Add Background Story to Term?
I am just wondering, should I add a background story to the term? If so, should I put it in history or should I put it in a new section called "Trivia"?
DownsGameClub (talk | contribs) 10:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you should make a new "Trivia" section... :P
- Pianogirl84 ♬ Talk ♬ Contributions 13:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
- The title doesn't make much since. Should I change it to "Back-Story of the Name"?
PrincessFlowerTV (talk | contribs)
- The title doesn't make much since. Should I change it to "Back-Story of the Name"?
Is this useful?
I don't think this is useful, since this is talking about bugs in general and not bugs in Scratch.
KJRYoshi07 (talk | contribs) 07:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know, if someone could just edit it and make it about scratch bugs, that would be great.
PrincessFlowerTV (talk | contribs) 11:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)- We should make a new page called Scratch Bugs, then delete this one.
KJRYoshi07 (talk | contribs) 06:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)- I created the page! Scratch Bugs
KJRYoshi07 (talk | contribs) 03:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)- Should I redirect the page to Scratch Bugs?
KJRYoshi07 (talk | contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)- Imo you should probably wait until that page has more content before you redirect it. This page still kinda serves a purpose until Scratch Bugs is bigger.
нεllσυηιcσяηs2 (тαlк║cσηтяιвs║ρяσғιlε) 00:47, 23 April 2018 (UTC)- Would Scratch Bugs be big enough yet?
KJRYoshi07 (talk | contribs) 03:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Would Scratch Bugs be big enough yet?
- Imo you should probably wait until that page has more content before you redirect it. This page still kinda serves a purpose until Scratch Bugs is bigger.
- Should I redirect the page to Scratch Bugs?
- I created the page! Scratch Bugs
- We should make a new page called Scratch Bugs, then delete this one.
I think we should redirect now.
KJRYoshi07 (talk | contribs) 21:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- Um, will you reply? :0
KJRYoshi07 (talk | contribs) 00:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Removing the NotUseful Tag
I removed the NotUseful tag because the reason said it did not talk about Scratch bugs, only bugs in general. This article is supposed to talk about bugs in general, and Scratch bugs are in the article Scratch Bugs. Even if it should be about Scratch bugs, it should be a different template message.
CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 15:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- It still isn't related to Scratch, and this is "A Professional Encyclopaedia for all things Scratch."
KJRYoshi07 (BlueStarPort) (My Talk) (Contribs) 06:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)- Bugs in general are related to Scratch. This article talks about bugs in general and how or why they can happen. Scratch Bugs talks about what bugs Scratch has or had, specifically. Both of them deserve to stay.
kenny2scratch Talk Contribs Directory 06:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Bugs in general are related to Scratch. This article talks about bugs in general and how or why they can happen. Scratch Bugs talks about what bugs Scratch has or had, specifically. Both of them deserve to stay.
Controversy about year in 'History' section
In the 'History' section, I have changed the year that the bug was found to 1947(which corresponds with this National Geographic article). However, some other websites, like this one, have information stating otherwise. Is there a correct year, or is there just controversy? Just wanted to clear this up to make sure we have the correct information.
Filmlover12 Talk Contribs Scratch 17:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Filmlover12: seems like it's narrated as 1946, but actually the date on log book, which displays the bug, is 9 September 1947. Also worth noting, the usage of term "bug" predates this and goes way back to 1870s. See here and here
ahmetlii Talk Contributions Directory 18:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)- @Ahmetlii: Thanks! I think keeping it as 1947 should be okay. I will add your point about the 1870's into the article.
Filmlover12 Talk Contribs Scratch 19:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ahmetlii: Thanks! I think keeping it as 1947 should be okay. I will add your point about the 1870's into the article.