Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 76

This page is archive 76 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

Editors PSA

Thank you to all editors who are active. I think the to do list right now is stated below:

• Update all pictures
• Update stub pages
• Update expand pages

Thanks again!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the PSA @-PRO-!

On a side note, maybe you would want to link to the "Articles to expand" and "article stubs" categories instead of their templates?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through and expanded some stubs in the past, I could help some more :)
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 02:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I meant to type "Reply to -PRO-" as the summary, haha - sorry about that!
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 02:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright! I will be gone this weekend. I might be able to look at Recent Changes but that's it.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Wedo Block and Motor Blocks

Is there a difference? Let me say I have no clue about any of these blocks, but I want to bring awareness that their pages need greatly expanded.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like one group is a subset of the other. The Lego WeDo blocks contains blocks that aren't motor blocks, like (tilt) and [when [tilt v] = (1)].
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Per ErnieParke
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 02:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions

What if there is something weird, like in these hypothetical discussions:

What should we do about these things? How can we improve it?
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

tell them truthfully that we can't understand, and wait for a reply ;)

usually for bad templates we just tell them

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Just saying, I can't block people. I have to contact a bureaucrat for that. Also, we only block people for making unnecessary articles if it's obvious vandalism. We also would warn (and if it persists, block) the users above for responses that were fairly rude.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope we never get someone like in the traffic lights example... The account process should have prevented that, and hopefully the pole vaulting example as well.

As for example #1, ask people to be kind to each other, and point towards the help page.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What gets me worried about the second one is this : The user is not bringing up an idea inappropriate for Scratch, so how is it hurting his wiki record for simply suggesting an idea. Creating an article on making orange soda might hurt his record, but he is only suggesting this.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I just want to let you know that I've edited the headers to sub-headers, as they were showing up as different topics in the TOC here. Thanks :)
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 03:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

New project!

I've just created the beginning of a big project here at User:derpmeup/Stub expanding. The goal of the project is for the members to expand any stubs/articles in need of expansion, so the wiki can have more substantive content. The page there is still being worked on, however. Feel free to join!
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 03:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea! I'll join when I have more time (math honors is hard)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I will join when I have time too. I have Acc Math(exponential and linear functions aren't easy), Acc Social Studies, Acc Science, Acc ELA, and Hockey. Doesn't leave much time.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I should be able to help on Friday after my College Success Skills presentation tomorrow.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@KrIsMa: Thanks!
@-PRO-: Thanks, it'll help the wiki. This week has been tremendously busy for me too, as it's the end of a trimester - I've been having some exams and 4-5 hours of homework each night
@ErnieParke: Cool! Good luck on that! :D
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Derpmeup: I'll help! I put my name on the list, I'm about to work on some articles now!
St19_galla (talk | contribs) 18:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do we categorize shortcuts, but don't allow categorizing redirects?

derpmeup (talk | contribs) 03:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

we decided that it was a different kind of a redirect - like a special redirect

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Because categorizing shortcuts was my idea, and don't we all hate my ideas?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 05:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

faux. it was on the cat:redirect talk page, now deleted.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 06:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Krett12, if you're saying that to prove a point - it's not exactly true. What ideas of yours has this community hated? The only one I can recall was nored, and it wasn't even hated, we just made it deprecated - which means that we'll keep it where it is, but preferably not use it anymore). Nobody here hates you, we've just been giving you advice on what you should try to avoid doing.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 06:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Requesting experienced opinions on proposed edits

I am new and trying to be careful. My proposals are in my sandbox... [[1]] If anyone has a moment to stop by and leave opinions or advise concerning adding these edits, I would greatly appreciate it. I'd rather not do anything until I get a yay or nay from an experienced editor. Thanks! Edit: I know the advise is to go bold on the Wiki, but I already promised to do this first. I'll be plenty bold in the near future.
Locomule (talk | contribs) 13:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

item 1: I need to think about this a bit... We have quite a few methods of jumping on the page already.

item 2: Adding more information about "run without screen refresh" would be a good idea; it should be there anyway. Maybe a citation for the sound warping bug would be good too.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I kinda like the first one, but I dunno about the second one...
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

For #1, agree with ErnieParke - we already have a lot of jumping techniques for a "How to" page. Perhaps we should remove the How-to category, and let it be a regular tutorial, which can include multiple methods?

For the () (Custom block) page, those both sound like great edits. 'Run without screen refresh' is not covered at all, and it definitely should be - thanks for offering to do that. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Define () (block) has it
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

On issue #1 - Sounds like we need a clear objective for this section, or maybe I just have yet to find that information?

Regarding issue #2 - I understand that splitting the Define and Custom blocks onto two separate pages fits the wiki format. Yet, unlike other blocks, these two work in tandem as a single function. I am concerned that placing their information on separate pages creates redundant information and potential for confusion among casual Scratch Wiki users.
Locomule (talk | contribs) 21:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Per the first 3 people to post here. (too lazy to name them )
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going to copy my idea of combining the Define and Custom block pages onto the talk pages for both blocks. As for the sound error related to those blocks, I wrote an app to test the bug and got a few confirmations last night. I'll add that nfo today to both existing pages.
Locomule (talk | contribs) 16:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

1.4 skin?

Should the skin that was used here during 1.x be an optional skin in the preferences section? The code to make the 2.0 skin was modified from the 1.4 skin; was the 1.4 skin source saved anywhere?
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There could be so, CSS conflicts with the old skin and some articles.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

what article?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the code to make the new skin was 100% from Scratch (corny joke). Also, Turkey3, I know how MW skins work, that wouldn't happen.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 16:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, some articles (such as the Main Page) are specifically constructed to work with the new skin.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We're getting quite a few new editors!

Great to see this wiki grow. :)
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 03:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we've gotten a flood of account requests lately, and we choose the ones that look like they'll be good contributors. Looks like we chose well. :)
jvvg (talk | contribs) 03:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's due to the Scratch Press article being recently added to the footer. ;)
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 03:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking part of the editor push was due to a featured project that had mentioned us. Maybe it is due to the footer update as well. :)

Anyway, don't we need to update the wiki footer now?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 03:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

oh yeah! i'll ask scmb1.

[2]!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I already made a pull request.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

@ErnieParke: Oh, I didn't notice that featured project! I haven't checked those much lately.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 17:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@derpmeup: I haven't been checking them much either, but I just so happen to be teaching Scratch to the school's computer teacher (she might start using it), and the featured project is a nice introduction to Scratch, so 2 + 2 = Wiki.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Misconceptions Stub Expanding

I recently created a thread in the Discussion Forums to see what misconceptions people had about Scratch: le link
I would appreciate it if Wikians could help out as well. :)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I added something!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I added the Namco/Pacman fiasco of 2010
Locomule (talk | contribs) 15:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Verification code troubleshooting page?

I have seen several people complaining on the profiles of either jvvg or scmb1 about the verification code. I've been thinking for a while we should make a verification code troubleshooting page. Agree?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that most people probably won't read it and will still ask someone. Remember that it says in two places that you need to read S:CONTRIB on the request account page (and you even check a box saying you read it) and yet somehow very few requests actually do. It will probably only save one or two comments. However, you do have a point that it might be easier to point them to that page rather than explain.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I have a weird idea but i'll bring it up - make a question asking something like "Would you like to read the request notes over at s:CONTRIB? and they have to check yes or no

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

That probably won't help. We have the users who just want accounts for popularity and don't care that they have to read it, and adding another button for them to click and ignore won't help much. Besides, those kinds of requests, even if they do read S:CONTRIB, aren't the kind of people we want on this Wiki. However, the people that really do belong on the Wiki are the people who read S:CONTRIB because they actually read the page.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

So I think I should create the page? I will put in progress on it.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 17:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiMonitor problems

I am aware that WikiMonitor has not been functioning properly for the past two weeks. Something has been causing the code to crash when it attempts to notify a user about something, and such a crash kills the whole program. I have not identified the cause yet, but I am working on it. Please bear with me, and I apologize for this.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

...and we're back!
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed something.

In the past couple months, it's seemed like all we do often here is use talk pages. If ou look at this, you'll see that there aren't many edits at all to the main namespace. Then, if you look at this, you'll see that so many edits are made outside of that namespace. The entire reason that this wiki was created was to create an informational database on Scratch; we're kind of drifting away from the main purpose of this. There is still plenty to do on articles, but we don't exactly take the time to fix and polish them up. I had an idea that for the next week or so, we should keep talk page use to only when it's necessary, and spend our time here actually fixing and making articles the best they can be. For the next few days, very many of my edits will be to the main namespace, so I can help with the true purpose of this wiki - and I encourage others to do the same. If you're wondering what you can do, there are actually many things. First, there are many articles (204) that need expansion; the articles in Category:Article Stubs and the articles in Category:Articles to Expand. Then, there are some articles (51) in Category:Wiki Standards that need editing to fix the tone, grammar, cohesion, spelling, and more that would be of much greater quality once they get perfected. There's also a big list of tasks at this page that would need attention from editors willing to do the task. On top of all of those, there are many maintenance reports (first section at Special:SpecialPages) that need to be cleared out whenever possible. Another thing that you can do is to go to a random page, skim the article, and find one thing that needs fixing (I do this all the time, and I usually find an edit or so a page). Finally, there's one more huge task that I've been doing which would be great to have help with - moving all of the help pages to have capitalization in the title while not leaving a redirect behind (caps redirects aren't allowed), and then fixing all of the links to the lowercased help pages.
I hope that the wiki will improve at least a bit significantly if we start to focus on the real goal of this wiki - to have coverage on most of Scratch, and to perfect every article that we have.
Edit: When I say to try to keep talk paging to a minimum, I mainly mean user talk pages. Feel free to use the same level of talk paging if the discussions are relevant to the articles/files/categories here.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 17:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You pretty much just restated what I said here.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 19:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@-PRO-: Not entirely... derpmeup is also advocating that we avoid talk page comments for a few days, so that we can focus on article editing.

@derpmeup: Really nice post! You brought up some great points, and I think having a no-talk page weekend would be nice as well. I'll join you on that. :)

p.s. Your first recent changes link doesn't include images or templates...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes things are important.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I broke. I guess now I'm going to avoid talk pages unless the comments are constructive.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

file moving

in Category:Scratch 2.0 Images, all of the images can either be moved to Category: Scratch 2.0 Program Images or Category:Scratch 2.0 Website Images. Should I move the images in that category, but keep the page for the subcategories? thanks!
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 07:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

KrIsMa's Mass File Moving v2.1 ;)
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 19:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, I think we should keep Categories:Scratch 2.0 Images.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:27, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Starting if no more objs :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I obj.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

pourquoi?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

starting the move soon. also, proposing moving Category:Logos into its subcategories.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

 Doing...

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘  Done
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What is happening?!

Has anyone seen what's happening on the Scratch website? It looks like its stuck in that "printable" format O_O Whats happening?!
St19_galla (talk | contribs) 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please keep new posts on the bottom.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 21:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That was happening to me as well. It just means some stylesheet (I'd have to check to be more specific) didn't download correctly, so maybe a server had a problem? At least the issue is gone for me now.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI

My recent inactivity is due to me not having enough time on my hands at the moment, I've been coding like 5 hours a day now and other stuff. Yeah usually it's some TV show but I've been innovative :) I should have time in a few days.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 04:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You're fine!

Missed you!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 06:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your fine. We are getting a huge new wave of editors! Plus old editors like me, are doing more mainspace editing!
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 22:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Yep! It honestly makes me think a bit when I see people with their edits to the user talk namespace being 3 times more than to the main namespace; that's why I made my above post a couple of days back.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 00:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a note

This program would've been useful here for the past couple of months.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 00:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 00:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed new rules for CP discussion

We should have a procedure for discussing ideas on the CP. Here would be the basic ideas:

• At least two days must pass before an idea is considered accepted
• All dissenting opinions must either change their mind or be sufficiently explained against by other users (I couldn't figure out how to word that, but basically I'm saying that the users supporting an idea must justify their position and address all dissenting opinions before continuing)
• In order for a dissenting opinion to be considered significant enough to prevent something, a sufficient justification must be provided (just saying "Because I don't like it" or something like that isn't enough, you need to say why)

Thoughts?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

yes I agree!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Will these apply to this idea too? :P I agree. But who decides when dissenting opinions have been "sufficiently" argued against?

AonymousGuy (talk | contribs | Scratch account) 03:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

what if no one replies to an idea?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 02:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Generally the rest of the community can decide if a dissenting opinion has been argued against. My real point is that they can't be ignored. If nobody replies to an idea, then it's either unimportant (in which case just go ahead) or it needs people to reply to this. If this is a rule, we could also encourage people to comment if they support or don't have anything against an idea.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

If you weren't becoming a programmer you could be a lawyer jvvg
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Haha
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 17:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Programmers are just lawyers for computers. :P

Anyways, good ideas, jvvg. I think i suggested a time limit similar to that a while back also.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you @Sci. :P

Anyway, nice rules @jvvg! I support them.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hour of code

Let's prepare for a dramatic spike in account requests - last year's hour of code made Scratch almost double in popularity. This wiki will be hitting hard with activity in the next couple of months. ;)
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 04:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

ok!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That just means that EWs and Admins need to check the request page frequently.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 13:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I AM SO EXTREMELY GLAD WE MADE THAT VERIFICATION CODE TROUBLESHOOTING THING. WHAT ELSE DO WE NEED TO DO?. WELL, DERPMEUP, -PRO-, AND I SHOULD BECOME EWS (BUT THEN RESTORED WHEN THIS IS DONE). I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SOMETHING MORE CLEAR, BUT I CAN'T PUT MY POINTER ON IT.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

no, we have the request all figured out :) if 20 requests are made, we still can process them all in time.

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The EW has kinda expanded into having even more rights, so it's kind of like a mini-sysop privilege right now - I personally think that there should be a new right that only has the extra right of viewing the request queue that would be called something along the lines of "account creator".
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 17:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

That would be nice derpmeup.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ i think because people who view the accounts can be trusted to have more rights, that is why they can. basically, if you have that right to look at the account queue, you can be trusted in the scratch community to do more things. (and btw the ew elections should of chose more ews :(
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; but however, I do think that there is a relatively low number of active account reviewers.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 17:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

usually, jvvg,ernieparke and me are the most active with this - right now we have 0 open requests ;) but ill let you guys know about any request spikes. :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@derpmeup Or take away the other EW prvs and make all the EWs admins (since we've been getting spikes!)
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 18:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I recall asking that question a while ago, and the general consensus is that we want as few people as possible to be trusted with the most critical stuff (which is also why we couldn't choose an admin to become bureaucrat).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Scratch Wiki's Anniversary!

Scratch Wiki's anniversary is coming soon! :D (6 December according to the main page)
Rumanti (talk | contribs) 14:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ooh! That's exciting! :D
The Grits (talk | contribs) 14:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, that's the day that it was created on WIKIA. This wiki was made on May 12.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, which date are we going to count? The creation on Wikia marks the start of the existence of a Wiki at all, the May 12 date marks the existence of one in its current form.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

May 12, I suppose. All the pages were manually copied over, it's the FILES that were imported.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No let's do 2008. Then we seem older. I'll design I firework logo & things.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The pages may have been manually copied over, but the content was substantially unchanged.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Guys....

About adding that balloon thing to the front page, I'm sorry about not asking, but I really didn't have TIME to ask. So I just went ahead. Let's remove on the 10th?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 03:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

hmm, I think it's ok but i would check with others today :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

actually, it all depends on the above discussion. i think the scratch wiki should be counted, not wikia :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Shall we take it down? I think no, but let's hear other opinions first.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure about this.
Samanyolu (talk | contribs) 05:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say keep it. Okay, that's Scratch Wikia 's anniversary, but that's what the main page said.
Rumanti (talk | contribs) 12:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks pretty good, but I'm going to move it to the front page (instead of the april fools template). Also, please ask permission anyway. It won't be more than a few hours before someone responds if you ask during the US daytime.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It took almost half a day between the time I posted and you did.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 14:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For something that's staying up for about four days, half a day isn't that big a deal. Anyway, I protected those templates (EWs can still edit them if something like this comes up in the future) because anything that appears on the front page should be protected to prevent vandalism (I'm not calling what you did vandalism, btw).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks a little big to me. I think it should go down tomorrow, and just include a news item. (We should have a news item regardless. I'll add one now.)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

agree with scimonster

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 00:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What are subpages?

I've seen people have links to their subpages. What are subpages?
Rohanite (talk | contribs) 07:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Subpages are other little pages that you create for yourself. For example, if your sandbox is not enough for you, then create a second one as User:Rohanite/Sandbox2 - or make a new page as User:Rohanite/OldSig to show your old sig. Hope I helped!
Samanyolu (talk | contribs) 08:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Almost... Subpages are pages who's name begins with the name of another page, but ends in "/something" to describe the page a bit. They're used for organizing or for more room. For example, Scratch Wiki:Table of Contents/Website is a subpage of Scratch Wiki:Table of Contents.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Question

Why does Screamer have its own page but Stop Motion does not? Just a question.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 20:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the people didn't need to make another article for Stop Motion? I'm not sure, though - just guessed.
Samanyolu (talk | contribs) 07:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reason is just that nobody ever created a full article for it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it should have its own page.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 17:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Because (pick random (create page) to (add to existing))
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How About

I think having a new curator or SDS is not notable enough to have a news item. Anyone agree?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 04:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

They are both significant events on Scratch, so we should keep them.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 14:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If we didn't do that, we'd *never* have news. And we've done this since the very beginning...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we have more tutorials on the Scratch Wiki?

(I'm alive... just inactive on the Wiki as of lately. Sorry guys...) I propose that we might have some more tutorials on the Wiki to help out newer Scratchers. I know it might be controversial, but I want to see what the community thinks.
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 14:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutorials are a good thing, they just need to apply to a wide range of projects, not just one specific type. If you have any ideas that look like they fit these guidelines, go ahead and create them.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with jvvg.

Samanyolu talk | contribs 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutorials? Who needs tutorials?

Just kidding, this is a great idea.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

More reasons why you read S:CONTRIB

I'm going to start posting the "best" request notes each month. Please note that this is nowhere near all of them, just the ones that I think are the funniest.

“

I can update old pages and help make pages.

”

“

There are some articles that do not exist.

”

“

I will add content to pages that do not have a lot of content or no content at all. please answer when you get the time. Thank you.

”

“

I would help updating old pages.

”

“

I want to help edit old pages.

”

“

So I can learn and show my scratch projects to inspire people

”

“

to help you make new Scripts and help the wiki too

”

“

I would like to because I love scratch so much.And is so fun to make games on.

”

“

To help out on the wiki and keep the wiki always up to date

”

“

To Help Scratchers

”

“

Because i love the wiki its so cool!

”

...and the winner...

“

i want to vandalize pages and ruin this wiki o btw folow me o also go to shrek.com 2 git free muneeeeeee and i red S:CONTRIB so acept my requets pls

”

My commentary: it seems like this was "edit old pages month" (it's always S:NOSP month).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol that last one!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 03:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

i think we have another winner

“

shut up i just wanto be a contribbutt or s:contrib, i red it, now make me contrirbhutorl btw u r dumm

”

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you should have accepted those last 2. They red S:CONTRIB. ;P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I got one on the infosphere this one time:

“

i neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed too contrbute to infosphere so i can edit pages....o and i havnt showered in 12 years you [censored]

”

.

That's not happening anytime soon.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 05:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Days since 2000 workaround.

I added a better, more accurate workaround for the Days since 2000 block on the list of workarounds page. Could anyone see if it is okay to use?
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 22:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you use the (days since 2000) block in the (days since 2000) workaround? How is it a workaround then?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It's supposed to be the aforementioned variable. Could someone correct this?
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 01:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I know there's a fix in the Scratchblocks testing topic in the forums...

Update: Apparently the fix I found is forum only. The next best thing I can think of is renaming the variable to "Days Since 2000 Workaround" of something other than "Days Since 2000"
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I renamed the variable "d" and added a note.
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 23:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

That sounds good. I wish there was a way (like in the forums) to set the type of a variable...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 03:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop Motion

Could I give Stop Motion it's own page? Screamer has its own so I was wondering :P
St19_galla (talk | contribs) 23:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on the original thread.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 23:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible new anniversary picture?

derpmeup (talk | contribs) 23:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the other one more.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay! I made that because I thought that the picture of real balloons looked a bit out of the tone; that's fine :)
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 00:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

i like both designs equally!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 01:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Main Page Typo?

In the news section on the 6th anniversary of the Scratch Wiki, is it supposed to be Wikia instead of Wiki because this wiki was originally launched on Wikia?
Swampert11 (talk | contribs) 01:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It would mean the same thing either way; I'm indifferent to the change.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 01:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Eight Hundred EIGHTY Five Articles?

I thought it was 865.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

it is? maybe the magic word counts special pages as well? :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Image Hosting

I created an article on Image Hosting, and I would like for someone to expand and correct it. If it is a duplicate of something else, then please merge.
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look!
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

just a suggestion

is a good idea to point out bad requests even without the usernames?
KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

because maybe they will come back and see their requests and feel hurt?

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they're not gonna be coming back anytime soon.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

hehe yeah maybe!

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 15:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But if you still feel that way, woujld you like to make some sort of off-site gallery?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hosting it off-site wouldn't really make it any different than hosting it on-site. However, I don't really have a problem with it, because users are pretty clearly told to read S:CONTRIB and ignore it anyway.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the top two requests specifically say that "i red s:contrib so acept my requets pls"
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Well they both were clearly either meant as jokes or insults.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

On the 15th, let's take down the image!

Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Will do.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's fine for me.
Samanyolu (talk | contribs) 15:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

C'mon let's go already!
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 05:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

now??

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 05:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey, cut me some slack, I just woke up.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 12:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Then you should have woken up earlier. :P
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be mean... time zones aren't the same for all of us.
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 18:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Hockey. That conversation was kinda funny until you busted it.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 06:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sigh...
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 15:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Add 301 clone limit nfo?

I'm looking through various clone-related pages and finding no mention of the limit. Should I add it and if so, to how many pages? (new editor) Cloning Advanced Clone Usage Create Clone of () (block)
Locomule (talk | contribs) 10:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cloning already mentions the limit. Look in the header: "There is a limit of 300 clones per project to prevent excessive lagging or crashes.[1]"

On the other hand, the create clone of () (block) page would benefit from a mention of the limit.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If anyone has been needing this

about 5 years ago I figured out how to make a bots-only recent changes!
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You were on 5 years ago?
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 23:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Nice :) Although, it's a bit straightforward on how to select a couple of buttons to make a certain output.
@-PRO-: He claims to have been using MediaWiki for 7 years, so I trust him on saying he did this 5 years back.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 23:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been using wikis for 7 years---but I've only been using MediaWiki for about 6. Are you sure I said 7?
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I see.
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 12:40, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Back With Fresh Idea!

What would you think of a pathfinding tutorial? Check out the project I made Clicky! As shown in my project, the tutorial would explain how pathfinding in a grid-like system works.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not a bad idea...

Samanyolu talk | contribs 14:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey I had a thought

A little while ago on the AF wiki, I made an article on how Santa is "bad". Maybe we should put something on the homepage like "check this out if you celebrate christmas" thing.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 05:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

link
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 05:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the April Fools wiki unviewable for the entire year except for April 1st?
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 05:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I added the article to the whitelist. Try it! It can be viewed while logged out.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I think people will take that seriously if it was put up on Christmas and not April fools. Then, people might get sad :( so I think no :(

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering

Why do we require registration here? This is actually the only wiki I've ever seen (apart from the others by some other editors here) that requires registration and confirmation to edit.
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 05:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure.

Samanyolu talk | contribs | account 14:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Since this is the official source of information, only trusted users can be allowed.
Krett12 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

hmm. Maybe 1. As krett said, since this is not Wikipedia, where there are topics that everyone might know about and it would be important to get every editors opinions (Such as the world war two). Secondly, maybe because we have a smaller community thus >vandalism might be harder to deal wit effectively? Those are my thoughts! :)

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

To ensure responsibility, proper grammar, and in-depth knowledge of Scratch.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at Scratch Wiki#History:

"Lucario621 advertised the wiki in the Miscellaneous forum, and many people helped contribute to it. However, the articles were of projects, users, and the like. The wiki was cleaned up, but by then people had lost interest."

"[T]he Scratch Team ... liked it ... but they had some concerns: ... there was no way to tell if a user on the wiki was the same user on Scratch. ... there was a way to ensure that users on the wiki were the same users on Scratch: Account creation was locked; people would request for an account instead."

So, yeah. When registration was open, the wiki had problems. And, this way, we know exactly who everyone is on Scratch.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Admin/EW help?

Can an Admin or an EW add the current curator to the "Current Events" section? Thanks!
The Grits (talk | contribs) 16:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I would, but I am on my tablet and doing wiki coding is kind of annoying. I'll try later if I am able to use a real computer.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. :)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutorial/how-to namespace

I posted about this on the help page talk for how-to's, but I guess nobody's seen it. Anyway, I feel like tutorials are a completely different kind of content from normal articles and can't be held to the same style standards, so they might be a good fit for a new namespace (e.g. Tutorial:Fry an Egg). Just kinda brainstorming here... sorry I know I'm new and shouldn't be making waves
NickyNouse (talk | contribs) 18:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Tutorials are indeed very different. However, they are still content articles. Also, creating a new namespace is a big pain. So, i think that we should just stick to categorizing them.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

yeah, and a burden for bureaucrats!

agree with all scimonster says, and also, good for you for telling us - you are not making "waves"

KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 07:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning discussions in articles

Several articles mention forum discussions (e.g. the Tinypic controversy, various articles including suggestions, etc.). Recently a few have been added saying "It is suggested that...". Wikipedia calls this using weasel words (saying that people say something, but not saying who), and I think we should adopt a similar policy in that to include a forum discussion as part of an article, it needs to have significant support. Simply including a suggestion with only a few supporters should not merit being included on the Wiki.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 05:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Any examples?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The one that made me think of this was this edit.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 18:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Russian Wiki

I tried editing the Scratch Wiki page to add a mention of the Russian Scratch Wiki... could someone please clean up the formatting and expand? Thanks
TheHockeyist (talk | contribs) 21:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I could try helping.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 04:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)