Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 68

This page is archive 68 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

Mobile theme

This discussion got lost a while ago. AFAICT, adding a mobile MediaWiki theme wouldn't require that much work, and would make mobile browsing a whole lot better (it's not fun right now).
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 03:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Meh, I guess. But who actually goes on the Scratch Wiki on their mobile device anyway?
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 22:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I do!
Realtheawesome67 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I do too!
spgame05 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I do too. :P
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 02:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well then. :P
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 19:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

IMHO it should really be responsive. But that would break some of the articles (especially ones with tables, eg. List of Block Workarounds). I wanted to do this ages ago.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. It would be nice to have a mobile version of the Wiki though. ;)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

+1
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A newer style on block categories

{This conversation was moved from jvvg's talk page. -sci}

Hello jvvg, I have tried to create a mock-up of some block categories. Would you accept the mockup located here? If so, you could apply it to the original Motion Blocks page. Then, I could do the rest; Looks, Sound, Pen, etc.
Julianthewiki (talk | contribs) 02:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That actually looks like a neat style! One thing that I'm slightly worried about though is the usefulness of the category image on the right. Would it be really useful with a visual list?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point Ernie. Other than that, I'm all for it!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we move this discussion to the CP? I feel like it should be, considering how it will be impacting several articles.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! I've wanted someone to do that for a while :)
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we fix autoconfirmed?

 Not done
Like as in an autoconfirmed user needs to edit _ amount of times in a specific time in order to get this user right, like in Wikipedia. Some people get a wiki account t just for the fun of it and end up never editing, therefore they are considered "new" and the others are considered "experienced" soo think the autoconfirmed right should not be given immediately after a user is confirmed.
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

therefore, we can use the autoconfirmed protection that actually does something, because autoconfirming right now does nothing  :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should let new users earn this right. However, will current autoconfirmed users lose this right and then they have to earn it again?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 21:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I was planning on making it so you earn it, by being active and editing regularly :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any easy way to do that, though. I can tell you from personal experience that MW extensions are very difficult to work with.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible for the bureaucrats to manually make users who are active to have autocomfirmed users rights?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 22:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. However, I think scmb1 already has enough on her hands, given that (I think) she is a student at MIT. We also already throw a lot of Wiki stuff at her (like upgrading bot users, banning people, making software changes, etc.)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ doesn't the mediawiki package include autoconfirmed rights in the first place?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify, why shouldn't all registered users have auto confirmed rights?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking, there should be a distinction between people who edit the wiki regularly and people who just join the wiki and not edit

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but could you give me an example of why that would be useful?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Using this autoconfirmed, we can protect pages better. for example, Archives because we don't want new users to edit it and possibly mess up the content, but we also want experienced autoconfirmed users to fix and issues if possible.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Then again, how often are we going to find issues in archives? I feel that the admins are good enough for fixing small issues like that.

I still feel that not automatically giving Wikians the auto confirmed rights does have potential because I do remember seeing many Wikians do 15 or less edits in their entire career. In fact, now that I look at Special:UserList, there are hundreds of users without user pages, contrib pages, or even talk pages! Some even lack all 3!

Then again, by not automatically giving the rights, we'd be blocking out a huge chunk of potential editors from useful rights. With 800+ Wikians here, there are at least 750 who haven't been devoted enough to make it to 200 edits.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ok. thanks for all the replies! since editing mediawiki is complicated, i can't say to 'fix autoconfirm for future protection problems'! :)
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should set a low barrier to earning autoconfirmed rights. Basically, once they've edited 10 times, AND after 1 week. That way it'll actually do something to protect pages against new users who don't know what they're doing.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If the barrier of entry is so low, why have an additional barrier? Users accept as editors have already proven themselves as Scratchers- is that not barrier enough? Has there ever been a case of a new editor messing up the wiki in a big way?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 15:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

if this is the case, why don't we delete that user right? Isn't it the same as users usergroup because it is given when the user group is given?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Scmb1: Here's a link to probably the most interesting Wikian's talk page: User talk:Mrsrec

Although I do agree with KrIsMa. Now that you've brought it up, if a Scratcher has already proven themselves by being a good Scratcher, that does sound good enough. Why have the group then?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is that talk page so interesting?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 16:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

What happened is a bit personal (I am sure he wouldn't allow us to publicize it) but ErnieParke just wanted to answer scmb1's question on

“	Has there ever been a case of a new editor messing up the wiki in a big way	”
– scmb1

;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:24, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thank you for doing some clarification @KrIsMa. I'm still nervous though because no one's left a reply on my talk page, leaving my a bit suspenseful on the issue.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Emoticon Template

I feel like the one downside of Wiki talk pages compared to the Scratch forums are no smileys. Why are smileys useful? They help one understand more clearly the purpose one is trying convey with text. Without them it can be difficult at times to see into the emotion such as if someone is joking or being serious or a bit frustrated. And hey, they're a lot of fun!

Could I upload very low-res smileys (the exact same as the forums ones) and then create a template to use them. Like

{{smiley|:)}}

Would make the :) face. I feel like it would just be fun to have. Also, using smileys on new users' talk pages will make stuff less intimidating.moh, and could I make it since I could use some template practicing? :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the images are already present and have templates, just under names rather than symbols. However, at least I think the template would be nice.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I found that out afterwards.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the template would be nice because I can only remember the {Smiley} template, and the other smily names are less obvious. A unified template would be much more comfortable to use.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe even shorten it down to { {s} }.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

 ? Just testing. Sorry. I think there should be a template.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start making the templates! I'll put the actual template under {s}, but I will create another template named {smiley} that will pass template information into {s}, just in case people prefer {smiley} over {s}. If we decide that we don't want {smiley}, it can always be deleted!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Bugs

I finally created the templates Template:S and Template:Smiley, except I'm running into a bug here. Take this nice smiley for example: =)

For some reason, the switch statement in Template:S isn't catching =D, =), or =(, but it is catching =|. Any ideas on ways to fix this?
There is one interesting behavior to note. Whenever I replace {{{1}}} with =D in the switch statement, I get the correct results. When I keep {{{1}}} but pass in =D, I get this error.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done

I decided to remove support for those smilies since my fixes don't seem to work.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking into discussion threading-- your thoughts?

Hi all! :) I've been thinking a lot lately about how we can make the wiki more welcoming for new editors and I've been realizing that a lot of the conventions of communication are difficult to learn at first. One thing that is particularly hard (for me even, and I've been doing this for awhile) is knowing how to participate in discussions, like the ones on the community portal here. It can be hard to know where to put your comment, how much to indent it, and how to sign it. So, I've been looking into extensions that might help. Extension:DiscussionThreading looks like it might work for our purposes. The posts would look a little different (like this, but with our skin and signatures), but it would provide the sig and timestamp for you, and show in the editing window where to post the comment. Basically, it *can* be used just like our discussions now, but it helps you out. There are other extensions that are more strictly formatted, like Extension:Discussion, that I would be more than willing to look into, if you're interested, but that transition would require more effort, both from you and from me. Anyway, what are your thoughts about adding threading? How do you feel about these extensions? Any of the options would result in some changes in the way we have discussions, but the hope is that they will make it easier.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm going to talk about Extension:DiscussionThreading right now. Extension:Discussion doesn't seem great for switching a mature wiki to. (Just showing off my linking skills. ;P)

I'm not sure i like how every message would show up in the entire TOC. There's also the fact that many of us have been doing it this way for a long time now, and while new users might find it a little easier, is it worth it if the experienced people then have trouble responding? Also, 66 CP archives, not to mention all the talk pages, would look wacky.

What do some other people say about this? Looking for input from users both new and old.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, nice links. I'll edit my original post to make it more clear what we're talking about. And thanks for your feedback as well. The responding interface seems pretty clear to me and I don't think it would muddle things up too much for experienced users, but let's see what others think. These are all things to consider.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

the levels may be very hard to distinguish from each other level and when I saw that image it took me a while to understand it, I think talk discussions are ok at this moment :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

New users don't contribute to the discussions because they don't know how. Think of it, on the Scratch forums and on project pages, there is always a very simple text box at the bottom of the page waiting for you to type into it and his "submit". On the Wiki, I don't think they are understanding that you hit "edit" and then scroll down, indent, and sign your posts. I don't like the idea of it automatically being done. Scmb1, all we need is a simple 5-minute tutorial video, professionally done, on how the wiki works and how to edit things and discuss. Until this video is made and is shown to every new user, he or she will have trouble fitting in, feel excluded, lost, confused, and quit.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A video or Scratch project is a great idea and that's definitely something we should discuss. But I'm still not necessarily sold on the idea that discussions are easy after a little bit of instruction. I'm not sure... Let's hear from some more people. What's the main concern about adding the extension? Is it that you don't like how it looks? Do you think it will make things more confusing? In what way?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well, my concern is that we still have the old talk pages and they will look starkly different from the new ones. I also think that DiscussionThreading would not work at all, but Discussion might.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah? What do you like better about Discussion?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I got an edit conflict, so I'm reposting what I have, but it has some ideas that pertain to your new question @scmb1.

My main concern with DiscussionThreading is the amount of emphasis it puts into the title. It not only puts extra buttons up there, but it also states who you're replying to as well as dates. Those features make the page feel cluttered, and besides, it's visually harder to see who is replying to who.

As for Discussion, that looks like it could work. My main question with that is how does comment wrapping work?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I personally don't think the look is too appealing. This seems more clean-cut.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

true.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep. But if discussion threading is something we think would be convenient and make the barrier of entry to the wiki lower, I could look into cleaning up the look-- the extension is open source.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely do something like this. Not only is wiki discussion confusing and a pain, some of us disagree on how it should be done! :P I think Extension:Discussion looks more polished and easier to use.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:40, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Extension:Discussion does look nicer, I agree. Of course, it will involve much more change in the way we have discussion, so we're gonna have to make sure more people are on board.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 16:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The only problem I have with Discussion is that it is going to be difficult to archive. DisussionThreading is easy to archive, but as many have already stated, it looks quite cluttered.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

If we take up Discussion, we could try putting {Done} and {Not done} to good use. That would make archiving easier, and would allow bots to archive the CP, though that's a side effect.

Anyway, I found another extension for talk pages. Although its currently experimental, it could be worth looking into: Extension:LiquidThreads

Edit: Good news! I found an entire category of talk page extensions for MediaWiki! Link
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

LQT looks scratchin' boss. The problems it has are that it creates way too many subpages, and makes it hard to track messages.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 1

I like LiquidThreads personally.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I like it too. But it looks like it hasn't been maintained anymore?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It isn't maintained at the moment, but LiquidThreads stills looks nice.

Anyway, looking through the category of gal page extensions I linked to above, I found another interesting (and maintained) extension: Extension:PageDisqus

The only things I don't like about the extension is how it looks like social media in a way, and how it doesn't have a lot of documentation, but it does look a lot friendlier.

Anyway, the list of extensions so far is:

• Extension:DiscussionThreading
• Extension:Discussion
• Extension:LiquidThreads
• Extension:PageDisqus

ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Here are my comments on each one:

• DiscussionThreading: Looks really clunky and problematic; in addition, the TOC shows every message
• LiquidThreads: Looks very nice, even though it isn't still maintained
• Discussion: Also looks pretty nice
• PageDisqus: Putting comments directly on the page is probably not a good idea

jvvg (talk | contribs) 21:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• DiscussionThreading: Same concerns as jvvg
• LiquidThreads looks OK, but i don't really like dead code
• Discussion might be my favorite
• PageDisqus: For our wiki, especially considering how we aim for people who don't know what a wiki is to read it, having all of the discussions right there doesn't seem very good.

Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• DiscussionThreading: Clutter. Same concerns as everyone else.
• LiquidThreads: Okay, but it creates a lot of subpages, is very hard to track and it might flood NewPages.
• Discussion: Probably the best, but difficult to archive.
• PageDisqus: Same concerns as above.
  Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 2

I looked into LiquidThreads again and it looks like, while it isn't being maintained anymore, some of the same people are now working on this project: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Flow But it won't be released for quite a while. They say they plan to make it easy to transition from LiquidThreads to Flow, so I'm starting to think it might not be a bad idea to give LiquidThreads a try. If you want, I can possibly set it up to work opt-in only so some of you can try it out on your talk pages.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know how necessary it is to have some sort of feature like this - my account is less than a day old and I'm having no trouble with the talk pages!

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 20:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I think discussion is the best one. But hopefully flow will be better. I will opt in if possible thanks.,!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion is much less well-documented and much less commonly used than LiquidThreads, which is why I'm leaning towards LQT. What do you like better about Discussion, KrIsMa?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the simpler look?

Anyway, although I don't want to submit my main user talk for testing, I would be fine with testing LQT here: User talk:ErnieParke/Sandbox
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

We definitely need a tutorial...

...on how to mod Scratch 2.0. We have done it for 1.4...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and please whoever makes it 'use pictures' and make it as understandable as possibly for newer people who do not understand fully. To get the jist.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know how you do. In a 2.0 mod do you add blocks? I don't know. But I agree we need a tutorial.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

A modification of Scratch can contain anything from new blocks to an improved interface to a completely new goal.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok! Thanks Mathfreak! That explains a lot. I know a lot of them add blocks. Does that hurt Scratch?
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by hurting Scratch? If you mean do they surpass the Scratch program in the amount of stuff that can be added, maybe, but Scratch still has a strong community.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought it might like hurt your offline editor. Obviously it doesn't.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Would This Be Pointless Or Not?

There's an article on the Community Guidelines. There's an article on the Terms of Use. But, the Privacy Policy doesn't have a wiki article! Look: Privacy Policy. Should we create one, or would that be pointless?
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't like that. The Community Guidelines are less formal whereas the Terms of Use re very technical, strict, and legal.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 21:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good. But there is a page that states it. Maybe on the page put what the policy means then give the link to the actual document. On the wiki page, make it more understandable.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:34, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Tweaker

Unfortunately, the Tweaker account has not been promoted to a bot yet, so unfortunately you will see its edits regardless of your preferences. I'll ask Scmb1 to promote it.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better to have it not a bot so we can monitor it's progress for a little while.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep WM off until afternoon Wednesday (eastern time) to facilitate more testing.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we stop with custom sigs?

Custom sigs are making it more of a pain to read talk pages because the formatting isn't consistent and they often use flashy colors that distract my eyes from the actual message. Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if everyone switched to using the default signature? This isn't like the forums (where you express yourself with your signature), because on the forums there is a set format to the page, and that is unchangeable. However, on the Wiki, sigs are the only way to tell who posted what.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with jvvg. It just needs to be simple. BTW, I found this while I was creeping around on the Recent Changes. Hehe.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Just wondering - isn't custom signs just "not recommended"? It might be hard for me to adjust back to regular sigs. (speaking about that I haven't used my old sig in years!!!!!!)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 23:51, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with custom sigs here. To me, they don't seem flashy or make the talk pages harder to read for me. In fact, the only custom sig I've seen so far is KrIsMa's. Are there more by chance?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Many people think I don't appreciate creativity, but the fact is that I like consistency. If everyone uses the same signature, then it's a lot easier to read discussion pages, and the formatting is more consistent and therefore easier to manage.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If we stop c.s then we are literally changing the rules, because the rules say - custom sigs are not recommended, and now we want to say "custom sigs are not allowed"

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

And- let's see who agrees to stopping custom sigs

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ You are stating that changing the rules is something that's never done before. In fact, Wiki rules change periodically. I really posted this topic just so people would think about it. Your signature is fine, but some new users who aren't really experienced with how discussions should look make signatures that really don't work well in the discussion flow.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

No, no I wasn't stating that rules haven't changed I think telling people that their signature is odd is a good way because an admin told me a while ago that my sig's avatar was too big, too. Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures could be elaborated on :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Maybe no GIF signatures would be a good idea. But someone may have a GIF profile pic on Scratch... Hmm...
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

My regular signature is also flashy, see!
KrIsMa (talk | contribs) 01:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I like your custom sig better. It fits in more than others'
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all custom sigs are bad, but the ones by new users tend to mess up the formatting.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok! you mean Talk:Talk_(disambiguation)?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@jvvg: Like KrIsMa said, we could always comment on their talk page about their sig. Editing an article quickly several times in a row can clog the recent changes, yet we only leave a message on their talk page.

Or, maybe, we could have custom signatures be request only? Meaning the user has to request the custom signature in the CP before an EW or admin would put it into place.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 1

@KrIsMa: That's the one that made me think of posting this topic. Also, I saw you use MuseScore. Do you like this piece that I wrote? It's called "The Modern Piano Sonata", mainly because I use the beginning few bars to present my opinion on modern art musically.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

hmm I was thinking about that earlier, but I thought it might be hard to maintain now that I think about it, I think request a c.s is a good idea, but we can't really enforce it, either. (edit conf X2)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We could also institute standard format requirements for signatures, and require users to fix them if they don't meet those requirements.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@jvvg It's actually really nice! I like how you used the few bars to represent modern art!! Maybe adding a tonal center? I love the Allegro Vivo part!!!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This was mostly created from sketches that I have, and that section was written at a time when I was feeling extremely depressed, so I used that to represent my feelings.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ahh the power of feelings; it's prevalent in music! If we are gonig to create a template for custom sigs, please do it here thanks!!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I've composed my own little piece over the past few days. It's somewhat cloud like, once you here it. Would you two mind listening to my piano and composing skills? The original m4a is here, while the converted mp3 is here.

By the way, shouldn't this discussion be happening on our user talk pages instead of the CP?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ yes lol it should - anyways great song!!! i love the flow of the notes!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you think of this, which is a mostly complete version of what I posted earlier?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Very nice! I like the ending

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@jvvg: I also like your piece! It has some very interesting parts in it, and it ends nicely.

Although, I'm not sure that I liked some of the pauses. Still, it's a nice piece!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The awkward pauses in those two bars of the C# minor section are intentionally awkward. The rest of them are either for tension or a result of a certain person being too lazy to fix them. :P
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

ErnieParke you should sign up for a account on MuseScore and publish some of them! then we can follow each other lol --- however there is a 5 piece upload only limit on musescore :(

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Too bad about the limit. Anyway, I don't write music that much anymore. I originally just wrote music to be annoying (i.e. not playable), as evidenced by my first piano piece.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yeah that limit :( lol that piano song is soooo funny! i like the tempos and the title lol
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You should also see (not hear, I don't recommend trying to play it) my very first composition ever: The Apocalypse Quartet in B Flat Major, scored for violin, accordion, flute, and trumpet. The bizarre instrumentation is intentional.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It almost sounds like a Christmas song ;) do you want to hear my uncompleted song of death ;/ lol

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually nvm were really off topic

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@KrIsMa: I just got MuseScore, so we'll see if I join or not. I only occasionally compose.

@jvvg: Nice first piece jvvg! I agree with KrIsMa that it does sound like a Christmas song, and chaotic at the same time. Interesting.

Anyway, if we want to move this discussion to a talk page, how about User talk:jvvg/music or User talk:jvvg#music?

Also, jvvg, what did you think of my piano piece above?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Divider 2

1. Yes, we can move it to my talk page. 2. Yes, I did like it. It was very nice.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Moved. Please keep content under this line related to "not using custom signatures"! Thanks!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Scratchsig ftw! :P
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Tweaker Feature

I noticed that people didn't like custom sigs, and I thought I might use a simple solution. I'll use KrIsMa as my example.

Any time {{User:Krett12/Sig}}

FLASHY SIGNATURE BY KRETT12

appears, it would have "switch code" activated. What I mean by switch code is this:

{{User:??????/Sig}} --> --> --> --> <scratchsig>??????</scratchsig>

Which would look like this:
Krett12 (talk | contribs)

Of course, the solution to this problem is probably not having a bot remove it.

Krett12 (talk | contribs) 12:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please change that signature to not be a header.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jvvg did it.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How would the "switch code" know when to start? I mean, some GIFS aren't flashy and even some with fast transition speeds aren't, too.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

relating to nil user pages

Recently an attempt was made to create uncreated user pages to prevent red links to user pages. A template was placed on red link user pages that mostly said "this is to prevent red links". Wondering about any objections to this.
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I remember veggie didn't have a user page even though he had the chance to make one, so it looks like he didn't want one. As for other Wikians, I think it would be nice not to create their user pages because it would be useful for historical perspective, and what would the user page have anyway?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I also think it's a bit insulting to have a user or user talk page say it was only created to prevent red links.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. If anyone is wondering, the exact content of the template looks like this:

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, Community_Portal!
We're glad to have you here! The Scratch Wiki is a large wiki which anyone, including you, can contribute to and edit. With 1,493 articles, 3,708 users, 61 active users, 340,083 edits and 4,140 files, the Scratch Wiki has been thriving since December 6, 2008.

Here's your first stop: the "Welcome" tutorial.

Welcome!

For a quick summary of the tutorial, see the:

Cheatsheet

Have any questions? Ask on the:

Community Portal

We hope you'll make great edits!

Scratchteam (talk | contribs)

Should we keep it? I can I personally think it's good. Besides, if they don't have a userpage, they haven't come online in years and they wouldn't care. Seems okay to me. What are your views? I'm open to ideas.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

who knows they don't care? Some people actually want to be unique and have no user page, and some dont care about their user page, however, as jvvg said, I think its kinda insulting too. When the user comes back on the wiki and sees someone made their user page they might get a bit mad

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but how I got the idea for this whole thing is I learned that the whole reason Jvvg's new authentication system creates your user page for you is "to prevent red links". And when I tried to get my user page deleted, nobody would let me. So, I'm not trying to be mean, but if we don't get to make our own user pages, why do they?
-unsigned comment by Krett12 (talk | contribs)

My authentication system was simply a port of an existing MediaWiki extension. I just adapted it for Scratch. It just so happened that one of the features was creating blank user and talk pages. Also, as stated above, keeping the pages non-existent makes them more historically accurate. Modifying something that is mildly annoying at the expense of historical accuracy (not to mention the reputation of the user, the message is actually quite rude) is not the best thing for the Wiki.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay. How about we continue to make the templates, but we change the template to have different wording? I understand how this would look to you.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure, if we delete the userpages again it really contains no more accuracy anymore because there will be a deletion notice on the page.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that could be an issue. But right now, the template is only used on a couple pages, and they're all old users, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to just delete them.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 05:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

NoBots override

The current message seems a bit like barking at the user.

Here's the current message (copied from the source code):

Important: although your talk page has the {{NoBots}} template on it, an exception was added for your talk page to override it. See User:WikiMonitor#NoBots_override for details.

Here's a better idea, anyone think I should put it in? :

Note: The Wiki Community felt that you weren't really getting the point of these messages, so there was an exception made to keep posting these messages, even though you have asked for bots to not post on your talk page.

What do you think?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

that's coming across a bit aggressive, adding 'weren't really getting the point' may be a bit daunting

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

anything not like blaming someone would be good, personally I think the old message is better because it just says 'an exception' not 'not getting the point' but good start! :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will make the page User:Tweaker/NoBots/Override/NewMessage and we can make revisions on its talk page. I think that'd be better than the community portal. So let's all go over there when I make this.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 12:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Alternatives to the Paint Editor Page

I kinda talked about this above. Anyway, instead of putting the first revision on my userpage, can't I just put it in my sandbox? I am going to get on a computer today for the first time in a week so I will create as soon as I can. I am putting it in my sandbox because then you fellow wikians can help me make it better. Have a nice day!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Whaaaaaaat! The Paint Editor page is the longest on the Wiki and likely the most detailed.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Longest by size used to be Scratch File Format (2.0) until I moved the block selectors to their own page.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's why it is going to be it's own separate page.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 21:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I have finished the first revision of it on my sandbox. Read the bottom of the page!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Custom welcome messages messing up format

Again with consistency, the custom welcome messages with big messages and colorful messages (I'll admit i love colors) really break the format and can't one just use the regular format to welcome people?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i'll stop with using those. I just used HTML on my welcoming messages to make it look good, but I didn't know that it was messing up the format. I'll stop using HTML on them. :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 21:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

don't be sorry, it was an honest mistake, and thanks for understanding! on the wiki we are really fussy about being consistent ;) this leaves me thinking if all wiki members are punctilious :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's about time we updated the old, automated welcome message. What do you think? The only change that's ever been made to is it turning "Welcome to {{SITENAME}}" into "Welcome to the Scratch Wiki!"
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 03:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We can try to convince jvvg ;) again we can personally welcome them without any fancy smantsy shtuff ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The current message is stored at MediaWiki:Confirmaccount-welc. Any suggestions for a better one? Please note that there can only be one message, the software does not support going through multiple.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 12:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

maybe we can create a hybrid of all the message suggestions if we can't decide on one ;) I'll suggest one ondlce I get on my comp!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Here is my idea of a new message.

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki! We hope you will contribute much and well. You probably want to read the help pages before doing anything. If you have any questions, you can ask anyone on the Scratch Wiki. We will appreciate it of you make a lot of edits to the wiki, but make sure the edits are good quality edits. Again, welcome and have fun!

Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the sentence "We will appreciate it if you make some edits to wiki".
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? Is it because I did not say "to the wiki?" If that is the case, I fixed it now.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 22:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I like it! I guess my blue box is becoming famous or something :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

i was about to say the same thing lol! can we also change the context?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Why?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the message proposed by Swampert11 is nice. If a few more people voice approval, I will add it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to tell you that only admins can do it when I remembered you'd been promoted.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

do we want to contribute much? I mean didn't we have a discussion about "quantity not quality"? :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, we had a discussion about quality is better than quantity, not the other way around. Also, did you read it carefully? I said to contribute much and well.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Oops typo I ment quality not quantity :-[ doesn't contribute much mean a lot? And didn't we say not to focus on editing a lot just quality?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I said contribute much and well.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 21:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I see now! And please, it was a mistake, please calm down ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@swamp: It's kinda redundant saying "we hope you will contribute..." then "we will appreciate it if you make some edits..." Otherwise, *clicks imaginary love-it button*
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with that? Most people who join the wiki make zero edits, so I do not see anything wrong with that.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If they make zero edits, they probably wouldn't care to read the welcome message either...

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 22:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, they make about 5 edits to their user page, a few edits to articles, and then are done often.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 22:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you like it how I changed it now "We will appreciate it of you make a lot of edits to the wiki"?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I will support this.
Margaret1618 (talk | contribs) 22:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Now, I think we should add it.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is a typo in it (it says "of" instead of "if"). I think it should be something more like this (with the famous box): Welcome to the Scratch Wiki! You probably want to read the help pages before doing anything. If you have any questions, you can ask anyone on the Scratch Wiki on their user talk page, or you can also bring it up on the Community Portal. We hope you will make many useful edits to the Wiki.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should change the second sentence and should be like this: You will need to read the help pages before making any changes to the Scratch Wiki.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 02:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, seems too strict
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think new Scratch Wiki users have to read the help pages in order to prevent them from asking unnecessary questions.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 02:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"Please read some help pages before making any edits, as they provide a very useful basis for wiki editing."
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome Message Divider 1

How 'bout Welcome to the Scratch Wiki! Please read read the help pages before making any edits, as they provide a very useful basis for editing. If you have any questions, you can ask anyone on the Scratch Wiki on their user talk page, or you can also bring it up on the Community Portal. We hope you will make many useful edits to the Wiki.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 11:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the "ask anyone" part, because we happen to have lots of inactive and/or inexperienced editors. Though i suppose those of us who hawk RC can reply on the questioner's talk page.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki! Please read read the help pages before making any edits, as they provide a very useful basis for editing. If you have any questions, you can ask any active user on the Scratch Wiki on their user talk page, or you can also bring it up on the Community Portal. We hope you will make many useful edits to the Wiki.
Better?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 11:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but how do they know if they are active?
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 11:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Should it all be in bold? It just doesn't look quite as nice as (mostly) plain text.

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 13:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the welcome message would be best made by a bot account (Tweaker maybe? ;) ), not the account that accepts the request. How about this:

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki! Please read the welcome tutorial before making any edits, as they provide a very useful basis for editing. If you have any questions, you can ask any active user on the Scratch Wiki on their user talk page, or you can also bring it up on the Community Portal. We hope you will make many useful edits to the Wiki.

Also, I am once again bringing up my thesaurus idea

Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not the account that creates the account?

@anon I think the bold is just to separate it from the surrounding text here.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

1. The bold was just to show which part was the message. I probably should have used the quote template or something. 2. I think the accepting admin works better, rather than a bot. Besides, the software already puts the message there, so let's take advantage of it. 3. You can usually tell which users are active by taking one look at recent changes, or alternatively I can link it to Special:ActiveUsers or just make it say "my talk page".
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think we should just make it say "my talk page".
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 19:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki! Before you begin to edit, please read the welcome tutorial as they provide a very useful basis for editing. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my talk page, or you can also bring it up on the Community Portal. We hope you make many useful edits to the Wiki.

Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time, don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing, we hope you will contribute much and well, if you have any trouble ask me or an active wiki editor, again welcome and fun!

How about that?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure about that message because your message left out some important information such as who to ask when you have a question.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time, don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing, we hope you will contribute much and well, if you have any trouble ask me or an active wiki editor, again welcome and fun!

How about that?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 15:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks good to me? Everyone else agree?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

is this to Swampert's or Jaycee's? Both could be improved grammatically
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 16:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I think to Jaycee's. I don't like that Jaycee's has like 10 comma's in it.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 16:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time! Don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing. We hope you will contribute much and well! if you have any trouble ask me or an active wiki editor. Again welcome and fun!

I think that's better?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 16:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean Welcome and have fun!
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time! Don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing. We hope you will contribute much and well! if you have any trouble ask me or an active wiki editor. Welcome and fun!

Now?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

No. It should be like this.

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time! Don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing. We hope you will contribute much and well! if you have any trouble ask me or an active wiki editor. Welcome and have fun!

You forgot the word have in the last sentence.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time! Don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing. We hope you will contribute much and well! if you have any trouble ask me or an active wiki editor. Welcome and have fun!

Now?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The first letter in the fourth sentence should be capitalized.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time! Don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing. We hope you will contribute much and well! If you have any trouble ask me or an active wiki editor. Welcome and have fun!

Now?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There should be a comma after trouble.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the Scratch Wiki, have a great time! Don't forget to read the help pages before you start editing, as they can provide you with helpful information about editing. We hope you will contribute much and well! If you have any trouble, ask me or an active wiki editor. Welcome and have fun!

Now?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I like jvvg's text better, but with a change to ask the user who created the account.

"Welcome to the Scratch Wiki! Please read read the help pages before making any edits, as they provide a very useful basis for editing. If you have any questions, you can ask me on my user talk page, or you can also bring it up on the Community Portal. We hope you will make many useful edits to the Wiki." (bold marks changes)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works great. If we get a few people to approve, I'll add this. Also, keep in mind that constantly changing tiny bits and arguing won't actually accomplish anything. Keep in mind that this is just a message that users will see when they join the Wiki and all it's really saying is to read the help pages and who to ask for help.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I will approve jvvg's modified message, but there is a typo in it which is that read is used twice in a row.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 18:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I like it, and I vote for a blue box.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 18:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

At least i meant to, but i got edit-conflicted twice by jvvg...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Sorry.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. You did say that you would do it. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Help:Redirects

Currently, it seems that there is disagreement (or just lack of understanding) over what a redirect should and should not do. We should improve Help:Redirects to explain when redirects are necessary and not necessary. (Thank you KrIsMa for bringing this up on my talk page)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 11:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Hide the signature section in prefs?

Should we hide Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal-signature, as it seems to be disabled in any case, and we don't really want custom sigs?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea.

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 15:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The one issue is if someone who uses a custom sig wants to return to the default signature.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

But i tested, and changing it doesn't work anyways.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I use it to expedite inserting a signature and it has been very useful, if hiding it was an option, would it still retain the custom signature preference? :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it does work? It would only be invisible, not actually removed, so you could get it back with your browser's devtools.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it works. I used it when ScratchSig wasn't working to implement an alternative sig (see this page for an example).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ to be honest it took me a long time to make it so four tildas could turn into my custom sig (since it substituted the page not append the text) :) I can explain how if you want :) and ok great!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, it substitutes the page.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

New WM Feature

 Feature added!! Normally Jvvg would do this kind of thing, but since I'm gonna take over WM in about a week or two, I'll ask you guys.

What do you think of WM trying to move files such as (Screen Shot 2014-06-17 at 9.34.38 AM). Oh, and Screen Shot 2014-06-17 at 9.34.38 AM is a real file. It just reads the text, "Create the page "Make a Sprite" on this Wiki!".

I will move it, or maybe add the {{delete}} flag.

The hard part is having it guess what the NEW name should be.

What do you guys think?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Automatically moving files is not really a great idea, IMO.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

+1. A human needs to change it. Maybe WM could warn a user who uploads an image like that though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it could detect a bunch of numbers.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:01, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Then it's on. It will detect bad names and warn the user.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Username Page

It says in the 'About' section that the User Icon cannot be bigger than 8MB. I don't think it should say that. If someone wants to know that, they would search "user icon". That would bring them to User Icon. That page states that the user icon file can't exceed 8MB. The User Icon isn't even apart of your username. So I think that the part about the file size can't be bigger than 8MB should be deleted from the Username page. Edit On!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

This should probably go on Talk:Usernames.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But no one checks there.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 19:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

hehe, since there is an active discussion there I think it is safe to move this to the talk page ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, this made me burst out laughing, I removed it a long time ago so I don't know why you are still talking about this.  Done
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't removed when I posted the original post. As long as it has been taken off, I am ok.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiMonitor

Has User:WikiMonitor been off? I accidentally forgot to sign a post and I didn't get a message telling me that I didn't sign a post. Is this an error or do you have so it doesn't send messages anymore? Has anyone else experienced this?
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 16:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Messages have to be longer than 35 characters to trigger the notification, and also can't be counted as a minor edit. They also need to have a colon added at the beginning or have the text "new section" in the edit summary. This is how it tells between new messages and editing old ones.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Aah... Ok. How do you categorize new files?
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 18:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Taken from the file upload page:

“

Please categorize your file when uploading by including the code [[Category:PROPER CATEGORY]] in the text-box below. For a list of image categories, see the tree at Category:Images. Here are some suggestions. If your image is... A script — Category:Script Images Of the website — Category:Scratch Website Images Your user icon — Category:Users' Logos For your userpage — Category:Users' Images If it doesn't fit in any category, use Category:Other Images.

”

That means put it in the description textbox.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I did that and it still alerted me.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 21:51, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If it alerted you, you didn't put it in properly. Looking at the image (from the delete log), you need to put [[Category:Category]], including the brackets, as if it were a link.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 22:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Would This Make a Good Article

 Done

I made an engine recently for my unreleased project that allows for an infinite scrolling world. Here's what I mean. The world has a foreground and background consisting totally of sprites with width 480px. Now suppose I have 200 foreground and background clones combined— that would cause major lag. The infinite scrolling engine generates only the clones near to your current view based on the scroll x variable's value and some mathematics. Also, clones delete themselves when they get too far off, and will regenerate when you near that location again. Would that make a good article, how to create that?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, that sounds pretty cool! That could be a useful tutorial.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be an amazing tutorial! I would use it for sure.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll make it some time later today.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Articles

I have recently been creating some articles, and on scratch wiki home where it says 854 articles, it didn't change.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 14:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it will change eventually.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made so many articles and it didn't even change by 1.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 15:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It takes a while, it will change. The more articles, the longer it will take...I think. :)
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) Talk to me here! 16:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The Internet takes a while to do stuff like that.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 16:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It only counts articles made on the main Scratch Wiki, not talk pages, Scratch Wiki pages, Scratch Wiki talk, and so on ;)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, derpmeup is correct ;) only pages that don't have a prefix (such as Scratcher) not ones with prefixes (such as Scratch Wiki:Custom Signatures) ;)
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks!
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiMonitor Problem

When I created Scratch Wiki:Tools, WM didn't categorize it when I forgot to.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

This should be moved to jvvg's talk page. It says in WikiMonitor's messages to report any problems on his talk page. I've seen your talk page, you've seen WM's messages.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but I think it is because wm isn't on all the time ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

@KrIsMa, but WM told me on my talk page that I didn't categorize it, but he didn't categorize it either!
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 07:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the whole point of what I told you on my talk page. WikiMonitor DOES NOT categorize pages for you. It only tells you that you didn't categorize them, so you know to add one yourself. It would be near-impossible to make it properly automatically categorize pages, and actually impossible to automatically categorize files.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

it's hard to program a bot which categorizes pages for you, the best way is to only alert a Wikian to categorize the page himself, which is what the bot is doing ;) ps:that's a lot of emphasis :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Would this be ok?

Will it be ok if I create an article called How to make a car game?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that would be too general. Maybe "How to create a parking game" or "How to make a racing game".
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

How about how to make a racing game?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That would work. Make sure you say if it is like overhead or something. Just say "How to make a (type) racing game". Then I think you'll be fine. I'd love to see it when your done.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean with "type"?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There are different types of racing games.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I still feel like it's too general. There are racing games such as

• straight-up 2 car racing
• racing with police chasing you
• Mario-Kart style with items
• illusion of 3D with objects coming up he road to avoid
• Player vs CPU or player vs player
• some have car customization, some don't

some scroll, others don't

controls vary from game to game

programming the CPU may differ a lot such as detecting turns or following a path encoded into a list
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I knew there were different types.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll do one of those types. {
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 20:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesomesauce
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 21:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 10:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

New Privilege

It would be nice if regular Wikians could protect pages that you make. Admins would still be able to unprotect it. I feel like the Admins shouldn't be flooded by requests to protect pages. This may not get far, but I think it would be nice.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Neh, because I feel like then people would protect every article they make because they do lot want others editing them, they want it to be all theirs. Admins have to have some extra work to do.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought that their would be a page like the requested accounts page, and Admins just click reject or approve. Then, they would still be protecting them but, they wouldn't have to go to each individual page.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 21:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, it will mean more work for the admins.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I do not think people are asking the admins to protect a page that often.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I can vouch that it would be a lot of work. I already have enough to do processing account requests (I've gotten as many as 10 in one day). Also, the current system of just asking on a talk page works fine. It discourages users from asking for a page to be protected for no reason, as it's a bit more work than just clicking one button.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for explaining that to me.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 11:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would a user need a page they make protected anyways?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 17:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To archive old talk pages.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You can just ask an admin. It's not that hard to process those requests.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess their is no purpose.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I might agree to regular users being able to protect only subpages of their own user talk page, but aside from that, nah.

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 00:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Users can just as an admin to protect a page.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I know. That's why I said "I might agree".

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 01:05, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Is it just me

Is it just me or does your tools navbox have no "User contributions" and/or "Logs" cause mine does not :(
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It only shows user contributions and logs on a user page because it shows the contributions of a user and the logs of a user.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

oh yeah silly me: thank you !

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Your welcome! :)
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 08:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding Ugliness— Gaining an Understanding of Headers

It seems people are misinterpreting when headers like

==Header==

Are appropriate and when they should not be in the article. The best way to point out the problem is with the article File. Each header, first of all, is very large and has basically one sentence underneath it. This makes the article look ugly.

I think deep inside we all (most of us) have the same feeling but couldn't out it into words. So what am I saying? Don't make headers unless there is about a paragraph that takes up 4 lines of content underneath it. An article looks much better when headers actually have a lot of information instead of a sentence underneath it. As an alternative to headers, bullet points can be used for small sentences. Agreed?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

But there is only one thing that it does, how am I going to put that into 100 sentences?
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 19:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks for embodying that! yeah I couldn't think of how to say it too ;)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful summary.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:09, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Should we delete...

The unused files?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We should.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 02:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Leave the images of old versions of Scratch... those can be used somewhere probably...
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow I didn't realize how many images there are to delete. Lol have fun admins! XD
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

We should actually take a look at what can be used, though. Like 1.4 block images could totally be... maybe they could be incorporated into the template somehow? Or like each block could have an image of how its appearance has changed? I dunno.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know, I think block images should go unless they are very iconic.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Also remember that they can be restored if necessary.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Success!

[1]
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but what's so special about the image?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he deleted all the unused images.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked the unused images category, and they're still there for sure.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought he didn't delete the old scratch blocks? edit, yeah that's true.

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

I only deleted some of them. I'm keeping the ones I deem are worth keeping (like block images). I just thought it was funny that all 50 recent changes were by me.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

That's what you're trying to point out... It is funny!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ where did June 29^th go ;)
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 23:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Creative Characters Camp

I was thinking it would be nice to include the camp in the Scratch News, or maybe we should wait till it's finally started? Thoughts?
By the way, here's the official camp teaser: Coming July 7th....
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait until it is fully started.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 19:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am a counselor. Wait until the 7th. Once it is over, I will create an article about it with the other Counselors. The counselors will make the page. I will start it on my Sandbox.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 23:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget that Scratch Mentors have a sneak peak of the upcoming camp, so counselors won't be the only reliable source of information.

Anyway, that sounds like a good plan. Also, congratulations on becoming a camp counselor!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How do you become a counselor?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

You have to be chosen by the Scratch Team.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 23:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I wouldn't mind some inside-Wiki leaks about this camp thing, *wink* *wink*..Okay Ernie, keep your secrets. But I think I know what this is: the next collab camp.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I actually encountered a glitch. I went to the forums and I saw a forum that was supposed to be private relating to this, I reloaded the page and it was gone.
Krett12 (talk | contribs)

BTW, this si so much cooler than Collab Camp.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Doesn't seem that way to me.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I think this is as good as Collab Camp. :)
Derpmeup (talk | contribs) 00:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Scratch prefix

It really bugs me when we have articles with "Scratch" in the name, for example Scratch Extension Protocol. Since this is the *Scratch* wiki, it seems redundant. Can we rename them all?
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

If by "them all" you don't include ones that are official names and would sound weird without "Scratch", like ScratchR or ScratchEd. Scratch Extension Protocol would be doable, though.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I did a quick search, and it seems Scratch Extension Protocol is the only non-official name one. The others include Scratch Resources and Scratch Forums.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

We have Scratch Update History but without the word "Scratch" people might just think the article explains what update history is.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 13:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Template

How about a template called {{cloud}}, which looks like this.

This page has information about cloud data which new scratchers do not have access to.

JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

What is the point of making this template?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 17:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no point in doing so. It is just unneeded space being filled on the article. It's basically just acknowledging the fact that New Scratchers can't use it, which I'm sure they already know just from trying it out.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

And even if New Scratchers do not have access to it, they can still learn a lot by reading the article. Is template basically tries to drive new scratchers away from the article.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried to put that in. I was going to type but you can continue reading for when you become a scratcher but you is 2nd person.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 17:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It is still not needed. We might as well make a template that says "This page is a tutorial that teaches how to do something in Scratch". See what I'm saying? No reason to restate the obvious. :)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Better idea

One called {{Rewrite}}. It looks like this.

This article is not written properly, please rewrite it.

JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 15:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

As said on the old template requests page, the {{Wiki Standards}} template conveys the exact same meaning.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with jvvg, this template is not necessary and is a duplicate.
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 15:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

{{Wiki Standards}} means that some parts of it need improvement, but {{Rewrite}} means that the whole page needs to be rewritten, like starting the whole thing over again.
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 16:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"This article or section may not have content matching Scratch Wiki editing standards. Please improve it according to Scratch Wiki:Guidelines." That sounds a lot like the whole article needs to be rewritten.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Never mind..
JayceeMinecraft user | talk | contributions 16:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Too Many Template Requests

Maybe, like the bots, I will start a page at Scratch_Wiki:Template_Requests.

I'll start with the "Show preview" feature.

If anyone else wants to help, let me know.

BTW, DO NOT make this page for me because of edit conflicts.

Thanks.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Active Users

Why are there so few?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 01:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That's the question everyone has been wondering for a long time. I think the reason is that users join because they either just want to make a userpage and stuff, or they realize that editing the Wiki is actually a fair amount of work, and in either case decide it's not worth trying to stay active.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we could make a bot with admin privileges that protects their userpage and won't undo that until a week went by, and say, 200 edits? We have to make it high so they don't spam edits to get a userpage.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 01:22, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, that'd just be an unnecessary bot. Anyways, I asked his question a while ago. My thoughts is that editing the Wiki may not seem very fun at first, as new people always make mistakes, are informed, and almost feel belittled I guess or less superior. But hey, the rules are the rules.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

That wouldn't really accomplish anything. That would just annoy people.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Page with new page policies

Should we make a page saying what kinds of new pages should be created (e.g. no new collabs, only pages for notable mods, etc.)? Currently, they seem like unwritten rules. It's much easier to justify deleting a page if there is a written policy saying why.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Support.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Created
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

autoconfirm prot.

Does the autoconfirm protection really serve any purpose? I mean, all Users automatically get this right and non-users can't edit the wiki. Is it just a symbol of protection?!?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No, it's just symbolic. It signals to users that they should use caution when editing a page.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ahh, thanks!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Did guests used to be able to edit? Just askin' because of Scratch_Wiki:Welcome
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 17:55, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they ever could on this wiki. However, on the original one (hosted on Wikia, I think), it's possible that they could have.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)