Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 67

This page is archive 67 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

BBCode Article Improvements

A user on Scratch asked me if we could make the BBCode article look more like the BBCode forum topic. Thoughts?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine. We already have the scratch wiki cheat sheet :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

look! S:CHEAT!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What's so different?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Art Software Page

I think it would be good if there was a page with a list of good free art software Scratchers could use. Then they wouldn't have to ask a whole bunch of people. I will create it if you give me permission to make it.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

How about first you make it as a subpage of your userpage, and we'll see if we like it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea, but that really doesn't have to do with Scratch. That would be like creating an article with popular websites Scratchers use to get sound effects. But, again, maybe you're thinking differently. Create a subpage for your userpage, and I'll take a look. :)
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 16:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not just add alternatives to Paint Editor and then maybe a redirect?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I like what turkey3 said. I will create a subpage on my userpage and we will go from there.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 23:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of ways to make the bot messages friendlier

So, the automatic bot messages (like the sig and categorization reminders) are super useful-- but I'm worried the wording of them might intimidate new editors. Sometimes, they seem like punishments rather than helpful tips. I'm wondering if anyone has any ideas for how to reword them to make the tone somewhat more friendly. Perhaps providing a short description of how to add a signature or a category (rather than just a link) might help. I don't want new editors to feel like they're being attacked by robots when they first join! Anyone have any ideas?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The bot messages feel like dry cereal underneath a sofa. They should begin with "Hello! how are you today?" Or something of that sort. If it is also possible, maybe the bots should be able to detect if the user is new or not based on when they joined, and for newer users provide a more helpful and "comfortable" response and for old users just notify them of the mistake they already know how to fix. Forget that, I am good at communicating with new people and could write a new bot message for some of them.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

If someone could draft messages for me, that would be great. With the new online configuration, it's now very easy to change them. For the current messages, see User:WikiMonitor/Configuration.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Turkey3 gave me a nice sample for the categorization message (probably the one that most commonly is sent). What does everyone think? Also, if anyone has any suggestions for the other messages, please say them here or on my talk page.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

On the small ending message, I couldn't get it to link to your talk page.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That's because you were editing on my talk page and you can't link to the page you are already on (e.g. Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

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

I agree with the sentiment about "being attacked by robots". Really, we should go back to having humans post the messages :-)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, jvvg and I designed a new message that seems much friendlier and even has a pretty blue box around it. It really seems less robotic or at least like a nicer robot.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm liking it! Thanks for the work. Maybe you could add in a (very short) description of what a category is?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We did though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Blob8108, before WM, most times that people didn't sign their posts, nobody said anything about it. They just fixed it themselves (or ignored it) and didn't think to send a message, so the user doesn't know to change. WM changes that, because this way users will be immediately notified, preventing the errors from taking place in the future.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Does anybody have a good message to replace the rapid editing message?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the messages have been updated (thank you Turkey3 for providing them!). Please tell me what you think of them. However, the wording of the messages has changed, so WM can no longer detect when it has already left a message. I will fix this, but expect some downtime.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking at the messages for the past 20+ minutes, and they look much more friendlier and inviting now! I especially like the new formatting, so good thinking Turkey3!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

This problem should now be resolved. The bot messages leave a "signature" (something like <!--unsigned-5123532-->). This way, no matter how much the wording changes, WM will still recognize them.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why are you using a Wiki comment as verification that WM has already commented on an issue? Doesn't WM already leave a signature (~~~~) at the end of every message?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I use the Wiki comment because saving a persistent log locally is not feasible. It stores who's already been notified in the RAM, but whenever I have to restart the program, that is lost.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that was answering my question.

I was asking if you could use WM's signature versus a comment as verification if a problem had been reported or not. I already see a problem with that, and that is differentiating between problem reports. A Wiki comment can store much more information then WM's signature. So if one Wikian rapidly edits two pages, a Wiki comment would allow WM to know the two are different unique situations, but a simple signature would do nothing but make both occasions look alike.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Wow, these are looking really good! Thanks for taking this on. :) These messages are starting to sound less like scolding robots, which is great. Actually, now I'm a little bit worried that new users may not know they are bots and will try to converse with them... Maybe they could provide a link to a place to talk to humans? Like "if you have any questions, please ask in the Community Portal," for example.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@ErnieParke, I think I was unclear what I meant by "signature". I don't mean the Wiki signature (the 4 tilde thing), I meant there is a little comment inside the message containing details about the message (the type of message and the affected pages or revids). It uses that to detect previous messages.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

From what I was seeing, I think I knew what you meant be signature. You commented above with: (something like <!--unsigned-5123532-->)

That's also what I was talking about in my last post. I was saying that you could include details about the message in the little comment, but you can't do that with a Wiki signature.

Anyway, this isn't really important. You've got WM handled right now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your idea, I will make WM store information in the edit summaries and use those to tell if users have already been notified. This way, even if a user removes the message, there is still a record available.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How did I suggest storing information in edit summaries?

Either way, that is a nice idea, especially considering the point you brought up.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

When you said "message in the little comment", I thought that's what you meant. :P
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to when you said: "I meant there is a little comment inside the message containing details about the message"

I'm still glad that we can somehow telepathically send each other ideas. :P
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's implemented now. Tchaikovsky's first piano concerto, part of his violin concerto, and part of his third piano concerto later.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I don't understand? :_)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just saying it took a while by the amount of music I listened to while coding and testing.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

lol what a coincidence because while i am typing i am conposing my own piano song with musescore o.o

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's have this have its own talk page. I'll make one at User_talk:WikiMonitor/Messages
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's better on the CP because this way the community is more likely to see it. Also, please don't create subpages of userpages (even user talk pages) without permission from the user.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Even bots? OK.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 19:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pages in userspace for bots should be treated the same as pages in regular userspace, just owned by the bot owner instead of the bot itself.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Quote of the Week

I think it would be cool to have a quote of the week on the home page. This would be a quote from any Scratcher likely on the forums or on a project comment that is either very funny or notable enough to read.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Uh-oh, more Main Page updating. :P

It's a pretty good idea, but I don't think the Wiki is the place for it. It's technically "user-generated content".
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

And besides, who would decide what's notable? And have you noticed how good we are at keeping the FA and FI updated? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea but that would make more work for EW's and admins because they would have to keep updating the front page. I mean the featured images were up there for like 1-2 months until I recommended we switch them.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it relates to scratch :(

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any point either.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree with this idea. We would basically be arbitrarily promoting Scratchers (even more arbitrarily than the featured projects), and creating a lot more unnecessary work for the admins in updating it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Changes this summer

I am going to be gone later this summer (for up to 6 weeks, early July to mid-August). Because of that, two major changes will occur.

1. This one only applies to admins/EWs: someone else will need to process account requests. Mathfreak231 already reads many of them, but I usually am the one to get to them first. We really need our whole admin/EW team reading them. It's at Special:ConfirmAccounts, so please check it frequently (at least 1 time per day if possible - that way, everyone will get a reasonably quick response).

2. This applies to everybody: WikiMonitor will not be operating. I run WikiMonitor on my Raspberry Pi. When I am not home, I am usually able to control it via VPN. I am also able to check the recent changes to see if anything went wrong, and if any bugs pop up, I can fix them promptly. Worst comes to worst, I can always just use the emergency shut off and fix it when I get home. However, I will not have access to a computer for most of the time I am gone, so I will not be able to control it. Generally, WM doesn't like running continuously for longer than about a week (I routinely manually restart the script), so even if I left it unattended, it would probably stop working after a while. If anybody wishes to continue its operation while I am gone, I will be happy to send you the source code. It should be pretty easy to set up.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, are you going to need any more Experienced Wikians to read the account requests? If so, then I recommend KrIsMa to become one. :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we have enough, we just need to get the ones we already have (*looks at ErnieParke and Mathfreak231*) to look at the account request list more.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

That was a funny look. :P

Anyway, I'll try looking at account requests, but I've never read anything on account requests, so I've learned everything by intuition basically. Considering how I didn't know about the "Hold" button last account request for honeyr2, maybe you could post a quick overview on my talk page so that I know there's nothing that I skipped? And maybe repost the info about the "Hold" button too?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll do that later. All there is to know about the hold button is that it doesn't work.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember you said I should've used the hold button.

Edit: It was the confirm button! I got the two mixed up right now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Would you mind if I ran it? Do I have enough experience on the wiki?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Only Experienced Wikians can accept account requests - you need to be elected to become an Experienced Wikian. Also, jvvg said in this discussion that they don't need anybody else to accept account requests.
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I can't accept requests. I meant running his bot.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I could run the bot. All I have to do is reset it every 5-7 days? I am on everyday. Could you tell us what dates you are going to be gone? Thanks!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Running the bot entails more than just resetting it every few days. Here is the list of requirements, as I see them:

• Resetting it every few days
• Explaining messages to people if they complain or are confused
• Keeping it running 24/7
• Having a PHP environment with CLI support and the cURL libraries installed
• Fixing any bugs that show up (and I should warn you, the code is mostly spaghetti logic)
• Running it on your own account, as I don't want to give out the WikiMonitor password (I would prefer it if a user who already owns a bot account could run it)
  jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's see.

• Resetting it, yup I can do that.
• I'm kinda good with newbies.
• I keep an always-on in the basement of our house.
• Sure, I can get PHP up and running
• Don't worry, I've read the code
• I'll send in a bot account request.

Sound good?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I will learn PHp so the next time you are gone then I can run it.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't wait to take up your duty of making up very creative rage reasons for rejection. (wow, that alliterated) :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Krett12, I'm ok with it. However, I'm just going to make sure everyone else is. Also keep in mind that once I return in August, I resume control of WM, and you need to provide me any changes you made in the code.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, is everybody ok with me making the account request processing guide a SW page (something like Scratch Wiki:Become a Contributor/Processing Guide) or something?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup! I will request an account now.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 16:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Just be aware that I won't respond to it until the rest of the Wiki community voices approval. Please comment your thoughts on this thread.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The one thing that I'm worried about is that I don't see any indication that Krett12 has had any experience with handling bots or PHP code. Plus, Krett12 joined April 28, which is only 58 days of Wiki experience, although I'm less worried about that then the bot experience.

I would be fine with Krett12 handling WM, although I'd like to see that Krett12 has had experience with this type of situation and coding before. Plus, a review of how to handle WM for Krett12 would be nice.

Yes, I would be fine with you turning your sandbox guide into an official SW page.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Guide. I will also give Krett12 the full briefing before giving permission to run WM. For anyone interested, I have published the latest source code (and now I intend to keep it updated) on Github.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

ahh so you are giving wikimon. Temporarily to krett12! Ohh I get it sorry for inactivity I was making music :P anyways have fun krett12 and thanks derpmeup for the nice comment ^^^ !

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:21, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm nervous about letting anyone who has less than half a year, preferably a year, of wiki experience. And please do prove that you are able to technically maintain it, krett12. I could do it in theory, but i routinely shut down my computer every night, and have lame internet, so it wouldn't really work...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I could run WM, too, but I don't really want to. The code is more than a little messy... ;)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll be fine, but the code is different than other bots I've seen, mind if I clean it up a little?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 20:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Once we decide it's ok for you to operate WM, you are welcome to clean it up (and I would appreciate that). However, please don't mess with it until then.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Can I process accounts, guys? I'm responsible, even my mother says so :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops you said no
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If WM is on github, why can't somebody (such as krett12) just send a pull request?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Bots

Is there a page that lists all the bots? Thanks!
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

[[Category:Bots]]
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, you need nowiki tags around that, so I added them.
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

FYI to both of you, a link to a category is [[:Category:Bots]] no nowiki needed ;)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

EW's

If EW's aren't active, do you kick them from being an EW? Because I know I am new but, I am on every day morning and afternoon. I was wondering if you need more I could definitely process account requests. Just tell me when you need more. I could tell if they need an account or not. I would also look to see if they are requesting another account. I will look at their regular Scratch profile. If it says they had an old account, I would look to see if that account had a Wiki account. Thanks! Scratch On!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

You joined the Scratch Wiki on June 6th, which means you've been here for 8-9 days. That's definitely not enough experience to be a possible EW, and besides, as jvvg said, we don't need any more EW's at the moment. If you stay active for a longer time though, and happen to be on whenever we have admin/EW elections, you might have a chance.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 13:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Really? I haven't been on for 10 days? I am already having fun! I have edited some articles.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I registered on the Wiki in March 2012, and I became an EW in mid 2013. The "experienced" part of the term is not taken lightly.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Then I will keep working!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 14:36, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

trust me, at this rate, you have a chance for being an e.w! At this point, as the name implies, the experience is needed ( experience of this wiki only) (and its really hard to be experienced ( personal witness)) but you can make it!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I know I don't have very much experience. I will keep editing articles. Also, thanks for the encouragement KrIsMa! Sent from my tablet. You don't know how hard it is to edit the wiki on this thing!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 1

It's easier on the Nexus tablet. ;)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I sometimes use an iPod Touch to edit, it's pretty hard. :P
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 16:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I am using a ASUS MeMO Note. It is kinda hard. An iPod would be next to impossible. We need an easier way to edit this on mobile.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

iPad is very easy.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The iPad is also like 2 times bigger than my tablet.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Derpmeup & @-PRO-: I've used my iPod 4th gen before to edit the Wiki, and it's actually quite easy, given a bit of experience. Besides, the 4th gen is smaller then the current 5th gen. ;)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not too hard. I'm typing this on an iPod Touch and it's fine :P
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 05:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I am at my grandpa's house because I am going to a camp. So I have to use this for a week. I just wish I could play projects.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 11:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

is it ok to keep the two quotes consistent?

I mean {{quote}} and {{quote2}}, they are a bit weird because in quote, the parameters are (text) then (author), in the other one, it is vice-versa (author) then (text). Would it be possible to make them both consistent because it is very confusing sometimes :)
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I wish, but it would break existing usages.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:36, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

if only there was a way 'v

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

You could use bots. Even without bots, there is a way. If you press control+option+j, or (I hope I get this correct) command+j, you can see every page that links to another page, or template. Using that shortcut, you can see the pages that link to Quote2, which there are under 50 of. Then it's a simple task of updating every one of those articles.

Would it be fine if I moved all of {Quote2} to {Quote}, instead of visa versa?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? If no one comments against this in the next 24 hours, I'll go ahead with transferring {Quote2} to {Quote}.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait what? I don't understand why though

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

For the same reason as you stated earlier, the consistency. Besides, Scimonster seems to want it as well.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are you talking about style or parameter order? I'm talking about order.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oh! I understand. I originally thought that you were proposing for the two templates to get merged. Now I see that you were suggesting for the parameter order to be swapped. Would it be okay if I did that now?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind switching every single occurrence, changing the template code, and putting a warning on the doc with the change.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mind. What is the warning for though? To remind people that the template has been changed?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'll get started on it when I have a bit more time!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I got the template as updated as possible! I put up a warning, updated the template code, and updated any uses, if I could. Unfortunately, I couldn't update the template in archive pages. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Just Reminders About Linking

I have been sweeping in like a hawk and adding tons of links today to a whole bunch of articles. We seem to forget a lot of links so here are the most common we need to remember:

• Project — note the singularity
• User — redirects to Scratcher
• Discussion Forums — AKA forums
• Post — on the forums

If you go to a random page, you are very likely to find one of these words in need of linking.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, but I couldn't add user for voxbot to link because i didnt want to cause the bot to link other usages of the word user, such as Scratch Wiki:Users and others :(

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

temp

sometimes, I am on mobile and I see a page that really needs some cleanup by User:VoxBot, should i create a template that, when placed on a page, will signal VoxBot to clean up the page when it turns online? thanks!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually like that idea. It gives us some way, too, to contribute if we see a page that needs help. But what kind of "cleaning up"?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think any of these tasks :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For example, if someone links a lot of words on a page he/she might want to add the template on the page so the bot can remove multiple wikilinks

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

If this is approved the second thing to think is if the template should be invisible (cannot be seen on the page itself) or visible :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Invisible.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I will start the template tomorrow if there are no objections :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I finished it! Let me know if there should be changes made and if there should be a category for it!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

done!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop checking the edit rankings page

Just about every time in the past few days that I've checked recent changes, someone has updated the edit rankings. This shows that people are checking them basically all the time. Instead of focusing on the number of edits, focus on the quality of edits. Expanding 10 articles is better than 500 edits to your userpage, but they both appear the same in the rankings. In addition, the fact that people are checking frequently suggests that people are being competitive and trying to boost their edit counts.

I will reiterate what I said above: Focus on quality, not quantity of your edits.

Furthermore, being competitive about edit counts does not accomplish anything, and it encourages lots of useless edits that make it more difficult for me to patrol recent changes.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

you beat me to it!!! anyways yeah i agree there seems to be a current "competition" between some users on the wiki.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I only see one user updating the edit ranking frequently, unless I've been skipping over some people.

Anyway, I would agree with you jvvg. It sort of goes with the saying "It's not what you have that matters, it's how you use it."

Translated for the Scratch Wiki: "It's not the amount of your edits that matters, it's the quality of them."

Do you see the parallels there?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

yes! (now i'm wondering if "do you see perpendiculars in there" makes sense, too)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

btw ErnieParke: here you go!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this sort of a result of my 40 linking edits today? I know they were all small edits but I did not intend to try to make this into a competition. But we all have to admit, I admit myself, having the free capability to see how many edits we have drives us to be competitive. I will link less now (it was a one day thing powered by about 8 s'mores). Sorry jvvg I didn't mean to clog recent changes but in reality those pages did have missing links, everyone I saw. Sorry :(
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with adding links; that's a good thing. It's when people are constantly checking their rank and edit count that it becomes a problem.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

We should have a bot update the rankings every so often *jk* (if people do want it i've got dibs)

Personally, I don't think people check in on their rankings that often. Besides, sometimes quantity does matter a little. I don't really think it's a current problem.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

HUGE ERROR

I am very sorry everyone, I tested out my new bot (it worked) but I forgot to ask Jvvg to turn WikiMonitor off. I am very sorry for anyone who received double notifications. AND, my copy of No Bots Override and the Page Ignore List.

I'll ask him to turn off WikiMonitor first next time.

Also, I didn't know a bunch of text appeared on the screen (e.x. "KrIsMa did not sign post. Notifying...")

Well, sorry!
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's all good. I'm keeping WM off until mid-day Wednesday, so you can test all you want until then. Also, yes, a lot of text does appear on the screen. You're welcome to comment out the "Starting cycle" thing if you want. I added that a while ago for debugging purposes, but never ended up removing it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

fact tag

Is {{Fact tag}} needed? We could edit {{Fact}} and edit a bit so if a parameters is used it would switch to the custom message.
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

IMO it helps to keep them separate. But I'll wait for more opinions.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to merge them as you described it.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay,  Merged.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Requirements for Userpage Edits to be Marked as Minor

It bugs me when I look at recent changes and see that 80 out of the 100 recent changes are all Userpage or sandbox edits. I think it should be required for all Userpage edits to be marked as minor, and if this rule comes into effect WikiMonitor can patrol it.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I can tell you that it will not be enforced by WikiMonitor, or at least not until August. I don't want code conflicts with Tweaker. Also, I think people are already annoyed enough about the category notifications. Receiving a notification every time they forget to click a checkbox when an edit isn't even really minor would not really help.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay forget the WikiMonitor part, but shouldn't people mark Userpage edits as minor at least when they make about 10 in a row?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It really depends on the content of the update. If they add content, or an entire new section, then the edit isn't minor. Then again, I doubt any user page receives only major updates, so some edits should at least be marked as minor.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

To be honest I really don't think that the minor edits should be enforced. Right now, I am actually questioning why there are "minor edits" and how they come into purpose.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, what if somebody was going to make a big edit to their page? I'm not sure that that would be considered a minor edit. I think that maybe there should be something that if an edit gets rid of less than 100 bytes or the edit adds less than 100 bytes, then it will automatically get marked as a minor edit. If the edit got rid of over 100 bytes or it added more than 100 bytes, then it wouldn't automatically become a minor edit. Those are my thoughts.
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I just realized there is a way to filter out the userpage edits, so this is  Done and not needed!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I've been looking around and haven't seen a way to block those edits. How did you do it?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Under the Namespace drop-down at the top of recent changes, I just select "main" and hit Go to show all non-talk page and non-user page edits.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

And if you select Invert Selection, it shows all edits of namespaces EXCEPT the selected one.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a neat trick Turkey3. I'll keep it in mind!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Category included!

Some mainspace pages located in Category:Templates isn't a template! My guess is that a template used on that page has included a Category:Template on the page itself. The weird thing, those mainspace pages don't have the Category:template on them! weird!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the real issue is... You know how templates basically copy themselves wherever they're used? That includes their category code, which means the page gets the category as well. Thankfully, we just need to put in some noincludes's.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that {{Fact tag}} didnt have noinclude, so I added that in, but for some reason those pages are still included in the category! This is so weird!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is odd. If you look at those pages, none say that they're part of Category:Templates on the page themselves.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that weird? I thought it was my cache - but if you have the same issue then I don"t think its my cache!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:48, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have that issue too.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

However, I think I fixed that issue and I no longer see any pages that are not templates in Category:Templates.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You did fix it. What was causing Category:Templates to be added to those pages?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Swampert11! [1]

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What Would Happen...

If you have two templates that just link to each other. What would happen when you place one on a page? For example, if you have {{Template 1}} and it's only task is to display {{Template 2}}, but {{Template 2}} Just displays template 1, what happens?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I remember I tried this once, but anyway, you get an error in the template that's first repeated. I'll post it here once I figure out the error code again.

Edit: Here's an example:

Template loop detected: User:ErnieParke/Contents
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's kinda like an infinite redirect, but it would tell you.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It would look like this:

{{Loop1}}

Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I deleted those two templates because now they're not useful. Next time please just test it I a sandbox.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Simplicity article

As I've seen articles for popular Scratch trends (Toki, for instance), I thought that maybe it'd be good to have a simplicity article in the Wiki, if there isn't one already, as it's a huge trend going on in Scratch. I'm afraid I might be wrong and there isn't need for making one, but that's the reason of why I am asking. Thanks.
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 11:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What is it? :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Same question.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's just the trend of using simple logos, or thumbnails in Scratch. It is usually related with vector graphics.
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 16:28 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think user fads like that really deserve an article. I don't know how to explain it any better. I know what you're saying though, kind of like IOS7 simplicity artwork. It' she new trend in everything it seems. But I think it focuses too much on what's popular instead of factual things related to Scratch.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is a popular trend right now, but I don't think it needs an article here. Also, I agree with turkey3, "I think it focuses too much on what's popular instead of factual things related to Scratch".
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a trend like this deserves an article. It's just a way to make your project look; it's not really an interesting trend.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I Just Wanted to Say...

It is so great we are getting a lot of active, contributing users in the past few months! It used to be like the same 6 editors for over half a year at least, so I think things will be really speeding up now! Thanks for everyone who has joined!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've had a great time contributing, and it's not over yet! :D
SuperSmashScratch (talk | contribs) 13:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

if you compare the active users in User:KrIsMa/Statistics (I updated it today yay!) you can see that the active users went up a lot! yay thanks all!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I hope to be an active user soon :) (I guess I'm not, as I've only been in the Wiki for 2 days xP) EDIT: How weird, I really thought I said active... O_O
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 15:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Active or inactive?

Anyways, thanks again to all of the editors!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I joined a bit over a month ago and I'm close to 400 edits, so I guess I'm active. :P I come on here every day. :D
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 23:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that. ;)

Anyway, I wanted to say the same thing as Turkey3; thank you to all of the new contributors! I'm sure we'll have a better time now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘You're welcome.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Usefulness of page?

I probably wasted a bunch of time making a new tutorial page (in my sandbox) about saving data, but I don't know if it should actually be put on the wiki, seeing as how we have Saving Data. Also, because the blocks plugin doesn't seem to be able to assign categories, some of the blocks appear red. So should it be put on the wiki itself? (With added categories, of course)
AonymousGuy (talk | contribs) 17:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

How about you merge it into Saving Data, as that page doesn't have any scripts on it yet.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, but first I need to figure out how to get the blocks plugin working correctly.

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I've merged it - I hope I did it correctly. Or was I supposed to ask an admin to do some actual merging thing?

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Nah, it's good. We don't have any official merging tool.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

categorization

Can someone please add a category to Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures? Thanks a lot! (I can't think of a category for it)
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Would Category:Scratch Wiki Tutorials be appropriate? Even though custom sigs are frowned upon (kinda)?

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 22:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

nvm sorry! oh yeah maybe that will work! Thanks for bringing that up! I will wait for some replies.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

just realized it wasn't a help page thanks!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A new Wiki feature?

I think it would be good to know which pages need more information or to be updated, so Wiki members can edit those. Otherwise, I'll be clicking "Random Page" until I see one which needs it. Or is there already this feature and I don't know about it?
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 09:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

You can take a look at Category:Article Stubs and Category:Articles to Expand.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :)
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 09:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was gonna say that but Sci beat me to it

-unsigned comment by Krett12 (talk | contribs)

Template?

Can I make a template called block. It will look like this.

scratchblocks

This a block article, it contains Scratchblocks

JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of making that template?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what is the point?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It is to tell a new scratcher that there a scratchblocks in the article and there is a link to what it is.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 18:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

why would others need to know if an article has scratch blocks? Also, JayceeMinecraft, could you look at Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures? Cp had a discussion on custom sigs this is what they agree on. Thanks!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

To let new scratchers know that there are scratchblocks in the article because they might not know what they are or how to use them, by the way the name is already taken so it will be called useblock instead.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

But because scratchblocks look, in fact, like Scratch blocks, how would a new user not know what they are? And as for using them - new users can't even obtain wiki accounts, and in the forums they aren't too important, so why exactly would they need to know how to use them?

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Their is a page about scratchblocks in the help pages, which new users to the wiki should have read.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 19:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

EDIT CONF! I'll post what I typed (thanks for summing it up!) :I see where you are going! Hmm, if new scratchers don't know how to use scratchblocks, in the editor, you can find help on how to use each scratchblock already, and scratch application has scratchblocks as it's main "scripting language" and again the help GUI is there to help new scratchers so I am sure they know what scratch blocks are! (Scratchblocks on wiki and editor are fairly the same, so new scratchers will realize - aren't these blocks from the scratch editor, and relate to the editor, so I'm sure new scratchers know what scratchblocks are) :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant when they start reading the page they'll start from the top(probably) and they won't see down the bottom of the page where the scratchblocks actually are, and if they didn't know that scratchblocks exsisted on the wiki and thought that there would just be text, that would help them.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

swampert11 already mentioned that there is a page in the help pages about s.b and why would new users need to know there are scratch blocks on the wiki? Again, the help page

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I meant for non wiki editors, they would think that they are just reading text.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

so you mean you are worried that non Scratch Wiki:Users would think they would be reading just text? Now how would introducing scratch blocks be bad? How would telling them there are scratch blocks in the article help the reader? (All readers are assumed to know scratch blocks already)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT 2! :P Why would they think that? If they actually were to look at the scripts on the page, they would see that they were reading off of scratchblocks. And also, scratchblocks are just text with fancy CSS formatting to make them look like blocks, but they would still be recognizable as blocks by new users.

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

also, please fix your custom sig to comply with Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures and indent using colons. Thanks!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or @JayceeMinecraft?

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Jay, but thanks aonymousguy for changing your signature !

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not Scratch Wiki users I meant readers, just people who read the scratch wiki not edit it, they might not know that scratchblocks exist on the scratch wiki.By the way, I fixed my sig.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for fixing your sig and indenting! :) , but assuming all wiki readers already know what scratch blocks are, why would a reader need to know there are scratchblocks on a page? The reader would relate that those scratchblocks on the wiki are the same as the scripts in the editor.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant brand new wiki readers might not know that scratchblocks existed on the wiki.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They don't need the template to learn that.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 20:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

maybe I am a bit confused : so you want this template because new wiki readers might not know there are scratch blocks on the wiki. Your template will tell users that there are scratch blocks on the wiki. -new wiki readers already know what scratchblocks are, why would it be important to let new wiki readers know where are scratch blocks on the wiki?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

How would they know about the scratchblocks plugin on the wiki if they are brand new?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

they don't have to, as they are not editing the wiki.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They should know that it exists so they know which page uses it or which page does not because they would not know if they would looking at text or blocks.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

scratchblocks don't look like text.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that, I said it's for if the reader would no if they will be looking at page with scratchblocks or a page with text.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

sorry for being repetitive, but I'm trying to understand. Now why would they need to know if a page contains scratchblocks?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So that they would that what they have to do has something got to do with editor(because blocks are usually in editors)so they can open a new tab in an editor and be ready because there are blocks and you would need an editor to use blocks.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

sometimes, a user reads the article and doesn't want to open their editor and be ready, besides a user could open their editor when they start to see the blocks. For example, X Position (block), the page is already about blocks, so the reader would reasonably judge if he wants to read the article only or read it and play with the editor at the same time. Also, most tutorials have scratchblocks, and usually a reader reading a tutorial already has his editor open because it is a tutorial on how to do something in scratch anyways :) ok lets let others comment

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, so I think their is no point in using this template.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

OK so whoever wants this template change this number by one 0, whoever does not want this template, change this number by one 2.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't need this template. Months ago we had a template that said something like "this article contains scratchblocks in the source code" and we removed it because I was pointless. This is basically the same thing.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everybody above. There is no point in pointing out that an article contains scratchblocks.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

So I guess it's resolved.  Done.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 22:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

New Template

I totally made a mistake with that, but I think you're going to like this one. It's called wiki.

This article contains information about the Scratch Wiki, so this article may be useless to non-wiki editors

JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 15:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think non-wiki editors should know that without the template.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 16:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, besides the help pages, can you name a page that is useless to non-wiki editors?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Custom wiki sigs, wiki users, edit rankings, there that's 3.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 16:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

that is why it is under the [Scratch Wiki] or [Special] namespace. Besides the search defaults at looking at the main space first

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

and also, regarding the help pages, I am pretty sure a new user realizes when a wiki article is scratch related or not. why would they not? this template is a bit redundant.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, New Template

So, I've learnt my lesson so I thought of Game. It looks like this.

This is a game tutorial article, this will tell you how to make a game.

JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That is what the scripting tutorial category is for.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A category lists things but this template says that it's a game tutorial article, template, category, way different.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to just come up with random templates that may or may not be helpful? Especially when at the top, the page normally says "Tutorial:"?

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 17:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

K
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@aony I would give it to him for effort. @jaycee is trying to make a helpful template, and plus, more mistakes, more learning yay! Thanks for all those requests Jaycee !

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry - I just think we should try to keep the amount of templates down, as if all templates that people thought of were implemented, we would be overflowing with templates. And 3 similar template suggestions in a row seemed kind of random to me, which is why it seemed like there wasn't really any point in any of them.

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

no need to be sorry, the cp is used to discuss anyways such that only templates accepted by a lot of users will get implemented; don't fret! :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Combining Templates

I have several ideas for what to combine.

How about Note: , Caution: and Warning:

also,  Done,  Not done, Thank you and You're welcome!

Maybe even

This page no longer has any use and needs to be deleted. The user who added this template does not have permission to delete the page. (Date?) Admins and Experienced Wikians: remember to check the page history, what links here, patrol all unpatrolled edits, then delete this page.

and

This page or section is in question as to whether it is useful or not. You can discuss whether you think it should be deleted or not on its talk page. (Date?)

Krett12 (talk | contribs) 22:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would you want to combine templates?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 23:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with merging those templates is that they all have different yet important roles in the Scratch Wiki. Merging them would not only clutter the new combined template up, but it makes it a bit harder to use each individual one. No support.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they all have different uses.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about all nine of them, I'm talking about just the first three, just the next four, and just the last two. Turning 9 into 3, not 9 into 1. I mean, how different could  Done and  Not done be? All we would need to do would be like {{done|no}}

See what I mean?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Because it would make using them more complicated and break existing usages. I didn't think you were talking about making them all a single template anyways.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

100,000! :D

We're almost at 100,000 total edits! :D
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

were almost at 95500 right now ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty close. ;)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 16:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Just thoughts

Hasn't the Wiki already added all informative articles about anything at Scratch? I try to look for something new to add, but there's always the article. I think that there should be a different kind of articles to be added, now that (I think) the basic articles about Scratch are complete. If you have ideas of what could I (Or anyone else) create articles of, they I'd be pleased to hear; I haven't created a single article but editing those without much information. Thanks :)
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 08:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't be thinking, "hmm... This Wiki already covers everything about Scratch. Let's just open the Wiki up to new types of articles so we can make some more and edit". Wrong. Instead, we should be focusing on perfecting the already present articles on Scratch. The basic articles are not complete yet, as everyone I go to lacks enough information or needs lots of linking,
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 12:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

All right :P I've edited a few already, but of course, I also was willing to create new ones ;) Thanks anyway for replying.
Tcodina (talk | contribs) 12:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Smilies are causing problems

Every time someone uses the {{s}} template before a scratchsig, it causes a line break and loss of indentation.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example:
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I already started this discussion on Template talk:S

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

and then it got moved User talk:KrIsMa#Template:S ')

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I got the bug fixed!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

i see what you did to it. Thanks a lot! ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks a lot again. your edit kinda fix {{sqrt}} ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So by fixing one bug on a template, I can fix other templates. I like this new Wiki super power!
Anyway, you're welcome!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Look here

What do you have to comment about it?
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 13:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Indifferent. I use the Vector skin, so the outdent may be different. I'll test it in my sandbox.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now I've noticed that it's barely off at all on either skin. See my sandbox to see what it looks like for you.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem?
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Dach

Add dach to the interwiki table because it is more plausible than de.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 13:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? de is more standard.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 3sa12.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with using de (it's the standard language abbreviation for "deutsch").
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, DACH is a German acronym of countries where it is spoken: Germany (D), Austria (A), Switzerland (CH). de, as Mathfreak said, is the standard abbreviation for the language.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Help with Linking

I am having trouble linking. I need help with linking to another page in the wiki. Could someone help? Thanks!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Help:Links
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 14:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Add template?

Should we add the Template:Blocked user for every users who are currently banned that does not have this template?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This template was removed per community consensus.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Then why does this user still have the template? Also, if the template was removed, can you just delete the template?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

1. We forgot to remove it, I just fixed it. 2. I also deleted it. At the time we decided to remove the template, I did not have the power to delete it, as it was protected and I was not an admin.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)