have lots of people remixing so I say keep to this article. The OS one though I'm not so sure about. A lot are only one person and most are only one project. Probably it should be deleted. In its defence though I can say that if I had not seen one of the OSs listed I would not be working on one of my current projects.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:05, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
And I'll comment on the RPGs as well:
I think that the RPGs involve a lot of people and as a wiki we should document a lot about Scratch. RPGs are more than a project. Each one is a lot bigger. They've got tens of projects each and 100s of comments. Also, the guideline about not making articles about user-generated content says:

Articles about users, projects, and studios are forbidden and will be deleted. However, articles about collaborations and other groups are allowed, but they must involve more than one person and they must have made at least one project.

To me an RPG is a group so this is another reason they should stay.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete all the ones on specific RPG's definitely. Who even made them in the first place? I'd guess the RPG creator in order to gain more views. I'd say also to get rid of the list of operating systems and also the list of project series, but I think if we can tend and keep up-to-date the collaborations, it should be kept, because it expresses the working community of Scratch and how we aren't all independent.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
And not all RPG's were collaborations, and if they were, they should simply be in the list of collaborations. Also, what makes a list of operating systems and RPGs better than a list of art projects, or a list of pong games, or a list of tutorials? I don't find them any more worthy of being on the wiki than other project types. But I think we should only keep collabs, and update it constantly.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I feel like the RPG ones are irrelevant. Nobody except people who already play the RPG will be interested and it doesn't exactly provide general information about RPGs. It's really just aimed at a niche audience instead of providing information useful to all scratchers.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 01:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Everyone so far has made great contributions to the discussion. In my completely honest opinion, the list of project series should go because most of the projects are made by one person, there aren't enough listed, and they aren't notably "trendy" enough. The list of OS's will never be complete, and a lot of them are also made by only one person. Plus, each individual project is not considered "trendy" either, it's just the type of project (which has its own page at Operating System). The list of collabs is fine because they include many groups. But the number of projects should probably be a lot more than 1, and info should be known about them. The RPG's should only be noted if they were or are currently a trend, the pages are not written like advertisements nor are they written as a slant towards people who play the game. As long as they have enough comments/projects/players/followers/etc. to make them notable, we should keep them.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You have stated that the articles are not written as advertisements. I disagree. In the Hogwarts RPG article, nearly all the space is dedicated to lists of characters and the article is almost devoid of prose. I believe these articles should briefly discuss the specifics of the game such as plot and rules but should not be monuments to the game's success. It is my opinion that RPGs should be relegated to a single page, probably the RPG article or the like, as examples. RHY's LINE game doesn't have its own article even though it was significant in popularizing 1s1s programming, but it is mentioned as evidence. The same should be true here. I say stick to the big picture.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 01:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Oops, I need to learn how to english. I meant that as a conditional statement, following the same "if" as "they were or are currently a trend". :P
So yeah, like you said, they should be written so they don't slant towards only the players. And the RPG's aren't just projects. I'm think we should create Gallery-Based RPG and merge a few into there.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
What about just adding some RPG examples to the RPG page? And some operating system examples to the Operating System page? And why make the list of collabs a sub-page of Collaboration?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I believe a subpage would work best, but I am not qualified to write it. The RPG article seems to be more of a disambiguation-like page than an in-depth article.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 14:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
@Mathfreak231 For a list of collabs check out Category:Collaborations.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
What's good about that page though is that it gives examples of collaborations, even if they don't have enough info to merit a wiki article.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I can't understand how the voting box thing works so can somebody input my vote of keep for the RPGs and the collab list and delete for project series and Operating Systems.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 15:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you think we have enough votes to make a decision now, not many more people are voting?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I was hoping one or two more wikians might stop by... 6 votes is nice, but with the 3 categories, it points less to what people want. I was thinking maybe we could prompt jvvg and a few people to stop by, but if that doesn't work, then we go ahead with what we have.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand why we need List of Project Series and List of Operating Systems. They don't document a trend on Scratch; they're just listing projects, and there are features on the main site (tags, studios) for doing that.
The Collabs I'm not sure about, but I'm not sure why we have a list. Ditto for the collab articles, really. The RPGs are more interesting, but again maybe the forums are a better place for that information.
Someone who cares can add me below, I'm too lazy. :P
PS. Is there any way of checking how many times the pages are viewed? That could settle the matter objectively...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Special:PopularPages If you're using Chrome then do Ctrl/Command+F and type in the page name.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


This topic is not going to go much of anywhere through discussions, so we might as well try voting:

Page Username Keep Merge Delete Reason
List of Project Series ErnieParke X This documents a trend on Scratch.
List of Operating Systems ErnieParke X This again documents a trend on Scratch.
List of Collaborations ErnieParke X This documents a long-term trend on Scratch.
RPG's ErnieParke X This documents a trend of Scratch and consists of several Scratchers.
List of Project Series EH7meow X ———
List of Operating Systems EH7meow X ———
List of Collaborations EH7meow X ———
RPG's EH7meow X ———
List of Project Series Curiouscrab X andresmh isn't here to keep it and it's all one person's projects, also for asvertisement
List of Operating Systems Curiouscrab X merge with Operating Systems and turn into redirect to Operating Systems#List of Operating Systems
List of Collaborations Curiouscrab X We have Category:Collaborations and this advertises collabs.
RPG's Curiouscrab X These advertise RPG's and don't have anything to do with Scratch in general.
List of Project Series Scimonster X Create a page about project series, and use some of these as examples
List of Operating Systems Scimonster X Use them as examples on the Operating Systems page
RPGs Scimonster X RPGs are similar to collabs, and we do have articles on indiviual collabs. Also, most of the RPGs we have are historic, and really are part of Scratch culture.
Hogwarts RPG Scimonster X This one doesn't seem to be the most popular (though it does have a fair number of players), and it is mostly written as an ad, without much real info
List of Project Series Mathfreak231 X It's advertising. They're by only one person anyways.
List of Operating Systems Mathfreak231 X X Either merge or delete. Again, many are made by only one scratcher, and it's just advertising. However, since there's a wider variety of examples, we could maybe merge it with Operating System...
List of Collaborations Mathfreak231 X Collabs are a long-term trend, and apparently they're allowed by S:NOSP.
RPG's Mathfreak231 X Several scratchers, but some are written as an advert. Maybe we could put them as examples in a new page like Gallery-Based RPG, or as a section in RPG.
List of Project Series Turkey3 X It is supposed to be more informative this wiki instead of links to random projects. And what makes these projects more worthy than other types?
List of Operating Systems Turkey3 X Could just add examples to the Operating System page.
List of Collaborations Turkey3 X Again, can add this to the Collaborations page and needs to be well-kept.
RPG's Turkey3 X This shows bias, as it is under the interpretation that RPG's are better projects more worthy of the wiki than other types. Let's stick with the facts.
List of Project Series blob8108 X They don't document a trend on Scratch; they're just listing projects, and there are features on the main site (tags, studios) for doing that.
List of Operating Systems blob8108 X They don't document a trend on Scratch; they're just listing projects, and there are features on the main site (tags, studios) for doing that.
List of Collaborations blob8108 X I'm not sure why we have a list.
RPG's blob8108 X The RPGs are more interesting, but again maybe the forums are a better place for that information.
RPG's Wes64 X
List of Project Series Total: 1 1 5
List of Operating Systems Total: 1 3.5 2.5
Note Note: Mathfreak231 voted for two which is how we get the decimal points.
List of Collaborations Total: 3 1 2
RPG's Total: 3 2 3
It looks like we'll be keeping the List of Collaborations, merging the List of Operating Systems, and deleting the List of Project Series. The RPG's though are split; we need one more vote to brake the tie on that one. Anyone else want to vote?
Anyway, I'll start on what we have settled...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs)
I say put the RPGs with RPG as examples (so pretty much merge, but not everything). I agree with the other choices, so no input there.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 20:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
It looks like merging might be what we have to do. With people 'polarized' on the issue, the middle ground should be best, but how would we merge the RPG's? Simply listing them doesn't sound like the best possibility. Maybe we should also include a short snippet on them?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
My idea is to put links and a blurb about the RPG so that readers can get the gist of what goes on in studio RPGs without irrelevant information like in-depth storyline and characters - so snippets I agree to.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this sounds decided. By the way, I've already commented on Scimonster's page about which articles should be deleted, so once you merge one, could you mention it on the topic I created?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, just mark it for deleting instead with the {delete} template.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
By "merge" with the list of OS's I meant just have a few examples, don't include an entire wikitable. The wiktable draws too much attention and makes it hard to read the rest of the page.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
True, and the table needs to be reformatted. I'll see what I can do about that...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
How do you think it looks now?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Better. It's now in classic wikilist format so that it looks like other lists of example projects.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I meant with my changes, not the ones you've made, but I still see where you're coming from. But still, I feel like listing some OS's isn't as far as we could go. I was thinking that listing some simple facts about each project would be both nice and informative. For example, it would help a beginner/anyone pick a nice project to look at as an example, and it's not even like an advertisement. What do you think?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well the #'s of sprites 'n' scripts isn't really that helpful, and it's hard to categorize each OS by type without there being only 1 or 2 in a different category than all the rest. Any other ideas?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The type I agree is hard to dictate, though the # of sprites n' scripts can be helpful (to better pick a good example project), if at least not somewhat fun to look at. That can also help give information about the Scratch public (though it'd be skewed towards the popular Scratchers...) And for another example, how about the shared date? The reasons for this are the same as the above ^^, and it can also help a Scratcher pick out a more "modern" project with presumably better coding/art.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Let's standardize Wiki signup criteria

When I review account requests, I use the following criteria:

  • Is the account older than two months?
  • Is the user a Scratcher?
  • Does the account look legitimate?
  • Do the request notes meet proper writing conventions?
  • Do the request notes explain how the user will help on the Wiki? (that one is more subjective)
  • Is it the user's only account? (i.e. no alt accounts)

If a user meets all of those standards, then I accept the request. However, I think different users use slightly different criteria. We should standardize them and put them on the signup info page so there are fewer rejected registrations.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

At first I copied what you did, then I started using my own judgement very well.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
It's pretty much like that, but there are always some exceptions. Just use your judgement.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Profanity Censor

Why don't we have one? I believe it should be at Special:AbuseFilter. We can import it from Wikipedia or iham:Special:AbuseFilter/3
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't ever remember an intentional usage of profanity. Once I misspelled "as" (use your imagination) and it went through though. But still, I don't think it would be useful because only trustworthy people get approved in the first place and errors are soon fixed.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
There were some issues recently with a user using inappropriate words.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently? Wow, your body clock is messed up. XD
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
No, like a week or 2 ago. I'm not mentioning any names though.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Did you report this behaviour?
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 02:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I actually didn't see it, only read about it on their talk page.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That would show up in the page history.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

New SDS!

Yes Done

The new SDS is here! The news needs updated.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 20:36, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Glitch

On my contributions page, if you select "earliest" some edits from 2013 appear before 2012 edits. Just pointing it out, because it's kind of odd.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 12:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? What do you mean?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
At the bottom, if you select "earliest" (which is already selected), it should show your first edit ever and go upward. However, it shows some edits I made in 2013 before 2012 edits. Just a minor glitch.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 12:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
No, no. "Earliest" just means to go to the last page of contributions. It doesn't change the sorting in any way.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Inline scratchblocks

Just to let you know: I'm working on adding an inline tag for scratchblocks, so you can put blocks inside a sentence or paragraph. Example:

I do like the stamp block. I'm really rather fond of it.

It should allow linking as well, which should be good for the List of Block Workarounds article. Sound good?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Finished and pushed to Github. Once it's deployed, you'll be able to make a block link like so:
[[Stamp (block)|<sb>stamp</sb>]]

Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this sounds good. I would actually like to see this on the Scratch forums as well now that there are scratchblocks there.
By the way, where on Github is your code?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Mmm. I'm not sure about that. Would it encourage or have no effect on blockspam? :P
Code is here.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
That wouldn't be necessary. Just use [url=URL][img]IMAGELINK[/img][/url]
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This is why we need the HTML plugin. Then you could do <html><a href="URL"><scratchblocks>SCRATCHBLOCKSCODE</scratchblocks></a></html>
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, this doesn't seem necessary. Perhaps styling for scratchblocks could be used such as resizing and giving it a border. So maybe <scratchblocks height="10" width="10" style="border: 1px black solid;">SCRATCHBLOCKSCODE</scratchblocks>
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
@CC: The point is that you can embed scratchblocks inside a sentence, without breaking the flow of the text. Even if you use HTML's <a> tag, you still can't do that at the moment. That's what this fixes.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's a big problem. I never noticed that before.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to Scmb1, the inline scratchblocks are now deployed onto the wiki.

Linky: stamp

You can use them as detailed on the style guide.

@ErnieParke Block Plugin/Syntax is for forum scratchblocks; wiki-only stuff goes in the style guide. Thanks!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that was my mistake. Thanks for catching it!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey! Question!

Why Are We Not Allowed To Edit The Homepage? Or Create, "$1"? Why?
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 21:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

To prevent spam and from users making it look like this wiki is about them.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The page $1 is not needed. It was protected because many pages linked to it and users may accidentally create it.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's bothered to archive in a long time...

Yes Done

...so I went and did a somewhat small archive myself. It needs to be protected. BTW, the CP is still at 100K+ bytes. If we could finish some discussions, that'd be great.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

You missed a few discussions:
  • Won't Let Me Undo Change
  • Separate Scripting Tutorials into Categories?
  • New Article for "Color Fx Test" Block?
Is it okay with you if I move them over to the archive before it gets protected?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 15:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What should we do...

...with really old userpages? If they are over 6-12 months old, and we know the user isn't incredibly active now or has a special rank, should we delete their user page or do something else?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that old userpages should be kept because the wikian who owns it can always come back to edit more, and they did put effort and work into the wiki, so they do deserve to keep their page.
Also, as an example, I joined close to 10 months ago, though I wasn't actually active till May. If we deleted old user pages, mine wouldn't be here. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
How about if their only edits have been in the user namespace, and the last edit was over 6-12 months old?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I would like to say "I agree", but then again "the wikian who owns it can always come back to edit more"
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I myself was absent from the wiki for over 6 months. Then a few weeks ago I came back and made 200+ edits since then. I say from personal experience that I would not liked to have come back to see I was erased.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 17:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure you made some edits outside of the userspace before then. I mean people who have decided to only be active in their userspace, only for a little bit, and who haven't came back to that or anything else in the past year or so.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Just leave it. Maybe we should have a template or something that says "This user is inactive. Posts on their talk page may not be answered."
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 15:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mathfreak It doesn't take up much space (does it?) and they still put a bit of effort in. If we had known they wouldn't do much, their account wouldn't have been accepted but seeing as they have, it takes a bit more effort to blank a page. If anything it's just discouraging if they decide to come back to the wiki. It doesn't do any harm.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't go power-hungry.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Pico Walking

Yes Done

I was looking at Gobo's Friends, and I noticed how in the "Four Looks of Tera" and in the "Four Looks of Pico" it was missing Tera's and Pico's walking costumes. So, I was going to add them, but I wasn't sure wether I should:

  • Uploading only one frame of their walk
  • Uploading a gif animation of their walk

Pico Walking.gif
I know gif's are discouraged, which is why I'm bringing this up. Thoughts?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

GIFs are discouraged for static images because of lower quality. I think it would be fine to do GIFs here.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's nice to know. I'll start with Gobo now...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkey3 has been IP Banned

Okay, before someone bans me from here, for some really peculiar reason I have been IP banned from the Scratch website (thank goodness for the wiki). Is anyone else encountering a random ban? I can tell you that I have never even received an alert and have never (at least since the 2.0 site for sure) said anything nasty. I don't know what the problem is. My project is on the front page featured even, and I'm always kind, and now I'll probably lose my good rep on the wiki for posting this :(
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

We've all been IP banned, I think. There's like 6 of us on the forums. I can somehow log in.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 22:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, well, that's relieving and yet not at the same time. I hope nothing's wrong :/ well, while I'm at it now I can get a screenshot of an IP Ban and upload the image to here :D
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Ever the wikian lol
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Doh! Of course when I go to get my screenshot it actually works :P the only one I got was a vertical view on an iPad...
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry, the forums have a few screenshots, and orcacat has one.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 23:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I got banned too, but I logged in this morning and everything was fine.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
It's all been resolved.
Chocolatepenguin (talk | contribs) 15:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Does Anyone Know how to Case Sense in 2.0?

The Case Sensing article only pertains to Scratch 1.4 now (so I'll probably move it), and on the forums, DadofMrLog claims there is no possible way to case sense in Scratch 2.0. Is this true? Does anyone have factual proof to back up this statement so I (or anyone) can justly develop an accurate article on case sensing in Scratch 2.0? Thanks!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with DadOfMrLog. Although it may be hard to find a tense for a letter, it is possible, but harder due to the implementation of none-matching costume names. I'll give an example for case sensing for A, a, B, and b:

First, you'll need five costumes named null, A, at, B, and bt. Then:

switch to costume [null v]
switch to costume (letter)
if <(costume #) = (0)> then//null should be costume 1
  switch to costume (join (letter)[t])
if <((costume #) mod (2)) = (0)> then
  set [case v] to [Upper]
  set [case v] to [Lower]
Do you see how I did that?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Wait, the bottom "if" statement is incomplete. Look at it again. It's just a reporter, no boolean.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops. My mistake, but I fixed it now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Ernie! I fully understand the concept and describe it thoroughly in the new Scratch 2.0 article, Case Sensing. The old one is now at Case Sensing (1.4). Thanks!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! I'm glad to have helped you, and (in the end) the wiki.
Anyway, I just thought of a simpler method if you'd like to look:
switch to costume [null v]//The first costume.
switch to costume (letter)
set [case v] to [Lower]
if <(costume #) = (1)> then//null should be costume 1
  set [case v] to [Upper]//If this is still null, that means the letter is lower case.
This lets you use 26 less costumes, yet it still functions the same way. Nice, right?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'll have to differ with you on this one; it reports "Lower" even in the case of an impossible character. For your old method, I expanded and added a place for errors.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

True. The method above would work if you always had a letter instead of an impossible character, but that's not always the situation. Either way, at least we have a method that does work.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.