Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 58

< Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

Archive This page is archive 58 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

Automatic edit summaries

Yes Done

Should the automatic edit summaries have an arrow before them to separate them from custom ones? Like "MediaWiki:Autosumm-blank" here is "Blanked the page", while on Wikipedia it's "←Blanked the page". Specifically, there are four:

Wikipedia:Automatic edit summaries
Ihaveamac (talk | contribs) 06:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 03:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The arrows link to a page about automatic edit summaries, not sure if it's necessary or whatnot, but could be good to have MF231 20:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Scratch modification pages

While I find pages on Scratch modifications in general to be interesting and a worthwhile use of the wiki, I think there should be some sort of rule that says a modification must:

a) be released and downloadable with substantial changes from the main program
b) follow the Scratch Source License / GPL (depending on version)
c) have at least more than a stub's worth of info to make a page about

I feel like these guidelines, or at least similar ones would allow for pages on mods like BYOB/Snap!, Panther, Insanity, Bingo, and others for which there's a lot of information on and many users of while keeping to just the notable ones. Also, if a modification hasn't even been released, how can we know it will be? It's hard to delete the page then, for we'll be continually waiting to see.
I hope all y'allz consider this.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I give some support. But I worked so hard on developing the page for Blook! D:
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
That page would probably be able to stay (considering the mod is released and has info about it available), although it would probably be better if it explained the blocks rather than just show them.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I've been thinking about it too, and i agree.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Possibly make a page called Scratch Modification Guidelines so that I can't just make a duplicate of Scratch using Squeak, but not use the actual program itself.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
veg, should we make this official at Scratch Wiki:Scratch Modification Pages Guidelines?
On a (somewhat) related subject, do we need them to say (Scratch Modification) at the end of a title? I think not. Apparently, veggie agrees (source).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
We totally need guidelines. Too many people try too hard to make their mod's page look good or something, and there have been some minor incidents. MF231 20:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe name it 'Scratch-like Programs' or something? That way it applies to projects like Snap!, M30W, or Waterbear, that aren't actually *modifications* of Scratch in that sense.
Roijac (talk | contribs) 15:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Stuff like that is automatically more notable than a simple mod.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Sidebars for most pages

Something Lightnin said above gave me an idea. "... a sidebar ...". So, we don't have sidebars on most pages, only block, version, and mod pages. But why not? Wikipedia has on many many pages. So, we could also have on website feature pages, programming feature pages, and forum pages. If we're doing this, it might also be helpful to have a meta "sidebar" template (like WP), to easily create other sidebars.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. A good one too. I tried out some mockup coding in User:Legobob23o/Sandbox2 and transcluded the coding to show an example use in User:Legobob23o/Sandbox3. Is it good so far?
~Legobob23o (talk | contribs | sandbox) 14:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Nice start. I don't think we need an image space for the forum one. Also to include for forums: topics (e.g. 3000+), posts (e.g. 50000+), topic creators (e.g. Scratch Team and Community Moderators, posters (e.g. all).
For program & website features, it could have these (just brainstorming): image, category (e.g. projects/scripts/front page), i don't know what else. Maybe that doesn't sound like enough for a sidebar. :/ But the forums we could.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Modification page guidelines/manual of style?

No Not done
Veggieman001 suggested guidelines to which Scratch Modifications are notable, and I thought it was a good idea. Now I look at other Scratch Modification pages, and some of them could really use some work. I also look at the history sometimes and see that the creator of the mod edited the page to look somewhat like an advertisement. So I'm thinking of editing guidelines for mods specifically. Any takers? MF231 21:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Once school gets out and I do some other stuff, I'm going to be working on a draft style/content guide for the entire wiki (which I'm going to propose to Lucario & people and see what they think about it before revealing publicly) and that'll probably going to be like mid-June to July.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
I created something here already.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
My guide will be more comprehensive and laid out differently, more like the Wikipedia Manual of Style.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Trying something new with How To pages...

As you can probably see, we just pushed some changes to the wiki. We were worried that non-editors who were just visiting the wiki for information would get overwhelmed by all of the new features intended for editors, so we made a few changes to hopefully help that. One of the changes involves having different Navigation page links for logged out users than for logged in users. You can test that by logging out. We also thought that the template at the top of How To pages could be intimidating for new users, so we made a How To bar that will show for editors only. You can check it out at How_to_Change_Your_Featured_Project. So, in order to make a project show as a How To page, you can just put it in the "How To Page" category. I don't think we'll be needing the How To template anymore-- can we work on removing it? The details of the How To Page indicator bar are definitely up for changing. We ended up putting it on the top of the article, but we also thought it might work well on the side. Any suggestions?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 19:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I like it; however, I feel like it might be nice to have similar bars on other pages to explain to new users what they are. Also, it seems to have messed up the top bar.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, could you send a screenshot of the top bar? Which browser are you using?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh my, yes, I'm seeing it on firefox now. Off to fix it now... :)
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, there we go. Thanks for noticing that! Does it look better now?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 20:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Yep, cleared my cache and it's all better now ^_^ Also, the new logo looks nice! (How long has that been there? It just changed for me)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 20:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Glad you like it! It's new with this update. :)
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Could something similar be added at the top of Tutorials?
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 03:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps-- what might the language of that be?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The top bar is all messed up on Chrome. Works fine on FF. The logo is cool.
I suppose if we're not using the how to template (it can be deleted when it's not used anywhere anymore), we should add the information article in see also.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, hadn't seen all of recent changes. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks okay in my Chrome-- could you give a screenshot?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 14:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
It looks like it fixed itself. Perhaps it was just a cache issue. (Which is strange, because the last time i viewed a wiki page in Chrome was a long time ago.)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Do we need something like this for user pages to inform users that they are about to edit a page in another's user space?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 02:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Template for linking a Community Portal Discussion, active or archived

Does somebody know how to write a template for linking a Community Portal Discussion, independently if it's still active or later transferred to some of the Community Portal archives ? We use links to such discussions as references in some articles or somewhere else in the web, but they all get dead-links or must be re-edited (what mostly doesn't happen) after the discussion is archived. We tried to create such a template in the German-Wiki but we didn't sucseed until now.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 06:40, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You can make a template that links to {{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive_{{{1}}} where {{{1}}} would be what the user types in. This would require manually looking up the latest archive and putting that number. Or, you could use {{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 1|{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Archive 2|...}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} so you'd have 50 "#ifexist"s. That might take a while, but it requires no manual scripting other than with the template. I can make a mockup in my sandbox.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Done. See my sandbox for the sample code. Look at the example here.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:25, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not technically possible to have a link that remains constant to a discussion before you've archived it.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:58, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure it is. It's just hard. You just need a way to detect what the latest archive is and when the next archive is made the link changes. I made a mockup that should work.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 17:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
You can use a permalink to the revision.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

How would such a link look like? e.g the link to this section is Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal#Template for linking a Community Portal Discussion, active or archived. But what would it look like if the section could be here, or in one of the archives?
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be the same except it would have /Archive # before it. So, when this gets archived it should say Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 56#Template for linking a Community Portal Discussion, active or archived.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I made a mockup template on my sandbox and tested it here and here.New SDS?


Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you understand me? Did I understand you? I meant you have something like:
  • {{CP_or_CP_archive|Template for linking a Community Portal Discussion, active or archived}}
that links to
  • [[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal#Template for linking a Community Portal Discussion, active or archived]]
if the thread is still active or
  • [[Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive xy#Template for linking a Community Portal Discussion, active or archived]]
in case the thread is archived in Archive xy (We don't know if it's archived or not and we don't know xy when editing the CP_or_CP_archive-link and we don't want to edit the link after archiving of the thread!!!)
That's realy difficult, but should be possible. I don't understand your suggstion in context to that difficult task.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 16:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to make a template that automatically detects the archive, but I could try to make one.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a mobile skin?

I do most of my editing and browsing of the wiki on my iPhone, and the 2.0 skin is kind of hard to use with zooming. So can we get a mobile skin for the wiki? We could probably reuse the Wikipedia mobile skin.
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully soon.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Multilanguage Scratch-Wiki-Skin

The community of the DACH-Scratch Wiki is very interested in building a Multilanguage Scratch-Wiki-Skin. This means that all language-dependent parts could be installed and maintained separated from the rest of the Wiki-Skin. We don't know until now which technique is the best fitting for this. Perhaps a Wiki-AddOn would be good. It would also help if we also could use pootel, or even the same translation-server that is used for the main-scratch-site. So skin-translation could get crowd-sourced and you woudn't have to be an admin to help with it.

Until now, we had to translate and link the skin from inside it's sourcecode, including language and links. So it's not easy to transfer updates from the english skin to the german skin, because you always have to re-integrate the translation. Our Admins Jonatan and Akhof are already working to transfer the new skin to the DACH-Scratch-Wiki (see: http://scratch-dach.info/wiki/Hauptseite?useskin=scratchwikiskin ) but because of the language-matter, it's better to wait until the english skin doesn't change much more, before starting with the translation. If we had a multilanguage-skin we would have switched to the new skin already. Also it would be much easier to establish Wikis in other languages. Who wants to work with us to get a Multilanguages Scratch-Wiki-Skin?
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 11:10, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This would be useful. More useful than a mobile skin.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Your idea sounds useful, and I'd like to help a bit with it, but I'm not entirely sure how I would be able to do that, especially considering I don't know German.
By the way, you said "Who want's to work with us to get a Multilanguages Scratch-Wiki-Skin?" There shouldn't be a ' in "wants", just to point out.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your positive reaction. @ErnieParke: And thanks for giving me, as non native english speaker some help... I changed the mentioned "wants" above...you are allowed to correct my - surely lots of - typos direct in my text, if you don't change the sense, that's even faster ;-) We don't need help with the translation - e.g. to German - itself, but with the technically means to translate seperatly from the other wiki-skin-properties.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I'll make sure to keep my eye out for typos in your posts. ;) I actually had a Ukrainian friend of mine where I had to do the same thing with him, which is where I got the idea to help you. He didn't know English very well, but he was trying hard, and I liked to help him out a bit.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The skin's source is on GitHub if somebody wants to fork it to get started on making a multilingual version.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 02:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Cool idea-- unfortunately, we don't really have the time over here to devote to making so many changes. But feel free to fork on github and try it out yourself.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it shouldn't be too hard... i might try forking on github and play with it next week.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
We are looking very forward to your results! I think Jonatan will help you. He and me will be at 2013 European Scratch Conference next week see here. Who else of the scratch wiki-Team will be there? (e.g. blob8108 will be there )
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 06:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I live on a separate continent. I would like to go, but I can't. :(
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for that. It would have been great to have met you. Find some pictures here.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 05:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

undefined (block)

There seems to be some confusion about why and when undefined () shows up. It only shows up when a block is removed or you import a custom block. Should an article be made? What would we call this article? I gave a sample name above, but undefined blocks can have many inserts and would require many redirects.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right, maybe there should be an article on this, to reduce confusion.
7734f (talk | contribs) 20:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this would be a good idea, but then, there's the problem of actually making the article. It wouldn't be nice if an article about 'undefined (block)' was created only to be a stub. Still, if that can be avoided, I say go for it.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
We could probably put enough info or we could combine it with an article on obsolete blocks.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It could be another section or reference on an article about obsolete blocks. It could have an image with it to show what they look like.
7734f (talk | contribs) 01:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I say we go ahead and make it a redirect to a page on Obsolete Blocks if one exists.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, sure, lets do that. I do not know how to make redirects though. Maybe someone else can.
7734f (talk | contribs) 03:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Since you're wondering, here's the code for a redirect:
#REDIRECT [[Where to redirect to?]]
[[Category:Redirects]]
Anyway, I just found two pages on obsolete blocks, so I think we'll need to make both a redirect and a disambiguation page (for simply 'obsolete'). Here they are:
List of Obsolete Blocks
Obsolete Blocks
Thoughts?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, I think only to Obsolete Blocks as it makes most sense. Then we can modify that article to link to the list of little more.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Redirect old features?

Yes Done

Should an article about a 1.x feature be redirected to the corresponding 2.0 feature, if any? e.g. should I redirect Help (blocks) to Tips?
Scratchisthebest (talk | contribs) 22:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, articles about the past are still relevant and are labeled with {{Obsolete feature}}. On the Help (blocks) page, you see the template in use.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 23:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Ultimate Physics Engines Page

I created the page Physics Engines. My intention is for it to be an ultimate article of many physics engines, including vivid detail and description on how to make each method, and where an example of the method is, etc. however.... I only use one physics engine ("Method 1" in the article) so I'm going to need others to add their engines to it, including not only the scripts but any necessary costumes, rotation styles, etc. So, I guess my real question is, who will help me develop this giant page fully dedicated to supplying everything about physics engines?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd be glad to add my own engines to it. I fee like maybe rename it "platformer physics engine" or something because physics is extremely broad. Unfortunately, I will be on a trip for 4 days until 8/30, so I can't help you right away. Here is a link to my engine I will be describing, i suppose you could get a head start on it if necessary.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 01:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
+1 I think it should be redirected to Physics Engines (Disambiguation) and then a list of engines.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
How would we name the pages for each individual engine? "Wes64's engine" and "turkey3's engine" are both in violation of the not-crediting-yourself-in-articles thing. But "physics engine 2" or whatever isn't too descriptive.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 02:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Even "physics engine 2" sounds odd. I'd personally opt for "Physics Engine", but that sounds like it's going to become extremely large and might need to be cut into two articles. I doubt "Physics Engine" and "Physics Engine (Continuation)" would be good either... Hm. I'm thinking about grouping the engines into two categories so that we could name them "Physics Engines (Category 1)" and "Physics Engines (Category2)", but I can't think of good categories. Can anyone else?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 13:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, we're going to end up with lots of different equally viable methods of the same physics detection script. Each script will probably be too big to cram them all into the same article (but we don't know this yet). I say cram as much as possible into the existing article, then when it clearly becomes unmamageable, then split it or whatever it is you'd do.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 14:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


It depends how many engines we would have. Is there a limit to a page size on the wiki? Or maybe we can have sub-pages of a page called Physics Engines so we'd have the page Physics Engines/Method 1 although "Method 1" would be replaced with whatever engine the sub-page is on. But the problem is the engines don't have particular names... but I think my idea on sub-pages is good for organization. But we should definitely have a couple pages of engines, as we have Jumping, Wall Detection, Velocity, but no page (until now) of everything combined. (And let's archive this page already, as it's becoming quite large and slow). And can someone give me a link to blob's web page that translates a project into scratchblocks code? (It will be much quicker)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
http://blob8108.github.io/scratchblocks2/
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Or, if you want to convert just one script, you can put it in your backpack and use the backpack converter.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

We need another active admin

No Not done

I'm planning on pretty much retiring from the wiki (though I'll probably check in once in a while). We can't have 0 active admins, as veggie has also pretty much disappeared. I propose upgrading someone active to admin. Perhaps Mathfreak?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Noo, you're leaving! D: I agree that if that's happening then we need another one though, perhaps even 2 seeing as if one's away then we'll need a replacement. Mathfreak would definitely be a good choice and perhaps jvvg aswell? And if that happened we'd need more Experienced Wikians! Perhaps ErnieParke and Turkey3 would be good choices.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 13:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Maybe we could hold a vote?
Chocolatepenguin (talk | contribs) 14:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Mathfreak and me possibly? We're both fairly experienced in operating MediaWiki and already are "Experienced Wikians".
jvvg (talk | contribs) 17:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I meant for the EWs.
Chocolatepenguin (talk | contribs) 19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I definately agree that there should be 2 active admins and about 3 Experienced Wikians. I think Mathfreak and jvvg would be a great choice as an Admin. Also, Curiouscrab deserves something, as he has great coding fixes. My suggestion is admins: Mathfreak and jvvg. Experienced Wikians: Ernieparke and Curiouscrab. I was mentioned once :P let's just say this: I'm far from an experienced coder. I know slight java and HTML. I don't know mediawiki as well as any of you. But I do know Scratch really well, as well as my own room. But my vote stays with who I mentioned above :)
Oh yeah, and why Ernieparke? Ernieparke is very kind, smart, and welcoming to newcomers. But anyways, a vote would great! I really think that's the best way to go. Just like a democracy, you want to hear what the people say. But yeah, this wiki sometimes feels like a desert to me. Like all the admins are gone. We could use some fresh people..
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Hardmath123!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Turkey3 should be an EW.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 01:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hardmath isn't active here either. :/
Turkey3, you're pretty good on the wiki. I think you could be an EW. jvvg or ErnieParke would probably also make a good admin.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Am too. :P 13:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Sci doesn't seem to support you anymore. D:
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 21:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Oh noes! Poor hm...
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
*gasp*!
Well, I was kidding. I don't think I have the time to be a dedicated admin like sci (who set the bar very high). So thanks cc, but I don't think so. 22:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
@CC: I would support HM if he decided to be active on the wiki. Right now i'm trying to convince him to stop procrastinating on his projects. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:11, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
When are you planning on leaving? And are you also retiring as a community moderator? Just curious, and on the other hand, what will be done about the situation above? You're the only active one who can actually upgrade people, right? How has the process been done in the past?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, only bureaucrats can upgrade accounts. So, that would only be scmb1? I think jvvg should be admin then.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Lucario621 is also a bureaucrat and whilst he's not particularly active, I can contact him easily if need be. Personally, I support the idea of Mathfreak as an admin, but I'm not sure about jvvg; while he can be trusted, I'm not sure if he's been around on this wiki enough to get the position. (& these are just my thoughts, btw)
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
@sci I want to finish those projects too! But imho the development is always more fun than the finished project (regardless of how cool it is), so no hurry. :) 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
jvvg's been on here, what, over a year now, and he even programmed the registration. I don't think time is as important as the knowledge itself gained within that time.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
By "around...enough", I think veggie meant not active for enough time (not not a member for enough time).
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
How did I miss this??? DX (one word: vacation) Anyways, I agree with just about everything here. I feel so honored to be considered ready to take another jump in power, and I'm sure others are as well. There isn't really anything left for me to say that hasn't already been said. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
A phenomenal speech, indeed :P anyways, what are we going to do about this whole issue of "going to run out of active admins"? How much time do we have to decide? I think you should be made admin :D
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't support nor support Mathfreak231. I think wiki admins tend to be a little older. I estimate Mathfreak231 is in his low teens. Also, he was made an EW without any vote, just a guinea pig really. So basing off that isn't any good. Also, very recently (past year or so) he started making good edits (as in adding info and doing stuff with templates and Mediawiki code). I just don't think he's admin material.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... Yes, I see what you're saying. But who actually is admin material? Yeah, Mathfreak was just recently made EW, and I see what you mean about it all being too early and quick. But who, then??? jvvg possibly.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The age has little to do with it as long as the user has shown him/herself to mature and responsible. Plus low teens (13-14) has generally been what the admins have been; I was 13 when admined and I think Sci was like 12. I'm 15 now and I believe the oldest admin (besides ST/JSO).
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm actually younger than sci (but obviously more mature, right, guys? :P).
Anyway, I nominate blob if he has the time. He's more responsible, mature, and knowledgeable about Scratch than most of us, and he would make a good leader/admin/military dictator. 06:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously.
Are you sure you don't mean "tyrannical emperor"? "Responsible" certainly surprised me. :P
Anyway, I'd be happy to. If sci agreed (which he won't). And if I had time (which I don't: I'm about to start uni). But hey, I wouldn't mind having admin privs anyway... ;)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think age really matters, as long as your responsible and know how to do the things that the extra powers give to you then I think it's ok.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 10:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, phew. I was worried I might be too young for a minute there. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 10:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm with you on this: I don't mind having admin powers, but I don't want to be expected to be as active I was a few months ago. 11:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@Hardmath: I was sure you were a few months older than me. :O
@blob: Why did you think i wouldn't agree? Of course i would support you. I just didn't think you were active here. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Age shouldn't discriminate us, and it doesn't matter if they originally requested it or not. In my honest opinion, being considered admin material without having to ask is even better. But I haven't really been an EW for that long, and I have yet to be able to call myself a 1-year veteran (it's still a few months away DX). But I do have over one quarter of 10k edits, and I'd estimate that only about 12 to 15% of those were for personal use.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Currently 10.47% of your edits are to userpages and 9.2% are to user-talk pages.
I think we should decide the next admins with a vote.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 13:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
If you want to do a vote, check out this collection of plugins.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 13:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

What's been happening here? I haven't even noticed this, and I'm being proposed to be admin! :o
Anyway, I'd like to reply to Scimonster above, but I don't want my comment to be buried, and so:

jvvg I would agree with ([i]but he's a bit inactive...[/i]), but me? I am very surprised by your proposal; a wikian with 800 edits becomes admin! But I am honored that you think so highly of me even with some of my lacks of ability. Thank you.
Now for a bit more of a practical viewpoint. Although I would like to think I would be a "super-duber almighty" admin, I can only really be active on weekends (due to obvious reasons). Does that make me active enough to be an admin? Also, if I am correct, an admin is responsible for a lot of the code side of the website. In short, I am poor there. I would need jvvg's expertise to do much of anything code-wise.
Still, if you feel I am legible for the position after that, I will take the position gladly. I wonder what it'll be like to be an admin...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@EH7meow: I assume that i have used some of my user talk edits to improve the look of my own user talk. Most of them are probably me just being a talk page stalker (:P).
Also, voting is OK, but make sure we are at a complete consensus.
@ErnieParke: There are other rights that have nothing to do with coding. Special:ListGroupRights has it all.
@turkey3 (way up there): Did you just call me Methfreak? i laughed so hard :OD
@curiouscrab: You neither support nor support me for admin? DX noes

Anyways, as far as I know, we have jvvg, turkey, E.P., C.C., H.M., blob, and me for admin or E.W., with emphasis on me and somewhat jvvg for admin.
I handled my abbr.'s very well.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 15:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

@ErnieParke 900 edits is actually quite a lot (I've just noticed you actually have 900). According to User:BWOG/Edit Rankings, Bsteward, KrisMa, Dazman, Hardmath and curiouscrab are the only non-sysops who have more edits than you. Of them the only ones who are really active any more is curiouscrab and perhaps Hardmath. Also, I don't think edit counts make up all of it, jvvg is being considered and he has around 350 edits.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@EH7meow: It used to be closer to 800, but apparently it's more then 900 now. And since you did bring it up, 900 edits does sound like a lot.
Anyway, enough about that; you are correct about edit counts not making up all of the situation.
@Mathfreak231: Again, true. I was just bringing up the issue because if the CSS or javascript needs to be updated, I can't do all of that, but confirming accounts is something I will definitely look forwards to.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 17:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Boy! Were going to need a whole new page for this! I think we are all focusing a bit too much on how many edits people have. I think what really matters is how contributive they are not only to articles, but the community. I suggest having a vote down below (except this would be a large vote and you know how votes go on this wiki, with 6 voters). But then again, who am I to say what we should do :P

@Mathfreak- typos occur; I fixed it
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 19:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems certain people (i'm not naming anyone, ErnieParke  :P) are a bit confused about what an admin does. We don't have to be really active, it just can't be that we only have one admin checking in once a week or so. A quick check every day or two is usually enough. I used to look over almost every single edit; that is not necessary by any stretch of the imagination. Most of the job of an admin is protecting CP archives, deleting pages with deletion consensus, approving users (though EWs help), and updating the protected news pages. If you're not comfortable editing in the MediaWiki namespace, that's fine. It's recommended not to do too much there anyways. If something does need editing, you can always call a more experienced admin. You can ask me on my Scratch profile, as i don't check my talk page too much anymore. Admins just need to be polite, respectful, willing to help, and knowing how to edit and use wikicode. You don't even have to be on Wikipedia (i'm not, yet). If we were voting, i would recommend using the Borda count system, the way community mods are elected.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Great post, sci. Really helps clarify. (I'm ashamed to admit that I look over most of the edits on Recent Changes a lot of the time anyway...). I thought you wouldn't agree because I vaguely remember you saying no last time. If you like, you could make me an admin now, and then in another five weeks when my holidays end I'll choose someone else to be an admin... :P
@Mathfreak @Turkey3 That was the best typo!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I love that method of voting! Will we have different electives for both EW's and admins and separate votes for each?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@Scimonster: I like that borda count method; it sounds really good!
And thanks for clearing up the confusion on what an admin does. Now the whole lot is a lot clearer to me!
@Turkey3: That sounds like a good idea. I was just about to suggest separate elections, meaning we vote for admin first, then EW; but this is faster and would still give good results. Also, I think we should only be able to give our top three preferences. More then that is odd in such a small pool of people, and less somewhat ruins the reason why we have a borda count vote. What do you think?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't change the groups people are in; only bureaucrats can.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@ErnieParke: Actually, I think it's best to have the elections separate. So basically, the first is the admin election, and when that's completely done, the people who didn't win get a shot at becoming EW (unless already one). If there were both an EW and admin election at the same time, things could get confusing, such as someone winning both admin and EW, or someone winning admin and not EW. And I think picking your top three is a good idea, too. But, when (if, but I'm hoping "when") we have this vote, who will the electives be? Who decides them? I'm not necessarily asking you, ErnieParke, but everyone.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Instead of doing two different elections, we could just have one, where the top two candidates become admin and the next two become EW or something like that, and if someone who is already EW is in the second tier, then keep them as EW and go to the next person.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice job on wording that. I guess I was a bit vague by what I meant above by suggesting this ^^. In other words, I support this voting format. How about you turkey3?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 01:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@ErnieParke/jvvg: like that method a lot better. I think that's the perfect way of doing it. No long response, just that

Edit: why isn't that little arrow showing above me when the indent gets too far?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You have to add that arrow by yourself. I added it in case you want to look.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@jvvg: Exactly what i was thinking. The top two winners become admins, and the next runner-ups become EWs. But if the runner-ups are already EWs, i don't see a need to give it to more people.
I'll talk it over with the ST a bit and see what they think, OK? Then maybe we can start voting.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I think of the runner-up is already an EW, they should just keep their position and the next person becomes EW.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 15:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with the Borda count thing.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Aren't we having two admins voted in? And we really should wait for the Scratch Team before we start voting. If we wait, then we'll get some really neat Wiki extensions to vote with. Also, it'b be a bit rude if Scimonster went and asked them about voting, and we start without hearing their reply.
By the way, we're only supposed to vote for our top three preferences, not every single candidate.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe someone could make a project using cloud variables ranking the users for admins. I could easily make this and give other users access to view the results, depending on who will need to view the results. I'll go ahead and make a base. Not saying we have to use it though. I can use it for something else.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I would personally not like to use a cloud project, unless you knew how to recreate cloud lists in cloud vars. That's because if you don't, results can be skewed through double and triple votes by users (although that's unlikely with us), and I don't feel safe with that kind of a possibility.
Oh, and another thing. Why did you blank out 80% of your comment?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, wait for the ST. We're not in charge here. I'm not sure why Sci hasn't said anything for 2 days; I highly doubt the ST never responded, unless he just didn't ask... Oh well, and I don't prefer project voting, because non-wiki-members could vote and get it screwed up.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you could just use the (username) block for blocking non-wikians, but other then that, I agree with you.
"Patience is bitter, but its fruit is sweet." — (Jean-Jacques Rousseau)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I can recreate cloud lists with cloud variables. I have the project built, but now there's only one bug left to fix.
@turkey3 I can add wiki members names to a list so only they can vote.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I know, but there are very many wiki members, and even if you only add the active ones, you never know when an inactive user will want to vote possibly or one who occasionally makes an edit. Or you can implement privileges for some wiki members to be able to remove specific votes from a list if it is by a non-wiki member. And maybe, if the project thing does happen, it should be hosted on an unpopular test account, and be hosted by an admin.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If I may suggest, I say we do the voting in just a wiki table like this

User Voting Pick 1 Pick 2 Pick 3 Comment
turkey3 xxxx xxxx xxxx This user is a hard worker and kind to everyone.

Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:39, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I completed the project. Link
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Well in that case, let's just wait for an Admin response and see what they have to say for voting methods.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The project's just a base.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 23:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, and Curiouscrab, I found two bugs in your project. You can have the same person as your three preferences, and you can easily see the list of who has votes so far. Just go into the project, add your name to the list of people who can see votes, and start the project again.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no way to prevent users from editing the project and there's no script for stopping users from having the same top 3. I personally don't think that shouldn't be an option. But it's narcissism to vote for yourself 3 times.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
@ErnieParke- that method of going into the project wouldn't work, because when you go back to the project page, it completely refreshes the page and reloads the project, which resets all the code and variables. They do that so no one can tamper with the inside of a project or give themselves a super high score they didn't earn.
Edit: never mind, I misunderstood you.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Turkey3: That's okay. @Curiouscrab: Actually, there is a way. Let me show you:

when [timer v] > (-1)
set [☁ test for intruder v] to [a]
if <(☁ test for intruder) = [a]> then
  delete [all v] of [people who can see vote v]//I've forgotten the name of the list.
end

Although this looks like it will fail every time, cloud variables are automatically broken if you look inside a project, meaning they become regular variables. That also means they can store text. So, if you can store text, you know they might've looked inside. There's another method that I would like to show you now, but I need a bit of time to perfect it.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure projects are the best thing. Cloud variables are still somewhat insecure and the whole cloud variable log would need to be checked. If there was just one small mistake it could mess up the voting. You would need to make sure all the wikians could vote and there would be a bit of doubt as it could have been fixed. I think new sysops are too big a matter to be not 100% sure it was ok. Also, has one of the bureaucrats been contacted yet?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
As far as we know, there has been no contact as of yet, but Scimonster has gone to the ST to ask about the issue. (but no news has come back from him yet...)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

when [timer v] > (-1)
if <[can view results v] contains (username)> then
 ...
else
 delete (all v) of [can view results v]
end

Then have it automatically reset the who can view list with cloud variables which can't be altered in the editor.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I hope he didn't leave us yet :P we await word on this lonely island
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


Wow. After a week of being stuck with all sorts of dumb guys in a forest, it really is great to be back with you guys. I almost cried when I saw someone use the word 'narcissism'. Geeks ftw. :)
After sci's post regarding what an admin has to do, I changed my mind. I'm usually online for over an hour each day, and I wouldn't mind spending a few minutes helping out on the Wiki doing "paperwork". It's the least I can do; Scratch gave me so much.
Keep in mind that of late, my interest has become very localized to Snap!. Though I'm keeping in touch with the Scratch news and current events, I'm definitely not the most knowledgeable about stuff like what's going on in MaC/RaP, current hot collabs/projects, or even the current big glitches (the only one I can name is the Pixelblender issue). But that said, I've been around since late 2009 (though my account was created in Feb 2010), so I probably know a lot of Scratch history and culture. And I'm good with programming/math/CS articles.
I guess what I'm saying is that I definitely wouldn't mind helping out as an admin, but I'm not the best choice for dedicated content creation.
Regarding voting: I like the idea of a Borda count. IMHO you should use Google Forms for this. You enter your username, and your first/second/third/fourth choices (authentication may be an issue here, but I think we can trust each other—and if we find two votes by the same person we know something went wrong). Then it shouldn't be too hard to write a Python program to rank people given a CSV. 06:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Follow-up: Yeah, so I got the form to work ( https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1VgAaSbK4RlNDgQ6VpIv7mJWbl0PzPLIHJML97azhnW4/viewform ). It's actually perfect: the responses get sent over to a spreadsheet, which I can download as a CSV and easily analyze with Python. The only way to cheat is to lie about your username, but I don't think we can avoid that. For the sake of neutrality, I think an ST member should own the spreadsheet and do the counting (I volunteer to write the Python code if a lot of people vote and counting by hand gets tough). 07:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Woo! Hardmath for admin!

:P Though I want to write the Python code! Don't take that away from me... :'(
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 11:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

XD Sure, go ahead.
(That's really touching, btw, thanks all you guys.) 12:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
...though this military dictator will rescind his vote entirely if you don't start using normal ScratchSigs like everyone else. (I didn't update that plugin for 2.0 just so you could ignore it, sergeant.)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
How come an admin hasn't said anything about this in a while? (Sorry if I'm being pesky)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 14:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
What military director? CC? Meh.
I asked Lightnin about it last week, and he said he would ask scmb1 to come check it out. I take it she never showed up.
@HM: Good to hear that you're in the running. Feel free to greatly improve the Snap! page btw...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Oops! Here I am. :) It's cool that you've put so much thought into elections. So what are all the options for the medium at this point? A Scratch project, a Google form, some Python code, or possibly a wiki table? Have we reached a consensus or eliminated any options at this point? Looks to me like the Google form works pretty well at this point-- what would be the pros and cons of going that way?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 02:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
The main downside of the Google form is there's no authentication -- we'd need some way of making sure no one voted as someone else. Perhaps a list of people on the wiki -- add yourself when you vote. Votes by anyone not on that list get discarded.
But really, why don't we just use a wiki table, like last time? Is it that we don't want others to see who voted for whom?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 09:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
+1 I don't mind others knowing my vote; but I think some people do mind. (Maybe we should vote on how to vote!).Hardmath123 11:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting silly. :P Let's just have everyone list their preferences in order, right here, and then sort them out later. Agreed? Scmb1, is that okay? (I keep wanting to write your real name...)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 11:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

One problem with that is somebody could tamper with the results. Although it would be in the history, I'm not sure if we really want to sort through every edit to make sure everybody only voted once and didn't tamper with it. If we do use a wiki table, we should put it on its own page because the CP already has enough stuff on it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree; the wiki table could be easily edited to one's will. If we do use one though, then another reason why it should be on its own page is that we can easily check for foul play (because we don't have to sort through every edit, but the ones on the page; Page History). As for Google, I also don't think that's such a good idea because as Blob8108 pointed out, there's no authentication built in. Also, a project wouldn't allow for people to hide their votes (if wanted), and the creator can still do a bit of foul play. Python code on the final hand sounds like a good idea.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 17:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't think a wiki table is a problem. The people running will be pretty honest, and it's a greater risk of them being caught changing it that not getting voted. I don't think that's a problem, and checking the history can easily be done. If it was done this way in the past, why bother changing it now? As for using a project, I say no, not because of a programming error, but sometimes the cloud variables don't connect to the server, and a vote may not be made correctly. Python code wouldn't be bad, but in my opinion, we have all the recourses here, as well as the security to check for fraudulent votes...
And speaking of the people running, we may not fully know exactly everyone's accomplishments on this wiki, so why don't the electives all write a short bio on how they've contributed, and then vote? I say we:
  • List the electives
  • Have them write a short bio
  • Vote with a wiki table
    Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I still can't say I'm very optimistic for a wiki table being our voting medium, but if it was used before for other admin elections, I say that I agree with it. I also agree that since this is a big vote that we might as well get a final shot to represent ourselves in the way Turkey3 described. I doubt the need, but does anyone think there should be a limit to one's bio?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, someone might go overboard under the intention that "a longer bio gets me more votes", so how about stay within 5-10 sentences?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Votes

Let's move the above discussion to here.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see much need, though it makes commenting easier a bit. Might as well.
Anyway, in reply to your old comment, I don't think a minimum to the bio length is really needed because if someone chooses to put down only one sentence, it's their choice. Especially if it sums up their side pretty well, though a max of 8 sentences sounds good. 10 though seems a bit long because if a candidate has a valid argument, they should be able to sum it up well in 8 sentences.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, a max of 8 sounds good. And I moved it here because the other ones were getting too long, and really, "Hardmath for Admin!" doesn't quite exactly fit our discussion :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't it? I thought it was a genius plan: subtly insert pro-Hardmath propaganda into everyone's edit summaries... ;)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
True, I was thinking that for awhile. Could we maybe move this to "Hardmath for Supreme Wiki Lord!" instead? :P
Anyway, Scimonster and Scmb1, what do you think of the plans above?
Also, it's been awhile and jkl0l hasn't been put up as curator yet on the front page. Could either one of you do that?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, that needs done... Which I guess supports the fact that we could use another admin, lol
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the bios should be much shorter. 20 words? 140 characters?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't say anything in 20 words. Where do we put the bios?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
+1 for 140 characters. And we put it in the Wikitable, of course.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 14:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
In a list above the wiki table of votes, of course. :P
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
140 characters seems short. If we have one that short, why do we even have a bio? Besides, how would we be able to measure that while editing? Though 8 sentences sounds long now. Maybe 6? Or 4?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't do anything with 140 characters :O how about 4 sentences, and no run-ons?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
If we must have bios, they can be as short or as long as the admin-to-be wishes. Our prospective admins are sensible enough not to waffle on forever. Does it really matter, anyway? Let's just vote and get it on with!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:59, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You're right; we drag these conversations on too much :P
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Scimonster/VotesForAdmin?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be a good page, but I feel like its not the best due to the fact that its under someone's user page, and is a bit out of the way. What I would like to see more is a sub page of the CP's talk, or a subsection in the CP. What are your thoughts on that?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe Scratch Wiki:Election votes?
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That would work.
Just to say, we never did have an admin election before. :P But i think a wikitable is fine; we're all honest, aren't we?
I think anyone who wants to nominate themselves can simply add themselves to the list on that page.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Cool. Sci, mind hacking together the table?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 13:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I made a table! Scratch Wiki talk:Votes For Admin 2013
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Why talk namespace? It's located at Scratch Wiki:Votes For Admin 2013. We need somewhere for meta-discussion...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Blob8108:I don't think we'd need a whole new section for a meta-discussion because this section on admin talk is good enough.
@jvvg: Sure! That sounds like a good page title.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I think moving now would cause too much trouble.
Anyways, when should we close the votes? (I hope it's soon, because I did a count earlier, and I'm winning, heheheheheheheheheheheh)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Uh... when everyone's voted, for some subset of "everyone"? (I think I was winning for a brief moment earlier; I should've suggested it then... :P)
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 00:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I'm still winning. I forget wether jvvg is ahead of you or if you guys are tied. Which arises another question: what if there's a tie for 2nd place?
Hold on; just as I was typing this, Wes64 submitted his vote, and I think now that Blob and I are tied and jvvg is trailing us by 1 point.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I thought jvvg had written PHP code to display the results? Actually, I checked out that page and was lost on how to see the results :P And who still needs to vote? Sci himself hasn't, but other than him I can't really think of an active user who hasn't...
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 01:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
blob hasn't.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I think we should wait till CC and blob have voted or else it wouldn't be fair that we didn't wait on them. Also, if you consider it, they have one more vote then every other candidate, skewing the results. Putting that aside, I think a final date of the end of the 17th would be good.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
What do you mean about skewing the results?
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
he means that if some candidate doesn't vote, he essentially takes away votes from the others (since you don't vote for yourself, voting brings up everyone else). I agree; and I think we should wait for sci.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 16:58, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I agree. We just need Sci and CC to vote, and then we could stop it. Agreed, everyone?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 20:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As long as we make sure that everyone who wants to vote gets to.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 20:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet Another Pointless Divider

I guess we have a potential deadline then. BTW, I just did another manual count and it looks like Blob and I are tied for first.

I don't see why we exactly need Python, I am really good & accurate at counting myself.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? I never assumed Mathfreak would be good at counting... (me and my corny sarcasm) and neither do I see a need for Python. We can have two people count the results, most likely admins, and then each campaigner counts his or her own to check for a mistake.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting for me, guys. Good luck to everyone! If hm or blob feels like making a script for it, so why not. If no-one does, so we can count manually.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration notability?

I have some ideas for some notability requirements for a collab to have an article on the Scratch Wiki:

  • They must have at least 5 projects finished or unfinished. No collabs just themed around 1 project are notable.
  • At least one project must be finished and shared.
  • They must involve at least 3 members.
  • They must have had some activity since the transition to Scratch 2.0 (meaning probably a new forum topic), or they must have released 10 projects beforehand. (this is to make sure the collab is or was notably active, and didn't just give up on something)
  • The collab must have more than a stub's worth of info, and their page may not be written like an advertisement.

Any other ideas? I'm also kinda questioning myself on #4; is 10 projects too many?

And I'd like to add that just about any collaboration can be put at List of Collaborations, even if it isn't yet notable enough for its own article.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There's lots of fluff in that list you've linked to - collabs with no projects, collabs without reliable information.
Wes64 (talk | contribs) 14:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd sort of be sad if TcX had to go (since I spent a lot of time on it) but I guess that's just how it is. I actually agree with most of what you said.
I'm wondering about newspaper collabs though. While a like them they make more (smallish) projects faster and then under this system they'd be able to keep their article which seems slightly unfair seeing as one collab could spend months on a game and another finish 10 projects in the meantime. Somethin to think about perhaps?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think we should have pages on collaborations at all. We're already not allowed to have articles on Scratchers and projects, but they're basically a combination of the two.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Quite.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 16:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
You could be right on that one.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't have an issue with Collab pages since they have info that gets updated. List of Collaborations was old and had very little info and was outdated
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 00:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Veggie. I don't see a need for them, and most are dead or never kept up to date. I don't like mod articles either. The only ones I like are Panther and BYOB, but I really think this should be mainly on Scratch. They should make their own wiki for those mods, I think :)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 02:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
@CuriousCrab: The wiki documents trends, but we already have Collaboration (group). We don't need to document all the PARTS of the trend, because they don't really add anything seriously important to the wiki, they just seem to be there for advertising. If you really think List of Collaborations is outdated, why don't you update it yourself?
Who else has an argument on disallowing collab pages?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's say UserB hears about a collab created by UserA. They're very interested, but don't know where to get info from. They ask UserA, but UserA apparently hasn't been with the collab for 5 years. They don't know who is in charge anymore. UserB thinks of their resources and goes to the Scratch Wiki. They search the collab name and discover the new leader of the collab is UserC. Now they can read up about the collab and figure out if they want to join or not. And, they know who to ask to join.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:03, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's not what that Scratch Wiki is used for, though. Maybe there should be a different website for news updates on collabs. :)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I would disagree with that because these collabs are Scratched based, and they are a notable trend on Scratch. I'm not sure every collab should get here just for having a few members, but this is still Scratch related, and that's what the Wiki is about. Documenting Scratch and its many trends.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes, collaborations are a notable trend in scratch. That's why we have Collaboration (group). 1 collab isn't a trend itself. It's also technically breaking the S:NOSP laws. If we don't trash collab pages completely, they should at least comply to my guidelines.
And since EH7meow gave a valid point from which I derived the fact that guidelines can never be complete without being subject to opinion. If we are going to base it on opinion, we'll end up wasting all our time on questioning or defending the notability of collabs (imagine this topic multiplied by 20). :P
So now we have a debate on wether to keep collab pages or not. I will put into your minds all of the current arguments against/possible solutions:

  • Solution: Have set guidelines for what is notable in collabs (original idea)
    • Drawback: There is no way to measure activity or whatnot without opinion. And this'll require a lot of arguing. :P
  • Argument: These pages convey up-to-date info
    • Problem: This wiki is for documenting Scratch, not for delivering collabs' status updates. Such should be done on the collab's own website, or on a new wiki.
  • Argument: They document a trend that's been going on for a long time.
    • Problem: If we're documenting the trend, all we really need is one page.

Apologies for bulk post. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that collab article should probably go. Unlike modifications we're never going to get all the collabs there are and there's usually a lot less to write about collabs. Collabs are a lot less notable.
If we have articles on a collab then you could argue that there are users who are as popular as a collab and why don't they get an article. To avoid this and because individual collabs don't usually play a part in Scratch history I think the articles should be deleted, even if this involves getting rid of lots of people's effort.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 09:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Also, we can have articles/sections on different types of collabs, given they are popular enough (but again, not each individual one).
I'm gonna start with deleting stub-length collab pages, but keep this open to discussion (we have five or six for, two against, as of right now).
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 14:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd quite happily contribute to an article about scratch newspapers (a popular collab type). Deleting the stubs was a good idea, they're all out of date anyway. Also, when you say that 5 or 6 are for, you mean in favour of deleting all collab articles, right?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 15:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mathfreak231: Apologies accepted. ;)
Anyway, back onto topic. This isn't breaking the S:NOSP laws. That prohibits articles on lone Scratchers and projects, but a collaboration is not a lone Scratcher or project. It is a team and a group of people working towards a common goal, with that goal most of the time being multiple projects. And yes, I agree that not every collaboration should make it to the Wiki because then we'll get cluttered with five sentence long articles, but that doesn't mean we should delete them all.
@EH7meow: You said that if we had collabs, we could argue that Scratchers should have pages. You can't, because that would be breaking the S:NOSP laws. And collabs are much different then an individual Scratcher.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The page doesn't say anywhere that only "lone" scratchers/projects are disallowed. And if you think it does, wouldn't it allow for dumb ideas like this? (read the title of that page and have a lol)
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 21:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Forum Smiley - Tongue.png That is a funny page when you see it! Maybe we could turn it into its own article? Hm...
Anyway, if for some reason, lots of Scratchers went to Canada just to be called a Canadian Scratcher, then yes, the article should be allowed. That's because it's both notable and a trend. And if you forget, there is le kaj, the lone hacker erm... Scratcher.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Being Canadian is a trend? Wow. Besides, what is there to write about Scratchers from different regions that is actually relevant to Scratch? If you would have seen that article before it was deleted, you'll know what I'm talking about.
Last time I checked, a group of scratchers portrayed in a wiki article must be, to quote S:NOSP, "important roles in the community designated by the Scratch Team."
"Le kaj" and "le Pac-man project" were, to again quote S:NOSP, "topics that have been considered important/notable enough in Scratch's history by a majority of wiki editors that they deserve an article."
</offtopic>
To say again, collabs (plural) are a trend, each collab isn't a "trend" itself.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you think we have enough support to delete the pages? Also, earlier you said Quote Icon.png Quote:
Author: *Argument: These pages convey up-to-date info
    • Problem: This wiki is for documenting Scratch, not for delivering collabs' status updates. Such should be done on the collab's own website, or on a new wiki.
Text:  Mathfreak231 
They don't even give up to date information. Most of them no longer exist or are extremely inactive.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I was just summing up everybody's against-arguments. That was CuriousCrab's say, not mine.
Again, it's 5 (possibly 6, if you count Wes64) to 2. The 5 (or 6) for deleting also includes 1 E.W. and one admin. Though I'm still thinking that maybe we should still convince the others...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Over at the discussion "Keeping or Deleting Several Pages" the "List of Project series" got deleted with 5 votes for and 2 wanting something else. It's the same here so I think we can act now.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

But this is about 26 pages that would be deleted. That was just 1. Are you sure a 5:2 majority is enough to vote off that many?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Don't know, you hardly ever get more than 7 or 8 people voting though. By the way, do you think Scratch Forums Music would be an exception, it seems to have so many people and a few albums I sort of think it should stay. Another idea is to merge the rather nice music collab articles into one article about music collabs with them as examples. We could do similar things for the newspaper ones.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mathfreak231: There actually used to be a page under Canadian Scratchers? I would've suspected German Scratchers more then Canadian; could someone maybe bring a copy of the page up in their sandbox (or somewhere) so that I could take a peak for curiosity?
@EH7meow: Although a collab isn't active, or has died, that doesn't mean information isn't up-to-date. It just means that the collab isn't active any more.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
@EH7: Yeah, Scratch Forums Music seems like one to keep because it's unique, so many people participated, and it's not like an advertisement or anything.
And of course we should have articles explaining newspaper collabs or music collabs.
@Ernie: I would pull that up but I'm not admin (yet) and therefore can't (yet) pull up deleted pages' histories.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 19:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
It's collabs like the Scratch Forum Music that make me want to keep these. Although every collab isn't completely notable, there are some really good and big ones. For example, Chrono Wars Collaboration had 39 members. Also, Gray Bear Productions is a really good collab in my mind (though with a more scant 23 members)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, those are good collaborations. Now I partially agree with you. I think a good compromise is to delete the ones that never really had any activity, but keep just a few that are arguably notable.
I'll start this by getting rid of the ones that can't be defended at all because of very little to no activity and/or very few members.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good start. Those articles I believe are the ones where at least six people agree on, and which I don't have any complaint for. The other big ones (especially Scratch Forums Music and Gray Bear Productions) though I would love to keep. What do you think EH7meow?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Geez louise, the wiki was slow. I couldn't submit anything, and eventually I got kicked off because my brother had to do some homework.
I was inching towards creating a new wiki on Wikia that features collabs. I just don't think it's this wiki's duty, even though it has been going on for a while. Of course they have to be notable enough to get on there.
We could keep them on this wiki and have very strict notability laws, because the only purpose for those pages is example.
To sum up, it's either creating the Scratch Collaboration Wiki on Wikia and having less strict requirements, or keeping just a few on this wiki and having stricter requirements.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yeah, it's hard to explain my feeling on this, but this should be on Scratch only in my opinion, not really what's made by people in Scratch. I'm sure someone can find out more information on a collaboration by going to the page on the forums rather than here. I feel like many of these collaboration pages are just for advertising, and I'm sure many of you do, too. I'm going to take a survey on the forums, and ask if they've ever looked up a collaboration on the wiki to find out information on it, and also, if so, how accurate that information was. (When I have time I'll ask).

Furthermore, I become somewhat annoyed when clicking the "random page" button and always ending up on a mod or collab page. Oh, and also, that random button doesn't always seem too random. Seriously, the same articles, especially List of Collabs, appear very frequently out of the 800+
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen the "random page" button give duplicate pages that often, and I've been on here for quite awhile. I'm guessing that it's due to the fact that I use it less often. :/
Anyway, I wonder what the survey will come out like...
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 00:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
@Mathfreak231 I'm not so sure about having any collabs on this wiki unless for a big reason like if it was the first one ever. It could be a bit like a hall of fame.
@ErnieParke Scratch Forums Music seems to be less of a collaboration as it has different people making songs each time. To be honest I've never heard of Gray Bear productions (I've only been on Scratch since March (I think)), although I sort of feel that it's very unlikely that any collab could be notable enough. It doesn't seem right to have lots of stuff like blocks and the forums mixed in with collabs. If there was some sort of "notabilityometer", I reckon there would be a big drop between the level that most articles are at and the collab articles' level, I sort of feel the same for some of the RPG articles but that's another discussion.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 16:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
True, there are many collabs that aren't notable, but if you remember, we have articles on Scratch modifications, and lots of them are about as popular as the collabs. And Grey Bear Productions was an old collab, not a modern one. I don't know how long its been inactive, but at least for a year. I suspect 2~3 is more correct.
Also, Scratch Forums Music does seem less of a collab, but that's because it involved so many people. It is still a collab by definition:

"collaboration [kəˌlæbəˈreɪʃən]
n
1. (often foll by on, with, etc.) the act of working with another or others on a joint project" The Free Dictionary (online)

And if we have an article on one collab, doesn't that mean we could have a couple more on other collabs?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A Scratch Mod somehow feels different though, it is a whole new version of the Scratch program whereas a collab is a small amount of people making a few projects. Also, while technically Scratch Forums Music may be a collab it involved such a large number of people that I feel that keeping it is justified whereas smaller collabs aren't. If a small collab became really famous or notable I would support an article though.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps some of the stub Mod articles could go though. They give you a small amount of information about a fairly un-notable mod which really isn't worth having on the wiki even if they are a whole new version of Scratch.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:57, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
A collab is not always a small group of people working on a project. Grey Bear Productions had 23 members, and Chrono Wars had 39 great members, which is a lot. And although they aren't as big as Scratch Forums Music, they are still huge in the terms of everyday collabs. And I agree with you that "smaller collabs aren't" justified in staying, but that's why I'm fighting for the other collabs. The ones that were a large effort by many Scratchers, like TcX, which had 26 members.
As for the mods, I agree with you there. Some are just here to be here. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm in TcX and can tell you that perhaps only 7-11 of those 26 are actually active. In most collabs there are inactive people whereas in Scratch Forums Music everybody did something. I think that most collabs though are fairly un-notable and don't deserve articles. Gray Bear and Chrono Wars are fairly big but compared to some of our other articles which are about describing a feature (e.g. Love-It, Favorite etc.) they are nothing. I think that perhaps Scratch Forums Music could just get a section in Miscellaneous because I think it is slightly more notable than a collab but it doesn't need to have so much detail. It then seems slightly more fair. I'll add a bit about Scratch Forums Music into the article if you agree.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 15:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It is slightly more fair, but keeping only one collab, and only having a mere mention of it, doesn't do it much justice, and kicking a whole page into Miscellaneous wouldn't be really good either because then 2/3 of the page would be for a collab, not even the Miscellaneous forums at all. Keeping it on its own page will stop those two issues from occurring, and it already had so much information to warrant one. As for Grey Bear Productions and Chrono Wars, I would be okay if those were only mentions on the Collaboration (group) page in a new section Notable Collabs, though Scratch Forums Music has to be more then a simple mention and a few facts.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fair. I'd prefer Example Collabs as a section header. And we're ridding ourselves completely of all the others?
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 00:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@ErnieParke I was thinking of making a rather small section so it wouldn't be too big.
@Mathfreak231 I suppose you can delete them unless we want to pursue this idea of having an article on Music Collaborations and Newspaper Collaborations. If we do want those articles then I guess you can delete all collab articles except the ones that could help with writing those articles. And don't delete Gray Bear or Chrono Wars either!
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 08:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so I've made the Example Collaborations part so I suppose you can now delete Chrono Wars and Gray Bear (if you think the section is ok). I think that the bits on Music Collaborations and Newspaper Collaborations could just go here in the Other Types of Collaborations section as there isn't that much to say about those types of collabs. What do you think?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 10:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I've now made the sections and I think it would be hard to make a new article with them. I reckon that all the collab articles can be deleted now. Even with a bit of expanding the sections wouldn't get article length, would they?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't think they would get article length unless we added several collabs to the page to lengthen it up. As for adding the two types of collabs to the Collaboration_(group) article, I can't say much now that you've moved things already, but I know you did the right thing.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
It's seems that nearly all of them have now been deleted. Except Eternity Inc. (due to a discussion on its talk page about whether it should go in the example collab section), Scratch Forums Music (because we're not sure what to do with it) and Frozen Coco (I don't know why). I think Frozen Coco could be deleted, it doesn't seem fair on everything else.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 07:40, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Much-needed divider

I left Frozen Coco for the same reason as Eternity Inc.; it feels like one of the better ones. I opened a discussion on its talk page.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 18:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

And I think we're all Yes Done.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 01:21, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New Curator!

jkl0l is our new curator. The news needs updated.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll update the news more when I'm admin. I have a suggestion, first, but I'll also get to that when I'm admin.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 13:56, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Finally done.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Scratch Forums Archive Being Shut Down Tomorrow

Just to notify you all, the Scratch forums archive is being shut down tomorrow by the Scratch Team (proof), so I'm just telling everyone so they can get any screenshots needed before it's down; and also, we'll need to remove all references to the old forums, which there are many of.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Election should go in Wiki news

I think that the admin election should go in the Wiki news so that more users notice it and vote in it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 01:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 02:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Bad Place

Yes Done

I just created Simulating_Gravity#Creating_Gravity_Using_Physics as a nice extension of the page, except I just realized my mistake in putting a complex tutorial in a How-To page. So, I want to move it to a different page, except I'm not entirely sure where. Does anyone have ideas?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 21:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

How-to pages are for tutorials, right? Make another "How-To" page! Put "Advanced" in the title if it's appropriate.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 22:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
That isn't a good option because according to Help:How To pages:

Keep it simple. When editing a “How-To” article, write for an audience that’s totally new to Scratch, and computers in general.

So a new How-To article won't resolve the situation. Maybe a tutorial, but given the option I'm thinking of at the moment, that would be worse (though still a good one). The Physics Engines page was made to document the various forms of physics in Scratch, so why not move the physics code there? Plus, as soon as I perfect my rope physics engine, I could move that there as well.
Anyhow, I just noticed a bug with the scratchblocks renderer. In my code, I used a custom variable (Distance), though it's is turning purple. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 22:56, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
We do have advanced tutorials, like the ones for doing Remote Sensor Connections in various languages. Admittedly they're not How-to pages. It should probably not be how-to page. Move it to a separate page and ask for a better name on the talk page there.
Did you "define distance" somewhere? If it's a bug, you should report it!
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I think it fits with the Simulating Gravity page and should stay. Why don't you just totally remove the caption "how to" in the first place and just categorize it under "scripting tutorials"?
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
@Turkey3: That would be a good idea, but then new users would 'lose' an article on how to simulate gravity. It still though would solve the situation... I think that I agree with you on this. I'll wait a bit for more responses before actually putting this into play.
@Blob8108: No, I didn't define distance, and I'm reporting it right now. Or is there a different place to report a bug?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs)
You add it to S:SB2BUGS and then it sits for a while until I add it to the Github Issues page. Or, if you're feeling nice, just add it to Github directly.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, I am feeling nice, but I'm not sure where that Github page is, or else I would fork it in there. :/
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I linked it off S:SB2BUGS.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 14:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay; I didn't even know distance was a WeDo block!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 20:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Latest blockplugin

In case y'all hadn't noticed, all the juicy new features described on the style guide are now released. So you can now

  • make links: stamp
  • make non-existent blocks that aren't red: drink tea // category=motion
  • use the grey ellipsis block to show a gap. . .

I think we also agreed somewhere that the only use for block images / screenshots is in the block template in block articles. (Link to that discussion, someone?)

So, if you've nothing better to do, get to work updating those articles! Particularly List of Block Workarounds, which needs a little love.

In other news, I should probably start versioning the block plugin. So no-one gets confused.

Bye for now.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 21:28, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, melikes! I promised to try hexagonal booleans at some point... Did you make any progress there?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 22:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Fixed-height booleans are easy, see the issue page.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 07:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
How come these new features aren't on the forums? Does an ST member have to update them onto there? I think they're pretty cool :D
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 12:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Because the ST haven't updated it yet, yeah. I don't think we're going to add inline scratchblocks to the forums, though: too confusing, encourages block spam, no obvious use case, etc.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 13:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured Images/Article

On the frontpage of the wiki there is the featured images and article section. However, they have been up for quite a long time. It doesn't seem "featured" anymore and more like "permanent image/article". So I think it should get updated.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could make a page for nominating featured articles/images...
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 23:28, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Or some sort of way of organizing various images with descriptions and having it automatically pick a random one every day. Doubt that's easy, though.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I like the nomination system.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 00:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
The nomination system sounds good. Perhaps, Scratch Wiki talk:Featured content nomination?
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
We can probably just use the talk page of S:FI.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The new admin has been chosen!

If you check list of sysops you can see that Mathfreak231 is there, a candidate in the vote
Chocolatepenguin (talk | contribs) 07:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

sorry, that was 3 days ago. ;)
But I think I'll update the news.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Are the Block Categories Part of the Block Palette.

I was surprised to not find an article on the block categories, but I realized the Block Palette article talks about them. Does the block palette include the categories, or just the blocks underneath he categories? I always thought the categories were separate from the actual blocks. Or is it debatable? Either way, though, I'll probably make an article on the categories, since there isn't one on the general point of a category.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 17:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think they are part of the palette, but they could probably merit their own article.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • This page was last modified on 23 September 2013, at 23:36.