Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 23

< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archive This page is archive 23 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.


Archives

Archives (oldest first)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93
Unfinished discussions

Edit Counts

Look at this table:

Name Status Edit Count
Scimonster Active User 14,354
veggieman001 Active User 5,314
dazman Active User 1,174
WeirdF Sysop; Active 3,115
Chrischb Sysop; Active 3,507
Jonathanpb Sysop; Active 4,462
Lucario621 Bureaucrat; Somewhat Active 2,787
JSO Bureaucrat; Not so Active 462
Andresmh Bureaucrat; Inactive 209

(Please note these numbers might be behind, for more exact see Special:EditCount.)

How do most of the bureaucrats have such low edit counts?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the bureaucrats do more of the management stuff - they're not bureaucrats because of their edits :P
You're gonna be at the top eventually, scimonster ;)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Especially if I get sysop status. :D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, which I hope will happen soon :D
(To be more precise (from earlier), Andresmh is a bureaucrat because he's in the Scratch Team, JSO's a bureaucrat because he's the technical guy (he deserves the power anyway, he pretty much built the new Scratch Wiki), and Lucario was a bureaucrat in the past wiki, so he was allowed to be one here. :P) Thanks for the edit conflict, btw :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured why they were the bureaucrats. You often get edit conflicts with me it seems. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Lollll xD Edit counts don't exactly show how much the user is helping though... and yeah, bureaucrats aren't supposed to be treated like gods ;) They're either lucky or special people.
Good luck on getting to the top :D You deserve it. :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! OWG was like "how do you find so much to edit" when I had an edit count in the 300s. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Did you make that table? Where did you find it because thats pretty cool.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 13:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I made it. Look at the source to see how. If you want a simple explanation: I used the HTML table code. The top is headings. This links are wikicode. The edit count is {{Special:EditCount/Name}}. Simple, done.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been doing so little edits lately! I really need to do more...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

that list doesn't count edits in the file namespace.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes it does. At least for me.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am a bureaucrat because it's my task to do the technical management on the wiki, which ofcourse requires full privileges. I'm also supposed to be some person in between the Scratch Team and all the wiki editors - we're using their server after all. I wonder why you all bother so much about titles, they don't matter at all. Read Help:Sysops_and_permissions . Basically all sysop privileges are useless on this wiki, as the group of wiki editors consists of trusted, chosen users. No need for patrolling, (un)blocking IP addresses, protecting pages. Only page deletion is helpful. Would you still bother if I'd rename the group to "page deleters"? And oh, you can create new users - which is a very interesting, exciting activity (I'm sure jon, chris and WeirdF can approve :) )
JSO (talk | contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
So why are there protected pages? (Scratch Wiki, Scratch Wiki/News, Scratch Wiki/Featured Article, Scratch Wiki/Featured Image, Scratch Wiki:Current events, Template:!!, Template:!, Template:*.) I understand archives and the search.
I think of sysops as a group of trusted, experienced users. They can also move files.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The table is out of date:
Name Status Edit Count
veggieman001 Active User 5,314
dazman Active User 1,174
Scimonster Sysop; Active 14,354
WeirdF Sysop; Active 3,115
Chrischb Sysop; Active 3,507
Jonathanpb Sysop; Active 4,462
Lucario621 Bureaucrat; Somewhat Active 2,787
JSO Bureaucrat; Not so Active 462
Andresmh Bureaucrat; Inactive 209
JSOadmin Bureaucrat; Inactive 278
It looks like everyone (even the bureaucrats) have improved!
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
(BTW, is there some special page to create users that I haven't yet found?)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean... (go to Special Pages to see all special pages :P)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edittools changes

So I've noticed you guys have been making some changes to MediaWiki:Edittools. That's good! However some of the tools you're adding are a bit unnecessary. There is a edit bar *right on the top of the page*. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's an example: [1]. Now, many of the functions you are adding are right there. Such as bold, italics, redirects, etc. Those should removed, as they are only really needed to be in one place, not two. And I think this also includes some that you guys didn't add, such as nowiki and comments. Do you guys agree? What do you think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I kinda think that the edit tools are useless when we have clearly labeled buttons above. It would be better to change the edit bar not the edit tools in my opinion.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 02:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
True. Suggest changes and I'll try :)
JSO (talk | contribs) 12:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
+1 :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote Icon.png Quote:

Author: +1 :P
Text:  Chrischb 

I know that +1 is like agreeing... but how did that come about? We should add a like button :D.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 06:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about it :p
JSO (talk | contribs) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
That would be cool.
Now I see that a bunch are unnecessary. Should we remove them?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey your the admin now. You can do what you want to do :D
Dazman (talk | contribs) 13:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I know. I want someone else's opinion first.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Dazman, admins' opinions are worth just the same as nonadmins :P
Well, as they're already in that bar at the top, I don't think they're necessary in Edittools...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
@like button: Hey, Wikipedia has gone along fine without it :)
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, some of them work better in the edittools than in the top- like <nowiki>. I think at least that should be put back in. Any objections to making it easier?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Effected?

As you can see, the main site is plagued by the April Fools Picture. The wiki is not affected!!! Why? :3
Ian528 (talk | contribs) 11:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

No idea, but it's an interesting thought :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
That is because of the way scratchsig reads the site. Our regular pictures are still somewhere labeled with our name. All the rest are http://scratch.mit.edu/static/icons/fools_sm.png?t=2011-03-31+06%3A58%3A31 See it has "fools" in it?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, while on the subject on scratchsig, it needs fixing. The talk link should be User_talk:Name not User_Talk:Name. JSO, can you do that? Please?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter because it still automatically goes to your talk page.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
But because of case-sensitive titles, you can't tell if you've been there or not. ;) PS: Don't forget your signature.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Because I just knew I had to build in April Fools' Day protection >:D Ir possibly because the real user icons have always been at scratch.mit.edu/static/icons/buddy/[YOUR USER ID]_sm.png
JSO (talk | contribs) 23:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
And _med.png
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The search in the Community Portal help box doesn't work

It doesn't search the Community Portal and its archives - it only searches articles (which it doesn't need to). Try entering something in - it'll take you to the search thingy with a list of options. Scratch Wiki talk is unchecked...

Is there a way to fix the search? :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know... Use 4 tildes to sign please, it adds the timestamp. ;)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Jon knows that - He probably just accidentally did 3 tildes. ;)
And as for the problem... I'm pretty sure it can't be fixed (though I don't like to be too confident because JSO often corrects me). I've looked through the possibly coding for input boxes and there doesn't seem to be anything that can help....
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Forget that. :P I might have found a way...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Nope I failed... :(
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I see. :P I've been watching your experiments in recent changes.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't look so nice right now...

Quote Icon.png Quote:

Author: Jon knows that - He probably just accidentally did 3 tildes. ;)
Text:  WeirdF 

All that was there was <scratchsig>Jonathanpb</scratchsig>
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that gives what you said :P (Sorry - I accidentally forgot a tilde ^^)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 22:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Help needed: compile list of links to sample projects

I would like to have a list of all the projects that come by default with Scratch. A lot of them are in the SampleProjectsTeam account, but not all. For example this one: http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/angelical/40435

Now, how do you find the full URL of the sample projects? Well, I think the easiest method is to do the following:

1. Open Scratch

2. File > Open

3. Go to Examples

4. Click on a category.

5. Open a project.

6. Click share (this will create a remix)

7. Go to the project page of the remix

8. Click on the URL behind the word project in "Based on X's project".

9. Paste the URL in a Wikipage where we will put a lits of all the projects.

Who can help? Thanks!


Andresmh (talk | contribs) 18:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Why though? Is this to do with the wiki? Like an article or something?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 20:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Yup. I would like to have a Wiki article listing all the projects that come with Scratch.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 20:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is the list: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AjIVmkJy3aEZdDhFWDNIS0h2TEhQdTkwZlBWSFA1cVE&hl=en&authkey=CN2u5p8B
Andresmh (talk | contribs)
I don't think we should have articles about sample projects. If we were to, we could put it as a sub-section of projects, but I don't feel that each and every sample project is important enough to deserve its own page.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, whatever you decide. In my mind, I thought of the list of sample projects as I thought of the list of blocks.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 01:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and my suggestion was about have ONE page listing all the sample projects. NOT about having one page PER project.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 01:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Well I guess that is much more reasonable. What should we put about each sample project?
Dazman (talk | contribs) 02:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we could say things like "This project teaches basic scrolling" and such :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, 'cause they're not just there for show... they teach different things and shows what Scratch can do.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Wheeeeeeeeeeee :D Created the article - List of Sample Projects. (You scared me Andrés - I thought there would be several missing links, but there was only one :P) I created Sample Project too :D
Oh, about giving summaries of the sample projects... I don't think there's really anything to say about them. ^^
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please do not use characters other than letters, numbers, and ":" in anchors. In titles, please do not use question marks, and some others I haven't discovered. If you want to, ask me and I'll tell you what code to use,
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Who exactly is this directed to? Everyone? Also giving general notices about what to do and what not to do isn't particularly useful in the CP considering it will eventually be archived...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I know. The reason (if you want to know) if that it looks ugly.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Ugly to you maybe, beautiful to others? :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Why does it really matter? If it's effective, and it works, why not?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Uh... shouldn't we have a discussion on this or something? It isn't right for one person to suddenly say, "We're doing things this way". :S I don't even think a lone bureaucrat can do that...
(What's an anchor? ^^ :3 :S ^^ :3)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree. Even someone with power, including someone on the Scratch Team, needs to create a discussion. An anchor is a link using a # to get to a certain header, like so. Why should we not use characters in headers and page titles if they look ugly in the URL bar. Why does it even matter?
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that's an anchor... thanks :D
Eh, I don't think it matters what characters are used there... who cares what the url looks like, anyway? :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)ww
I support this. Avoiding strange characters makes for cleaner URLs which are easier to remember and even to find by search engines.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 01:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
How about this. We TRY to make all of the URL's look clean by avoiding, random characters. We should keep them if we think it is better for the article :D
Dazman (talk | contribs) 02:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
+1. but if it needs a question mark, we should use a question mark.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
+1. Sorry for sounding like I made the rules and stuff, it's just a url request. :) And see, Andrés agrees.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
+5. Please, please, please. Centrainly when uploading images. Those are, unlike pages, stored as actual files on the server and it's a pain to deal with special characters in filenames. Also, they are never needed in image names...
JSO (talk | contribs) 22:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

What Do you think?

I want some official decisions made. First of all, should we blur names? According to the Scratch Wiki:Frequently Asked Questions, no official decisions have been made.

Quote Icon.png Quote:

Author: This is a question that has been brought up multiple times, and the community still hasn't come to a conclusion. For now, just blur any names in images you upload.
Text:  Wiki FAQ 

I for one feel they should be blurred because it is essentially advertising their account. Opinions?

Another thing is headers. I know that == Headline text == and ==Headline text== look essentially identical, but I think we should come to a consensus on the "Correct" way of doing it.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 05:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"For now, just blur any names in images you upload" - I never blur names, and I'm quite sure most of us don't blur them either... :P
Lucario (and Shadow_7283, from an earlier discussion) were on the name-blurring side, and everyone else in the discussions (including JSO) thought otherwise. :/
I really don't think blurring usernames is necessary - what's so bad about leaving a username for people to see? It isn't like we upload images about Scratchers posting mean things - of course, if we did do that, we'd blur the names to save people embarrassment, but we don't do that...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, about the header thing - there's nothing wrong with any of them... does there really need to be a rule? :S
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I sorta feel like not blurring something is just when people are lazy :P. Its sooo easy to just put it into an editor and blur it. Takes like 2 minutes. And I feel that is against the statements in wiki FAQ

Quote Icon.png Quote:

Author: Articles about scratchers and projects are not allowed. Sorry, but these articles are often targets for vandalism (e.g. "this user was mean!"). Also, Scratchers might not know there is an article about them on a site anyone can edit, causing them to be concerned about what people are writing about them.
Text:  Scratch_Wiki:FAQ 

So yeah. And also, I feel that its best to have one way of doing the titles. I know it doesn't seem that important, but every little detail can help make this wiki just that much better.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 18:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The header thing makes no difference. and it's not any type of opinion or anything about a scratcher. it usually just shows a picture of the forums or a project.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
The header is not that important, however, I feel that we should blur names. By showing there names, it is still advertising them.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 01:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
their. Don't try and get away without grammar! Anyways...
I don't really care. I don't have *any* good image editing programs, so I won't.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Final decisions huh? :P Let's not blur usernames in images. It's easy to do but lost time, it looks ugly, there's no point doing it... Having your name mentioned on the Scratch wiki really is not a problem. Even in our relatively paranoid society they only blur names and faces when people committed crimes. We always follow the Scratch ToU. Mentioning names *is* respectful :p Also, it's not advertisement imo and even if it is, why bother?
JSO (talk | contribs) 22:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
w00t, a final decision :D
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe another couple templates...

Maybe one for — that would be Template:- and like the tip and warning, note: Information.png Note:
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I can create a note template. I dont understand what you mean by:

Quote Icon.png Quote:

Author: Maybe one for — that would be Template
Text:  Scimonster 


Dazman (talk | contribs) 17:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Like Template:! and Template:*, Template:-.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I dont get why we even need those. Why cant you just type - instead of {{!!!}}
Dazman (talk | contribs) 18:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Because they don't work in certain places: templates and tables for example. Also: "don't" and "can't."
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and {{!!!}} isn't a template.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
How about {{ }}, that would be   (a space) because multiple spaces don't work.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I wrote {{!!!}} because that would probably be the template for -
Dazman (talk | contribs) 14:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it would be -, as I said.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
You should make a template for spaces. I see what you mean. I tried to make Template:Space, but that doesnt seem to work...
Dazman (talk | contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok I added the template Template:Space
Dazman (talk | contribs) 19:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
&nbsp; for spaces folks :p Remember you can use almost all HTML on the wiki. Here's a list of all special characters you'll ever need I would avoid these spaghetti templates because it creates a lot of mess in my oppinion.
JSO (talk | contribs) 22:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That's what I was saying...
So there's no need for it?
Oh, and the characters are here.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
So should Template:- and Template:Space be deleted or protected (like Template:! and Template:*)?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to make a JavaScript sub-page of User:Scimonster

...but I don't know how to use it or what its capabilities are. Can it read certain lines from a web page's source (like Panther), and can someone give me the code, please?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you need to use javascript for? And also im pretty sure we would need JSO to do that.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
So that I don't have to update the info on projects manually each time I upload a new one. Also, I thought regular users could make css and js subpages. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
yes, any user can do it, but it only is for the display of that user.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
So does anyone know how?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't even think javascript is capable of doing that. But you never know... If you find out how, tell me so i can add it to mine.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 04:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I said before, I don't know JavaScript.
Dazman, do you want that test page deleted? Or does it not need to be?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it would be cool if you could delete test.js and skin.css pages. I don't know how this works XD. JSO needs to help.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 04:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah xD. I deleted them.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone here know if JavaScript can do this?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
as i said, it would only be for you.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I was asking who knows JavaScript.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Quite a lot of collabs and modifications...

I feel a bit silly saying this, but should there be some limit? It just feels like there are articles on a few collabs and modifications when there are so many others out there, and... well, there are major ones like Panther and the occasional one that dies down after a week. Should there be some sort of limit to these articles?

Look at Category:Scratch Modifications for an example... that's a lot, and I can only remember a few having some impact on Scratch.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed your post. ;)
Yeah, it's a bit of trouble. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... there are so many articles on Scratch modifications - how many of those are big enough to deserve an article? BYOB, Panther, Slash, etc. deserve articles, as they're quite famous modifications that people would want to look up. But there are some small modifications that aren't really known to anyone - why would they deserve articles? :/ Oh, and there are some outdated modifications that are practically gone now - they don't deserve articles (unless they were big like BYOB, but they aren't).
I don't think it's such a problem with collaboration articles though - but yeah, there should only be articles on the large collabs that plenty of people know about: Gray Bear Productions, Flaming Trout, DG Games, and so on.
(I feel so negative xD)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't get why you want to through out these Scratch Mods. Outdated mods should definitely go, however even the small ones deserve credit.
Dazman (talk | contribs) 06:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Even the small modifications that barely anyone cares or even knows about? :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Who knows anything about Claook (Scratch Modification),Falcon (Scratch Modification), Jaguar (Scratch Modification), Jayson Programming (Scratch Modification), Line (Scratch Modification), and xCubed (Scratch Modification)?
If they all go we'll be losing hard work at getting to 500 articles. :P We already lost 3 in the past two days. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and Ribbit is so-so.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

So sometime should we go on a bit of cleanup or should we find a limit? :S
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

well it would be really hard to decide on a limit. this is really an issue of notability. I'm not exactly sure how we should go about fixing this, because if we start deleting articles that don't seem notable enough, people will complain. we need a notability policy.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things. 1. There is no problem having articles of collabs/mods that don't exist anymore. Just like there are wikipedia articles of things that don't exist, it is important to keep a record of the pat. 2. It does not hurt the wiki to have lots of articles. There is virtually unlimited space. 3. Please do not remove any articles (unless they are inappropriate). If a collab/mod is not active anymore then the clean up should consist of editing the article and mention whether the collab/mod is active ornot. 4. Please continue adding articles of collabs. It is very useful to document them. Thanks.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 06:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we should decide on a language

The servers are at MIT, right? They use American English there. Also, as WeirdF pointed out, American seems to come from the original.

Quote Icon.png Quote:

Author: Well... As much as I love British English, I contest that fact. We invaded America, and gave them our language. Then as new things were invented we game them different names. Also, our language originally came from Latin, and "colour" came from the Latin word "color." The Americans chose to revert it to its original spelling. We just prefer British spelling because we're used to it (and because it's fun to have spelling battles :P).
Text:  WeirdF 

I vote for American. (Of course :P)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:15, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that it matters much, but as the Scratch Team lives in the US and uses American English, it makes more sense to use American English on their wiki...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 12:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Certainly. :P
I wouldn't mind too much about it, if people didn't change existing text from the program and website (that's American) into British, like on line 41 here (that's me correcting it).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Um... minimises isn't used in the program.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
That's right. It was misspelled in the article.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Nononono, what I meant was that "minimizes" nor "minimises" are used in it.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, sorry. But, look at line 126 in this revision.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
yeah, good point.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 05:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Eh it's kinda mean in my opinion... people understand what 'colour' means, there's no need to sweeten it up for them. :/
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 06:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
How would it be mean? Oh, and I didn't know a few years ago.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Mean because you wouldn't like it if you had to type in British English, right? :P @second sentence: Lol I guess :P
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 08:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. Write in whatever dialect of English you feel most comfortable with. If something is written in one version of English, do not waste time changing it just to tweak the spelling.
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 20:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
But as I said before, don't change it in quotes.
One of the reasons I brought this up is because I hate all those red lines under words.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • This page was last modified on 28 January 2012, at 20:20.