< User talk:Lucario621

Archive This page is archive 1 of User talk:Lucario621. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Templates on your user page...

They're broken links. :/
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I'm going to fix them sometime soon...
BTW - I want to implement a new feature for signatures on this wiki. For your signature, put it on the page "User:USERNAME/sig", and then in your preferences, for your signature, have it customized, to
- this way, if you ever plan to change your signature, it will automatically change it for all of your messages you've made :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with my simple signature, though... :P This wiki put me into a formal mood. :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 09:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I went and did it anyway. :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs)

One question...

On this wiki, are you gonna use your cool tabbed page thingy that you used on the old wiki?

P.S. Sorry for customizing this post. It's just that I'm used to it Dx
ThePCKid (talk | contribs) 02:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, no I'm not going to use the tabs thing. Because right now for this wiki, I want to be more serious, and not focus on looks... And of course I don't mind you customizing posts, I guess. Also I see you did the signature right ;). But don't categorize it under templates; because then it will categorize this page as a template!
I didn't categorize it as a template. It must be a glitch...
ThePCKid (talk | contribs) 22:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

About disambiguation pages...

All of them seem to be categorized under Templates even when the category isn't added... I just created a disambiguation page, categorized it under Disambiguations, and found the extra category. What's happening? How can I remove it? Does it have to do with the Disambiguation notice template? --Chrischb 06:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know... :( I've been noticing that with the signatures too. We'll have to figure it out...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's not use templates for our signatures; they're automatically categorizing the pages with Templates!

Whenever I post, it automatically adds ""Category:Templates"" after the signature - this is categorizing every page we post in! And it's silly to have to edit every page after we post... should we give up on the idea?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you're a great role model. Giving up on everything.
It's like the second time you did this.
You act like I intended to have to make it so we always have to remove the categorization thing afterwards - I didn't. I'm looking for a solution - but you have to be patient. I can't work on the wiki 25 hours a day. Look - I'll try to fix the problem - but for now, just try to be patient.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I got somebody to fix it :) It was a mistake on my part when importing content :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry... I just didn't think that it could be fixed - I thought it was automatic Wikia stuff that couldn't be changed.
Yay, it's fixed! :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

About the costume#/background# block article... I want to make it, but there are two problems

Two problems:

  1. Costume# and Background# are the same block, just adapted for sprites and the Stage - do they share an article, or do we make two different articles?
  2. What should I name the article(s)? "Costume number (block)", or "Costume (block)"?

So - which of the name(s) should I use?

  • Costume (block)
  • Costume number (block)
  • Background (block)
  • Background number (block)
  • Costume/Background (block)
  • Costume/Background number (block)

Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up. Part of the problems with wikis is titles. As it says here, you can't use characters such as # < > [ ] | { } inside of titles. Because the less than and greater than signs are used for html, and the other ones are used for wiki-coding. So I reccomend using costume number. And add a template, and put it at the top of the page, saying "this page should be named (so and so), but it can't due to technical restrictions" or something like that. As for background number, I'm not sure if that should be a separate block, or if it should be. I'll ask Andres at Scratch Party :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 13:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'll just wait for Andrés opinion then; I don't want to make an article for one block, and then edit it for two. :) (I WANNA GO TO SCRATCH PARTY!!! But Chris and I live in New Zealand... well, we did go to a Scratch Day!)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Um... what do I do? :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a good question. I think you guys should decide about this. Seems like it's one of those things that there is not a right answer. --Andresmh 19:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Lucario621's the 'boss' - I think I'll follow what he says. :)
Lucario, what should I do? :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we'll stick with having the title as "Costume Number (block)", and in the article, it will include the alternate name, "Background #", and in the article, it will reference the block as "Costume #", excluding the title restriction. Also, "Background #" will redirect to "Costume #" ;). And, at the top of the page, there should be a template, with a quick message about the title restriction. Perhaps like here.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay... I created the template and article - I made the template by taking the stub one, changing the colors, and replacing the text with stuff based on Wikipedia's template. The article's name is "Costume Number/Background Number (block)", and it includes both versions of the block. :) I don't know if the template edge is the right color though - you might want to take a look at the code. ^_^
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I seriously think that title is a bit long... could you perhaps just change it to what I mentioned? I don't want to be mean - I mean there could definitely be redirects - but sprites are used more than the background after all, so I think it would be best to just have "Costume Number (block)".
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a bit of a lie, though... :/ Oh - how about "Costume/Background Number (block)"? That isn't so bad...
Wait - will we do anything with the redirects? They don't do anything right now... :P If they don't work, we can't just give redirects to the article.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
><.... the thing is, when people search for the article, most people will search "Costume number", rather than "Costume/background number", so it's a lot better... And the redirect problem is being worked on. Just chill.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Moved to "Costume Number (block)"...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In Case You Didn't See

This was on my talk page, but I wanted to post it here just in case.

Okay... I'm still trying to figure this out, but I think I'm starting to get it. So what is my first priority? I've noticed that you moved a lot of the articles, and I don't think I have the privileges to change any formating or anything like that. Also, I've noticed this Wiki is a little hard to navigate. There are hardly any links, which means that I have to type the exact URL in my web browser. Are you planning to change that? Anyways, thanks for letting me in!--~Shadow_7283 Talk 02:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A request

The section on 2010's Scratch Day at MIT is a bit short - could you please edit it? You were there (*envy* :P), so you would know what to say about it. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Sure. Just a have a bunch of other things to do on the wiki... so yeah. I will do it when I get the time.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 13:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Yayz! :D Thanks!
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please trim the list of unused files?

I've done some, but I'm trying to be careful and not hurt good files... can you go have a look at the list? Some things I don't think we need to keep, but I'm not sure if I should delete them. So - can you take a look at the files and delete some we won't be needing?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll work on that.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In block article stubs, should we put the Block template before the Stub template, or the other way around?

Just wondering... :) (I asked here and not at the Community Portal, since you're the boss (:D).)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For now, the block template will go above the stub template. But I have another thing, of similar topic, which I'll bring up soon in the Community portal, which will change this a bit :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

About the wiki

It looks so stylish/cool/awesome/blue/nice! :) Um... yeah... is this a pointless message? :(

I especially like the stub template look. :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chrischb! It's nice to see that you like the changes - I just personally wanted to make it match with that "Scratch Theme" - if you know what I mean ;). And it came out pretty well! There's still some minor changes, but I hope you like it so far :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
^swaps between the website and wiki^ They look great together! :D (But the blue bar at the top-right is different... but ah well. :P)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


The announcement thread is out! :D WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Also - I love your blog post! :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


I saw your blog post - it was BRILLIANT! And there's a topic about the wiki in Announcements (you were the first poster :P) - the wiki's public! :D :) :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it "wiki.scratchr.org", or "wiki.scratch.mit.edu"?

The first one is the one we were told about, and the second is the one that Andrés used. I prefer the second one though - it's more of the Scratch website (like "info.scratch.mit.edu" or "stats.scratch.mit.edu"). I'm just wondering which one to use - after all, one is an ".edu" site (which commercial spammers love), and the other isn't. (We shouldn't have to worry about commercial spammers though - Andrés invites people specifically, right?)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 12:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - just use wiki.scratch.mit.edu. All of the links should link to pages on that web URL, except for the main logo - so don't click it :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that this wiki is public and released, should we lock the Programming (we can call it that, right?) wiki?

I don't think we should leave it open now...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 12:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT: Wait, is it possible? :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 12:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's possible - but either way, I don't think we should bother.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we continue to check the Programming Wiki everyday (well, I do :P)? We should make sure that nothing happens... hey, should we just go and protect everything? People could create new articles and edit them, but it wouldn't be too bad...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I emailed the Wikia Team about making it read-only, but they just replied saying that they never delete wikis or make them read-only, and rather, they just wait for others to adopt it. So no luck with that. I'd just ignore the other wiki.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 14:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we leave a note on the Programming Wiki about this new wiki? We don't want anyone adopting the Programming Wiki...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I already put a site notice - that should do.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

About the registering to become a contributor

bharvey raised some good points about the policy... (clicky)... I still like the current method, but he mentioned the following:

• A wiki is designed to be easily accessible and changeable by anyone; registered or not, experienced or not, and so on.

With: It's a lot easier for people to edit, and will provide more information.

Against: In this case we want the wiki to be as accurate as possible, like a guidebook for Scratch - editing out vandalism, commercial spam, and correcting information would take away lots of time that could be used in improving/creating articles.

• Not everyone can be active; new contributors are chosen by how helpful they can be, but that can prevent users with knowledge from being able to edit simply because they do not have the time and dedication to stick the wiki continuously and help it grow.

With: This will allow more information; for example, a user who worked in a collaboration for a Scratch modification would have lots of information to give, far more than one who has simply viewed it from the sidelines.

Against: The benefits here are small. The only one I can think of is that the entire wiki community will be dedicated, ready to help each other, improve articles together, and perform large feats together (such as changing an entire category grouping).

• Why should spamming the wiki be more of a concern than the Scratch Forums? Users are allowed to visit the forums without registering there separately.

With: The Scratch Forums are not subject to extreme amounts of spam, unless there is far more than is known because of the likely speed of the moderators in removing it. If the Scratch Forums can cope, so will the wiki.

Against: Once again, the wiki is supposed to be strictly accurate, like a guidebook - the forums are just a place to share information, ask for help, and more; while the wiki is to contain true information, and must then stay accurate.

What do you think? :/
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two reasons why I don't think we should have account creation available:
  • If the fictional user Screeble hasn't created a Scratch Wiki account yet, I could just create it and pretend to be Screeble. Nasty...
  • JSO, Lucario and Andrés can choose the editors specifically, which prevents vandalism/false information/lousy editing/commercial spam

Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you review all edits made?

Just curious... :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For the most part yes. Though if the description says something like "added a link" that's made by you guys, I know that it can't possibly be bad ;)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 14:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay... when we get tons of editors, you might find it hard. :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
:P I add a lot of links. :D
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

About some pages' categories

The category Scratch Wiki says that it should ideally contain only subcategories - however, there are some pages in it... Should we move the pages to a category called "Main Pages", and categorize that under Organization?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 10:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! Sure!
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 14:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yay! I'll do that today. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Done... :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 00:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What should I focus on at the moment?

First of all: Sorry about another message on your talk page... :(

Now that the wiki has been released, I see you've been answering questions, helping others out, and creating accounts - what should I be doing? Should I stick to what I have been doing (editing articles, creating articles, checking on categories, making redirects, etc.), or should I find a way to help the new users? I plan to greet them when they get their accounts made, is that okay?

Or would it be too hard (or inconvenient) for me to help? :/
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No - just keep on doing what you've been doing all along - and feel free to help the new members too! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 02:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to have it so you use your Scratch account on the wiki?

Instead of locking account creation, bharvey suggested it... is it possible?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably. It might take a while to configure, but it's most likely doable.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So a normal user (let's say Screeble) wants to join the wiki - they come onto the wiki, and their account is there (like the Scratch Forums)? (Of course, then we'll be at risk of commercial spam... :O)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 02:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well yes; but for now we're not doing that. It will take a while at least - and doing what we're doing right now will allow us to at least get a good idea of the wiki, and how we'll manage it for if we allow any users to edit.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A missing policy thing...

When you click Delete on a page, some text says "Please confirm that you intend to do this, that you understand the consequences, and that you are doing this in accordance with the policy." "The Policy" is a red link - what is it supposed to link to?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. I'll try looking into it.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok - I fixed it. You can change the text at MediaWiki:Confirmdeletetext.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a sort of 'rules' page

It might be handy... and it'll hopefully make people categorize their stuff, name articles correctly, etc.. I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not - but I thought I'd ask for your opinion. :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes - I do plan to add that, once I get the time. But there's still welcoming contributors, patrolling edits, adding help pages which takes up a good amount of my time D:
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(I don't know what to name this, just read the message)

Well... in all block articles, the 'profile' bit includes an image of the block. In some block articles, instead of the name being correct (ie. "Play Sound ().png"), they name them incorrectly (ie. "PlaySound.png"). I've renamed a bit of those files, but another thing - some of the images are shared as a .gif instead of a .png. .png's seem to be the standard - I'd move them so they're .png's, but you can't move a .gif file to a .png file name. So - do I have permission to delete the .gif's and reshare them as .png's?

Of course, it's all very silly - tell me if you think I'm being crazy. :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I know what you mean. I appreciate you renaming the files. I'll let you delete them and re-upload them as .png's, but let me just get JSO's permission first :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought you were the boss... :(
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous users will be allowed to edit the wiki?

That's what you said... yay! :D

Yes, hopefully - but I can't guarantee anything right now - and don't assume this is something that's going to happen in a week or something. It will still take a while.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So any person could just come in and post commercial spam (like in the Scratch Forums) or vandalize? *gulp*

Yeah. But then again, there will be more people editing against that, and reverting the edits, so it won't be *that* bad. We just have to hope for the best :).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Will people have to still ask for an account?

... that wouldn't really make sense :P. Of course not...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How much commercial spam and vandalism will we get (what's your guess)?

I don't really know. Probably a lot, but we'll be fighting with our ban hammers against it ;)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(It might be hard for you to check every edit, if we get enough editors... :O)

(If the wiki becomes too big, could Chris and I help manage stuff? :) )

Of course!
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for plaguing your talk page with my messages... ^_^)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's fine.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A request

The Scratch article doesn't list every version and its updates - you were around in 2007, so could you please add to the list? :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I really would, but I have so many other things to do, that I don't have much time to work on main article content... I'm sorry...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I make a Wikipediholic (however you spell it) quiz?

Like the Wikipedia one... :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 07:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha! Sure! :D Of course, make it more scratch-like... but you probably knew that already. I can't wait to see what you come up with! :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


Just curious, am I an admin? If not, oh well, but if there comes a time where a new one is needed, I would be glad to fill the position.

No, not at this time. However, I definitely will be considering you to become an admin when there is a needed position ;) Also, remember to sign your comments with 4 tildes (~~~~), to automatically add the timestamp and your name :) Plus, if you would like to, you can customize it with the instructions mentioned here.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
AGH! That is the first time I've done that in about thirty edits! I had just edited a lot of articles on the Wiki, so I was ready to log out. I'm glad to know I'll be considered. :) And here is my signature: --~Shadow_7283

Talk 00:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Is there anyway I can automatically get rid of the dashes at the front?

Hmm - I don't know. My signature doesn't do that. Are you sure you're not typing them in yourself? :P If not, check your preferences to make sure there's no dashes in front of the custom signature.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope. You can check my signature yourself (link is on my user page). It is automatic when I press the signature button. I suppose that's it though. You type out the four tildes and I press the button. Testing:

--~Shadow_7283 Talk 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC) ~Shadow_7283 Talk 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Is there anyway you can get rid of that default two dashes (for the button press)?~Shadow_7283 Talk 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think so - but I don't think it'd kill ya to just type it in xD
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We need to keep track of what edits are checked and what aren't...

How about having a page that says "All edits checked up to (Time)"? It would help us keep track of what edits have been checked and what haven't. :) (Chris and I are checking edits also. :D)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC) EDIT: We've checked all edits up to the time of this edit. :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Because some people may review certain edits as good edits, while some may not think certain edits are good, and also some people may just be 'browsing through them' without looking carefully, so it overall depends a lot on opinion. Patrolling is one of the key elements on a wiki - but not a page with your description. I hope that makes sense...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


The Scratch Wiki makes me so happy - thank you for it! Thank you so much!!! :D :) :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome... not that I really saw that coming :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

SWC and Photon Article!

"I would like to see articles about any group that has involved more than 1 person that has created at least more than 1 project. --andresmh 13:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)"

After reading that quote from andresmh, I think we should create a wiki article for the SWC and Photon collaborations! Since you are the master of the wiki, I was wondering if you would like to write it. If not, that's alright. But do you think we should have a seperate article for each collaboration? Or just one. Thanks!~Shadow_7283 Talk 13:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You're generally the head of the collaboration, so obviously you know more about it, so you should write it! I'm not sure if the collabs should be together or not - whatever you think would best represent the team(s) and for the wiki.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea to write about those collabs. You should create separate articles for each collab and then link them from the main Collaborations article.--
andresmh (talk | contribs) 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.