Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 59

This page is archive 59 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

Spanish Wiki?

Spanish is a pretty popular language, and think about almost all of the entire South America and lots of North America: all those people speak Spanish. We have a German wiki, but why not a Spanish one? I know a Scratcher who is very fluent in bot languages: armique. Maybe we could start one?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 3:03 p.m. July 8, 2013

I think the ST would say the same thing they told the German Wiki founders - start off on your own, then we'll see. Martin Wollenbrenner is holding a talk about starting new Scratch Wikis at the 2013 European Scratch Conference in Barcelona - perhaps you could talk to him then.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

To work together to get a Scratch-Wiki in your native language (if it's not English or German) get in contact with us at: Session 74T-10. If you are a group of >4 very interested Scratchers of your native language, we would like to help you starting with our experiences and ressource even before the Scratch2013BCN starts: Please write us to: info[ät]scratch-dach[dot]info.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 20:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sci MartinWollenweber, not Martin Wollenbrenner.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Find some pictures of 2013 European Scratch Conference here.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 06:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Images in tables are being squished

 Done For example:

This article is a stub. It may be incomplete, unfinished, or have missing parts/sections. If the article can be expanded, please do so! There may be suggestions on its talk page. (Date?)

This article or section is currently undergoing major changes and may be incomplete. Please avoid largely modifying this page's contents until this template has been removed. (Date?)

This article or section contains information about a feature from a future version of Scratch that is unreleased and is subject to change. Please cite any additional information in order to prevent speculation.

Notice that in all of these, the image on the left side is squished by the long text on the right. Some sort of CSS should be added to the skin to prevent this from happening. What I do for now is instead of using the MediaWiki table syntax, I just use standard HTML <table> tags and add style="width:30px" to the <td> tag with the image. However, this should still be fixed in the skin.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really look squished to me.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

For me it looks squished. I remember I had the same issue on my sandbox with an image, but I fixed it by specifying the width of the text squishing it. I assume setting the width of the image would also work.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Squished for me, too. Good idea, set the width.

Edit: On one of the templates, I set the width to 23 pixels, but it turned out as like 250 pixels! Weird.

Edit: not to mention, but the outlines of the images need thickened. Know what I mean?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is squished for me. I am running Google Chrome V29.0.1547.32 on Ubuntu (Linux) 13.04.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 22:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Squished here. Chrome on Windows 7.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! I might be able to look into this later in the week, but I'm very busy. If you'd like to give it a try, fork it on github.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I edited the CSS to remove the max-width parameter and it fixed this. Here's hoping I didn't break anything else.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Block Category Images

Are we adding the images for the block category bars? Those bars that when you click them changes the category? I'm not sure what they're really called. I didn't see anything talking about the bar.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think those are called the block palette categories, and there already seems to be an article&image on them here: Block Palette
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought the block palette was where all the blocks were, not the categories. Maybe upload individual images for each article (Motion, Events, etc.).
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too. I call the area displaying the actual blocks the palette, and the other area just the block categories section. Wouldn't life be easier if we had official names?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well (@Cruiouscrab) I didn't mean a whole article was devoted to them, but that there already was something somewhat on them. I should've also added the Blocks category, but that's a bit too late...

Also (@Turkey3), I said that those were the block palette categories, not the block palette itself.

Anyway, now that that's hopefully cleared a little on my part, I really don't think these need an article because most of what can go there is already in either Block Palette of Blocks. On the other hand, though, images on the individual block category buttons sounds like a good idea.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Still, we could use the images.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Other rights for E.W.'s

 Not done

I feel that scmb1 left out a few rights to Experienced Wikians when she created the user group. So I put together a wikitable of new rights and reasons for why other E.W.'s and I should have them:

New Right	Reason
Editing protected pages/files (i'm not sure this one is a user right)	So we can get to problems faster, since you deemed us "experienced". I'm pretty sure I'm the most active user at this level, and I'd sure like to get to these things more quickly. An example is File:TOC blocks.png, where I had to have scimonster unprotect/reprotect the file.
Protecting/unprotecting pages/files (protect)	Again, since I'm more active, I'd like to be able to protect a page if it needs protection, for example archiving CP discussions.
Have edits automatically patrolled (autopatrol)	Because nobody bothers to use the patrol feature anyways, and we are "experienced" and all... I'd really like to see less red !'s in Recent Changes...
View deleted pages and undelete them (deletedhistory, deletedtext, and undelete)	What if one of us makes a mistake in deletion, and nobody is around to fix it? Also, undeleting broken files is better than creating them. And sometimes, I'm just REALLLLLLLLLLYYYYY curious what was in there... >:D
Unblock ourselves (unblockself)	This is actually kinda stupid, but I'm just reminding everybody of it.

If I seem a bit greedy, you can judge, I just felt that what veggieman001 said in the original discussion was too little, but what Scimonster said was overwhelming. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know how to use unblockself, as i don't have block. The first and second are both under the protect right. Besides for unblockself, i think all of the rest would be OK.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Having those rights the user group is pointless and we might as well call you admin/sysop.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@CC Like I said, I don't want to be overwhelmed quite yet XD
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you already overwhelmed yourself.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 20:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the editing protected stuff would be useful, as it is protected to prevent people from vandalizing it or making unnecessary changes, but we are experienced enough that we know what should go on there. I don't think protecting pages is necessary, as with autopatrol. I think that viewing deleted stuff is important though, since we can delete pages, we should be able to view deleted pages as well.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Template for Advanced Tutorials

The "How To" template/category thing says it is written to be easy to understand for beginners. However, that is not the case in all tutorials. I just made the page Checking if a String Contains a String, and I have the "How To" at the top. However, it says it is written for beginners, but really, do you think a beginner would understand that? I tried my best to describe the script, but even that can't do the justice. Maybe there should be a template that notes pages that are more advanced tutorials? That somewhat aren't fully fit for beginners.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Interesting problem. Any page categorized as a How To page shows that message. We want How To pages to be guides aimed at new users. So, more advanced topics might not fit in the How To category. Perhaps, of you don't think a topic is for new users, you could categorize it as a Tutorial rather than a How To page. Does anyone else have any thoughts?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with putting them in Tutorials.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I also support because it doesn't fit into How To (unless we updated the template to say "beginners", "intermediate scratchers", or "advanced scratchers"), and it doesn't really merit it's own category. So I support as well.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think splitting the template into levels of experience would seem mean to the readers somehow... :\
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that, though it would also become a bit hard to define the difficulty levels. Something hard to someone might not be hard to another user. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

HTML Plugin

We have it on the DACH-Wiki.
Benefits:

• Using <img src="imagename"> rather than uploading user images/files
• Is a real programming language which many, including me, know
• Also allows PHP (not sure what you could use that for anyways)
• Links
• Easier template creation
  

If anyone else can think of other things, mention them.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It allows PHP? In that case, you could do something like <?php echo file_get_contents('/var/www/wiki/mysqlinfo.php'); ?> or whatever the file with the database specs is. You could also do the MediaWiki equivalent of this: <?php $db->query('TRUNCATE TABLE users'); ?>, which would delete all of the users. One of the very first rules in web security is that you NEVER allows users to submit server-side code, because it only takes one person to completely destroy your site. The rest of it seems ok, though.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that'd work well. Says the person with absolutely no knowledge of HTML. You have to realise that there are younger editors who don't know HTML.
Chocolatepenguin (talk | contribs) 06:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought you could link external images anyway? And jvvg's right that allowing PHP is far too dangerous.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Only trusted users are on the wiki. Also, jvvg mentioned you can already do that with Mediawiki.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You'd trust wiki users with your password?! O_o
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Only by Email as non-wiki members can still view the wiki and the page source without logging in. :P
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Although Scratch has a good reputation, you always want to be safe and can't trust everyone, even people who seem responsible and honest.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Not Scratch, but the Scratch Wiki. Also, I think you can disable PHP. It doesn't work on the DACH Wiki.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we Clear TOC Links of 1.4-Only Features?

On the TOC are many links to things such as MESH that only apply to Scratch 1.4. Should we rid of these links?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Depends; if it's a page about the Scratch program, then yes. If it's a list of mods, or something not version orientated, then they don't need to be removed. By the way, which ToC page did you find MESH in?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it was in the program, not sure, but thanks. I'll go clean up some, then.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think enough people still use 1.4 that they're probably worth keeping.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this; plenty of schools & things do.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I guess I'll revert the changes, unless I make a 1.4 restrictive section. Do you think that' same better idea? Kind of like how in the blocks section we have 1.4-only ones?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess Scratch 1.4 is more prominent then I had originally though. Anyway, since we have a section for blocks removed in 2.0, why not add a page on 1.4 website stuff, if we keep it? So go ahead. Also, when you do, could you add Ignore List?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to creating a whole new page or adding the stuff in a separate division box to the pages already there? In total, about only 10 links were removed.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

How should I process spam account requests?

I just got an account request where the request notes were "Cause i want to contribute". I view that as spamming the form, as the user completely disregarded the instructions outlining what to put there. For that specific case, I followed the standard account rejection procedure (reject request, comment on user profile explaining why). Out of the following three options, which do you all think would be best? 1. Standard rejection procedure 2. Don't comment on the user's profile explaining why, or 3. Comment on the user's profile asking them not to spam the requests?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Just my opinion, I'd say 2. I think it's best to just ignore it and he or she will eventually forget about it. If they were really serious about wanting to contribute, they would have read the account request information. I would not do 3, because I don't interpret it as spam as much as random letters and such, and it might confuse him or her.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, sometimes users are really eager to create an account that they just forget about the rest of the article. I wouldn't think of it as spamming if it's the user's first request. Just tell them to read the requirements and such next time.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As MF says, follow standard procedure. It doesn't take long to leave them a comment, and if it becomes a serious problem (they noticeably make many requests), then it can be dealt with then.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 15:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like it if the news' title didn't scroll.

When you scroll down on the news the title "Scratch News" disappears as well. I think it should be changed so the title always appears whether you're right at the bottom or at the top. If we changed the code to:

<div style="border:1px solid #E0E0E0;-webkit-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;box-shadow:0 2px 3px rgba(34, 25, 25, 0.5);margin:0px 0px 20px;padding:0px;background-color:#FFFFFF;width:56%;"> <div style="height:20px;padding:7px 20px;position:relative;background-color:#F7F7F7;font-size:1.5em;text-align:center;border-bottom:1px solid rgb(224, 224, 224);">Scratch News</div><nowiki> <table cellpadding=0><tr><td><div style="padding:5px;height:500px;overflow:auto;float:left"> {{:Scratch Wiki/News}}</div></td></tr></table> </div>

which makes: Template removed by owner because I want to be able to use my sandbox for other things

Sorry for that being all scrunched up, visit User:EH7meow/Sandbox where the code isn't mashed up.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Update: I made the template get its contents from my new sandbox because after an old announcement was taken off the main news it wasn't long enough to properly demonstrate scrolling.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this should be updated, but we need Mathfreak231 to do that. Also, I just found a bug linked to your scrolling: http://i39.tinypic.com/2q1xmdj.png

The scroll bar overlaps the blue tool bar at the top of the page. Is this happening with you as well?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't happen for me, but I'm on Windows so IDK if that has anything to do with it.

I tried adding your code (with a slight tweak for floating) and tried to make the height right so it would align with the others, but the text just overflowed off the bottom. Do you think you could make it so the whole thing is 500px?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

So it was the height that was the problem? I tried redoing the front page in my sandbox but it was messed up and I don't think what happened had anything to do with the height. If you could tell me what your fix with floating was then I could have another go.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I did it (hopefully)! What I did was I made the code:

<div style="border:1px solid #E0E0E0;-webkit-border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;border-radius:10px 10px 0 0;box-shadow:0 2px 3px rgba(34, 25, 25, 0.5);margin:0px 0px 20px;padding:0px;background-color:#FFFFFF;width:56%;float:left"> <div style="height:20px;padding:7px 20px;position:relative;background-color:#F7F7F7;font-size:1.5em;text-align:center;border-bottom:1px solid rgb(224, 224, 224);">Scratch News</div> <table cellpadding=0><tr><td><div style="padding:5px;height:450px;overflow:auto;float:left"> {{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo}}</div></td></tr></table> </div>

If you add this code in remember to replace {{User:EH7meow/SandboxTwo}} at the bottom with {{/News}}
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 21:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Looks nice! Just do that for all the other boxes and we're good.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't think this is necessary for the other boxes, TBH. When do they need to scroll?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The only other one that needs to scroll currently is "Featured Images" but I think it would be better if the images were small enough to not have to scroll.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 07:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's hard to "feature" an image if it's small as can be. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

New Curator.

doggydudet is our new curator. Also, some outdated items need to be taken off the list.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 09:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the numbering wrong? It says doggydudet is the 112th however the curator spot has been filled 114 times and 111 if you don't include Collab-Camp and Collab-Challenge as curators.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 14:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I just added one to the last number. There have been a screw-up very recently or long, long ago. I'm not sure which count you mentioned is being used.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Their Number Is 114, Not 112. And Firedrake Is 113, Not 111.
Mrsrec (talk | contribs) 11:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Workarounds on the bottom

Should workarounds for blocks go underneath example uses?

I can imagine that if I was looking up a block, I would be more interested in how I could use it than how I could make it a different way. Thoughts?
Scratchisthebest (talk | contribs) 18:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this was actually brought up a while ago. Or maybe it was just on veggie's to-do list. In any case, i say it's a good idea.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was decided they should, so please, by all means, move them! :)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Images from Other Sites

Are we allowed to take images from other sites? Let me explain further. I really want to develop the MIT article into a very informative one, but I have some concerns over ownership of images. Wikipedia has phenomenal images of MIT and the Media Lab, but are we allowed to use those images on this wiki, too? And can we take images from MIT's website? (I'd assume since this server itself is at MIT :P) And one more aside, does this wiki allow .svg images?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. We don't actually have any policy here regarding file copyright, which is a little disappointing, but it looks like this image, for example, is CC BY-SA. That could perhaps be notated by a small note on the file's page.

As for SVGs—no. I have requested they be added a few times, but it never happened.

And remember, for the article, to keep it relevant to Scratch. A cursory description of the university and some background information would be fine, but we don't need some colossal article like Wikipedia.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and uploaded the image here: File:MIT Media Lab

I left the placing-half of it for you, though. ;)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Warning Vs Caution

We have the friendly

Note:

this is a note

And the scary

Warning:

this is a scary warning

And I think something needs changed about the warning message. To me, if I was a new user and saw some warning message on the Wiki, I'd be scared. Not really scared, but a "Warning" sounds more like someone saying "I'm warning you!" and almost trying to make you fear. I suggest that we either change it to "Caution" and have a yellow image of an exclamation point or create a separate template for "Caution". Caution is less scary than warning, but shows more importance than a note does. Signs say "Caution: wet floor" instead of "Warning: wet floor". I think having a yellow image and the word "caution" instead of "Warning" will seem more friendly but still as serious. Do you agree?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think it'll be as serious, but it would be more friendly. Still, anything deserving something more then "Note:" needs a little umph so as to get a message across, and keep it across. A note is more there as a "Hi! I'm a little tea cup. I'm not needed, but you can drink tea from me." Meanwhile, some topics actually need a warning that will stick in people's minds, like "Modifying Scratch may result in a loss of elements. When editing, be sure to use care; some ..." (Modding Tutorial) So, I feel the image is needed, but the word can definitely be changed to "Caution:" That shouldn't compromise the message too much.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe instead just make a new template? There are some cases where it may be needed. For example, look at the warning in Encryption. That could use an orange caution instead, as it is not a common issue putting personal information into an encryption. The Paint Editor article I think has a few also.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we could use a new template. It can use the same image as {{In Progress}}.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think of it as scary. And the image of In Progress would look ugly that small. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It would look something like:

Caution:

That image doesn't look that bad.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Make a new image? Low resolution
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

@EH7meow: I agree, that doesn't look bad. It can definitely be used.

@Turkey3: Since the small version of the image still looks good, I don't think we'll need another.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The edges look choppy for me and the ! A bit weird. Why would a new image hurt? Plus, a lower resolution one could load a millisecond faster ;) anyways, I think I'll make this template now.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hmm... True, true. After all, it would help a tiny bit, and it wouldn't hurt anyone. Well then, if no one new objects, then I'll post a new version of the image tomorrow.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done

We have the template finished now. The image is not shrunk, just its full size, so it looks nice (we should make new images for all those type templates)

Caution: An example

@ErnieParke: now that I'm on Firefox, the old image does look nice, but doesn't on all browsers, so I think this will look nice on all.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)