Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal

(Redirected from Talk:Scratch Wiki Home)

Welcome to the main talk page for the Scratch Wiki!
Shortcuts:
SWT:CP
S:CPORTAL
S:CPTALK
S:PORTAL
S:PORTTALK
S:CP

We recommend that before you ask a question, you search the archives first to make sure it has not been answered before:*





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
If you do not think a discussion is done, you can move it to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/Not Done.



How to edit on the Scratch Wiki

We recommend that before you create your question, you read these tips to editing on the Scratch Wiki.

  • Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) after your post.
  • To do various text formatting, follow the following rules, rather than using any other text-editing methods:
    • Make text bold with '''text'''.
    • Make text italics with ''text''.
    • Make text bold and italics with '''''text'''''.
    • Make a link to a page outside of this wiki with [http://www.example.com link text] or {{plain link|1=http://www.example.com|2=link text}} if you don't want the Link icon.png symbol to appear (remember http:// prefix).
    • Make a link to an article on this wiki with [[Page name]] or [[Page name|Link text]].
    • Make a link to a Wikipedia article with [[Wikipedia:Page name]] or [[Wikipedia:Page name|Link text]].
    • Indent a paragraph by putting a colon (:) before it.
    • For more, see the help page on formatting.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • Always remember to be polite and respectful, assume good faith, and be welcoming, while following the Scratch Community Guidelines.

Not done

No Not done (this will never been done completely, so don't archive!)

Threads that need "long time and hard work" will not be archived, but moved to Scratch Wiki talk:Community Portal/not done. Actually you can read and continue following threads there:

To make sure that your thread will not be archive put the template No Not done at the top.
Don't forget to replace it with the Yes Done template when the thread is finally finished.
MartinWollenweber (talk | contribs) 17:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Some Article Ideas for Everybody

Yes Done

These are some articles I'm thinking could be created. If anybody wants to give these a shot at making them, feel free! Also, it can be smart to write articles in your sandbox if it's incomplete and then create the article after you finish it in your sandbox. This reduces the number of stub articles in the mainspace.

  • Adobe Flash Player - it's a fairly significant thing that's required for Scratch 2.0, but there is no article on it specifically. This article could provide info on what it is and details specifically on how to get it in different web browsers and operating systems.
  • Computer - We already have some articles on computer science, such as Computer Science and Lag. They are somewhat related to Scratch, and so is a computer. It's the main device used to run Scratch. An article on it is probably a good idea. It can cover basic logistics of computers but it also needs to be linked to Scratch in some way. You could talk about the development of computers coinciding with the progress of Scratch.
  • Yes Done - Defaults Library - Scratch has a built-in Costumes Library and Sprite Library and Sounds Library. I think maybe an article on this would be good.
  • Yes Redirected - Jobs - the main Scratch website has a Jobs page linked in the footer. As to why I think this deserves an article, we already have an article for the Statistics Page, Privacy Policy, and Terms of Use. I think, though, rather than talking about the Jobs page it could probably talk about Jobs. Scratch is an employer so this could be a good article on that stuff.
  • Yes Stub - Main Menu - It's part of most games, so we should probably have an article on it. What a main menu is and how to create one. Well we do have Creating a Main Menu but if we have an article on that an article on main menus in general is a good idea. You could even go outside of Scratch a bit and talk about main menus in NES games and such.
  • Removing a Character from a String - fairly self-explanatory.
  • Yes Done - Replicating a Multidimensional List - lists are 1D in Scratch. Just a list of items. In other programming languages you have multidimensional Arrays, so rather than have a list of say items 1-5, you may a have a list of items 1-5 but each of those items has a list inside of it. That'd be a 2D list. So basically you have lists inside of lists.
There are ways to "replicate" a multidimensional list with a 1D list. For example, if you want a list of 5 items and inside each item you want a list of 3 items, you can just pretend that the first 3 items in the list belong to the list items of the 1st highest dimension item in the list. I hope that makes sense. Like every 3 items it becomes a new item in a sense.
Then you can think outside of the box some. What if you don't want the same number of items in a list inside of an item? Well it requires some more complex logic then.
I also noticed the article Array does cover this some. But I think it would be possible to have a standalone article that goes way more in-depth.
  • Yes Done - Saving a Project - An article on how to save a Scratch project. Whether it be saved online or how to download it to your computer and save it there. It should be documented.
  • Yes Moved and redirected - Sound Recorder - An article on how to connect a mic to Scratch and record sound in the Sound Editor. It's not really documented now. Currently we do have the article Sound Recorder which documents a Scratch 1.4 feature. This could be moved to Sound Recorder (1.4) and then a new article Sound Recorder can be made to document recording in Scratch 2.0.


Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

We came to the point that computer isn't relevant to Scratch.
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 06:57, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm making the multidimensional list one in my sandbox now.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Done! I've put it at Multidimensional Arrays, but feel free to move it if you have a better title.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
00:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice!!
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 00:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! :D I am actually making a project that implements this on my testing account, so this article was more familiar to me to make.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
00:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the way, there is a section of one article that talks about the jobs available (Scratch Team#Jobs), although I agree it's a bit brief. I suggest we expand that section instead of making an article about it and have Jobs redirect to that section.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll create the Main Menu page really quick. It'll be basic, and won't have too much stuff (I'm not the best with wiki markup), but luckily you guys can edit it later. I'll just make a few description points and stuff like that.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 22:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I finished creating the Main Menu page. Wow, it was annoying trying to find a category, realizing I don't know what category to fit it into, creating a new category, creating a new category page, and then having to find a category for THAT page. I've marked it as a stub, though; it's not too complete, but it's still there.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
A quick note: I moved Main Menu to Menu (project) after a discussion between Duckboycool, WolfCat67 and I on the talk page. So yeah. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like Downy did "Saving a Project"!
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Jobs now redirects to Scratch Team#Jobs. If someone can either expand the section that would be great. Alternatively, someone could make a full-fledged article on it if they want and replace the redirect with that.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Sound Recorder now redirects to Sound Editor, and the original article has been moved to Sound Recorder (1.4). Now that all of these are done or rejected, this topic is finally Yes Done too!
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
21:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A Thorough Discussion on Thinking of the Past, Present, Future, and Organizing them All

No Not done

One of the complexities of documenting Scratch is it changes so much. When Scratch transitioned from 1.4 to 2.0 there was an unbelievable amount of work on the Wiki that required tons of articles to be updated. This reached the solution of keeping articles relating to Scratch 1.4 but denoting them by putting "(1.4)" in the title of the article. For example, the older version of Paint Editor is Paint Editor (1.4). Another example is Project Compression (1.4) which is the old version of Project Compression.

I think we need to set in place some standards. In the future, we are going to have to do this for Scratch 3.0, so it's better if it can be done consistently. Firs thing to discuss is:

Past or Present Tense - I have noticed it is not always consistent. For example, Scratch Forums (1.4) discusses the forums in past tense. Paint Editor (1.4) uses the present tense, though that may make more sense since you can still use Scratch 1.4 while the Scratch forums are nonexistent. However, an article like Project Downloading (1.4) talks in the present tense even though project downloading on the Scratch 1.4 site is not possible since that old version of the site does not exist.

So I wonder, for an article that documents a feature in an old version of Scratch that is still accessible like the 1.4 Paint Editor, should it be: past or present tense?

For an article that documents a feature in an old version of Scratch that is impossible to access and there solely for history, should it be: past or present tense?

In the latter case of an article that documents an unavailable feature just for history, if present tense is used it sort of gives off the feel that that is how the article would be read if you were to be reading it in 2010 or whenever. This may make sense if we want our articles to sort of be like a frozen time capsule of the past. But if past tense is used, that could also make more sense because it's not 2010 but 2017.

Block Pages - This brings up another issue, and it has to do with block pages. An example of this is Distance to () (block). Please note that there is no Distance to () (block) (1.4) page on the Wiki, and that is so because this block is available in both Scratch 1.4 and 2.0, so we believed it was not necessary to document the same block in a prior version of Scratch. I'm starting to think, though, it might be a good idea.

Take a look at the script on that page. It uses the if <> then block as well as the stop [all v] block. Both these blocks are sort of in Scratch 1.4, but "if ()" then was just "if ()" and "stop [all v]" was just "stop all". So if somebody is using Scratch 1.4 and looks up the documentation of this block on the Wiki, the scripts in the article may use blocks not available in 1.4. There are probably more examples of block pages on the Wiki that use blocks not in Scratch 1.4, probably more dire examples than mine above.

It's just something to think about. How do we want to make our Wiki consistent throughout history to avoid any possible confusion? Do block articles deserve a (1.4) version or not? Eventually we are going to have (2.0) articles. It's best to decide stuff like this at the present moment.

If Block - I just noticed there happens to be no article on it. Technically "if () then" is only in 2.0, so shouldn't "if () (block) (1.4)" be an article?

Titles of Articles on items not in 2.0 - Examples of what I am talking about are the articles Stop All (block) as well as Java Player. The titles of these articles do not have (1.4) in the title because, well, they are not available in Scratch 2.0! So, I'm going to ask you guys, do you think by not having (1.4) in the title, it can be misleading, making people think it's a feature still available?

It does say at the top, "This article or section documents a feature not included in the current version of Scratch (2.0). It is only useful from a historical perspective" so I do not believe anybody reading the article is going to be confused and think the Java Player still exists. But do you think it should or should not have "(1.4)" in the title, or should "(1.4)" only be in the title of articles on features that have been replaced in Scratch 2.0?
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:41, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Turkey3 at it again with the great writing! I intend to move some things (leaving redirects, ofc) once I have time.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
23:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Firstly, I think that this is a very important topic. It's important to get this right, or, like you say, things could get more messy and complicated.
So, here are my views:
I agree that past tense should be used when something is no longer accessible, it's odd to say 'you can' if you can't anymore. Similarly, I support using present tense on still accessible but outdated features because you still 'can'.
I don't think we should make 1.4 versions of articles for blocks that are unchanged on both versions. Examples are only examples, so I don't believe it's worth duplicating a page for them. That being said, it should be good practice to make examples as 1.4/2.0-friendly as possible.
I also agree with making a 'if () (block) (1.4)' article as the change between versions could be a cause for confusion, and this article could help clear up that confusion.
I believe that the version number used on an article on an outdated feature should be the last version it was available in, making it clear that it is no longer used.
Furthermore, a feature on the current version should have no version number in my opinion, as this causes lots of moving when Scratch updates and also makes it appear to be historic, as the version number looks like it's denoting a secondary, or outdated version of something.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
So with that said do you believe the title should be "Java Player" or "Java Player (1.4)"?
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 19:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I support Java Player (1.4) and Stop All (block) (1.4) and at this moment I also support Flash Player and Stop () (block). However, when Scratch 3.0 comes, I believe that Flash Player should become Flash Player (2.0) and there should be a new article titled HTML5 Player.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 19:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I changed the article about [[https://wiki.scratch.mit.edu/wiki/Project_Downloading_(1.4)%7CProject Downloading (1.4) to past tense as you can no longer do it.

Blessing06 (talk | contribs) 15:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Should "Griffpatch" become a wiki article?

No Not done

Now, I know that you're not supposed to create articles about users and all, but arguably, griffpatch is now a part of Scratch culture. The same goes for "Kaj"; they have an article, and they were a user once. However, since they became part of Scratch culture, they were allowed to have a topic made for them. So, we at the Discord chat have all been thinking about what to do. What are your thoughts on the matter? Of course, we would probably have to contact griffpatch about it to see if they're OK with it first.
WolfCat67 (talk | contribs) 04:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I've put the logs of the Discord conversation here for anyone that can't access it. I will say that I don't really mind that much whether we choose to make a Griffpatch article or delete the Kaj one, but I definitely do think that we should be consistent. I would argue that Griffpatch would actually make for a better article than Kaj, as it doesn't have that teasing element to it. It's also undeniable that Griffpatch is a huge part of Scratch culture nowadays, while Kaj is honestly dieing out a bit.
Hamish752 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
So far, it seems like the reasoning for a griffpatch article is that he's massively popular, that he has the most popular Scratch project, he has a massive whitelist for chat projects, etc...
This is not what the wiki is for. It's not a popularity contest.
However, on that note, an article is allowable on other grounds. For example, the griffpatch problem. The ST acknowledged that many new Scratchers have trouble because they aim too high.
If there was more content in this direction, a griffpatch article would be acceptable.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 04:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally would support a Griffpatch article.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 04:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty much neutral about this. Even though Griffpatch is one of the most well-known Scratch users, I think he's a bit overrated. Also, Kaj's account was deleted, but Griffpatch's still exists, so we may need his permission.
Nickeljorn (talk | contribs) 19:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a sudden concern with this: What happens if Griffpatch suddenly decides to come on the Wiki? If he's accepted, he'll have a userpage and a mainspace page about him. Otherwise, I'm neutral.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
01:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
So what...?
Hamish752 (talk | contribs) 02:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I personally would be in favour of a griffpatch article because I feel that he is as notable if not more notable than Kaj. I would also be in favour of not adding a griffpatch article and removing the Kaj article as well. (For the reasons stated above by Hamish)
The_Grits (talk | contribs) 14:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For as long as I have been on the wiki, the criteria for articles about the community, users, projects, studios and collaborations has been "Was the product "sponsored" by the Scratch Team? This definition is tangable in a sense concerning all the above mentioned topics. "Kaj" became "sponsored" when the Scratch Team used him to describe an important point to the community. My impression is that this wiki is not about what really occurs in the community but more about what the Scratch Team does and the projects which they decide to back. Studios and collaborations are "sponsored" when they are set up by the Scratch Team and/or run by them. Forums have articles because they were set up by the Scratch Team, and so forth. My worry is that if we change this definition to what we define as "Scratch culture" I believe we lose the philosophy which has been held here. How we define "Scratch culture" is much less clear than the previous definition which I layed out. :) Now this does open up many new topics which may deserve articles because an argument can be made that they were "sponsored". The "griffpatch effect" as mentioned by ErnieParke may be an active problem that the Scratch Team is concerned with, and therefore deserves an article. Does "Griffpatch" deserve an article? No, b/c then we would need to write articles for many, many more community entities that deserve such. "WazzoTV" or "HobsonTV", with over 10,000 followers each may need articles as well. It would change our focus from being wiki editors to being wiki journalists, constantly updating and adding articles based on the newest cultural changes. Just my two cents on the matter ;)
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 20:57, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. He should. It could start with “Griffpatch is a very famous scratcher…”
Forested (talk | contribs) 09:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you read any of the previous replies...?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
10:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Embedding of Scratch Projects

No Not done

Hey! :) I was thinking it'd be cool if we could embed Scratch projects into the wiki. They could be used in place of the existing example projects in the Pen Projects article, used on certain tutorial pages to demonstrate an expected result or even show a process more easily using an animation.

At the moment, you can't use the <iframe> tag required for embedding a Scratch project on the wiki. I've done a little research, and it looks like the easiest way to allow iframes would be to install this Media Wiki plugin. The good thing about this extension is that it doesn't allow the embedding of any iframe, it can be configured to only allow the embedding of Scratch projects, for example.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 22:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

My concern is that having projects load on a WIki page could be slow and take up a lot of RAM and make things slower overall.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I definitely take your point. As long as we only embed one low-asset project per page though, it's impact on loading times would be more limited.
One article I thought could benefit is Pen Art Examples. For example, this project could be used to let readers see how it is rendered, in addition to the existing pictures. Readers could also then click the link and see inside to learn more.
EH7meow (talk | contribs) 17:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
We could just make a gif of the pen being rendered.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 17:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a(n) (possibly better) idea. If we could enable video files to be uploaded, then we could make screen recordings of example projects and have those recordings directly in articles. Thoughts?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
If I'm correct, mp4's were suggested before and accepted, but support was not added to the wiki.
This time around, when I re-suggest mp4's, how about we compile a list of what pages would benefit from it? Having examples is good motivation.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 14:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure! I think over 3/4 of all How To pages and tutorials would benefit from this :P
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Support! It would be like the YouTube videos on the Minecraft Gamepedia Wiki!
Forested (talk | contribs) 19:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This wouldn't take up almost any ram at all if we just use iframes to the main scratch website. :/
TheUltimatum (talk | contribs) 19:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

My edit count seems to be out of sync

No Not done

If I transclude my edit count, I get 3,593; but on the actual page, the "Total" count is 307 less than the transcluded count! What's going on?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Werid. If I do it, I get 316 but that is actually a few less than the count on the page.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 13:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Same here! The only difference is that mine is only 10 behind.
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 14:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Is anybody else having the same problem?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, when transcluded, my Editcount is 25 less than the real count...:/
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 11:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Is this discussion still active? If so, this is happening to me too. My transcluded edit count is 34 less than what it says on Special:Editcount/bigpuppy.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 13:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New (but small) template(s)

I have one template idea that I think will have much use: Username. Not to be confused with User, it is just a user page link instead of user page, talk, and contribs.

Example:

{{username|jvvg}}

Produces
jvvg

Two other complementary, but less needed, ideas are “talk” and “contribs” - [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] and [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]] respectively.

Thoughts?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
10:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I like the idea however some users might not have their talk page linked on their userpage so it would make it harder access their it from a RC.
-Vuton- (talk | contribs) 10:33, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I’m not sure what you’re saying here - could you please rephrase/clarify?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
14:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, you know how most users have a header on their talk page? Some new users don't. If they made a edit and you wanted to talk to them about that edit, you wouldn't be able to get to their talk page from the RC's because that button is gone and they don't have it on their userpage either! Meaning you would have to manually type in the URL.
-Vuton- (talk | contribs) 20:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
How does that effect this? This is just linking to their talk and contribs page. Also, why wouldn't you be able to get to there from the RCs?
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 22:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Sorry! I misread the original comment! :P
-Vuton- (talk | contribs) 08:42, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Could you add it as a parameter option in {{User}}?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 20:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That’s true! Yes Done.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
21:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A Question on articles for Extensions, specifically isOnline

No Not done

I have come to question an article for isOnline (iOv2) or any other user created extensions. First of all, would it break the rules listed in S:NOSP. There are exceptions, but does it fit? S:NOSP states:

Almost all articles about users and user-generated content will be deleted. The wiki is not the place for advertisements or biographies; these pages may end up being targets for vandalism (e.g. "this user was mean!"). The exceptions to this rule are:

  • Topics that have been considered important/notable enough in Scratch's history by a majority of wiki editors that they deserve an article. (ex. Kaj, Removed Pac-Man Project, etc.)
  • Articles about important roles in the community designated by the Scratch Team (ex. Community Moderator, Curator, etc.)
  • Projects may be linked to as examples to get the point of an article across more effectively, such as on Pen Projects. They must, however, be relevant to the topic and work adequately well.
  • Trends that are notably popular; the trends must be practiced by many Scratchers. One example of this is the Toki trend started by Maki-Tak a few years ago.
    • Specific instances of this trend may also be used in the same way as example projects. For exam

ple, the Collaboration page has examples of several notable collaborations started on Scratch.

If a username is mentioned (e.g. the creator of a Scratch Modification) do not make a link to that user's Scratch profile or Wiki user page.

First, iOv2 is user generated content. Though it seems the Wiki community has made a decision on it, and has already made an article as I am typing this. But what is the Scratch community's' input on this?

Second, would we really have enough to put on that article? We can add updates, but what else.

Third, are we advertising this extension? We are part of a Wiki at an educational site of one of the most prestigious colleges in the world. Does the college, does the Scratch Team, approve and support this extension?

Fourth, "isOnlineV2" is the official spelling of the extension, not "IsOnlineV2."

On a final note, I would like us to reevaluate our decision to include this as an article one last time.

Thank you.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 16:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

First off, I think that we should have at least a list of browser extensions. Like the ExtensionScratch Device Plugin Helper, which was made by the ST. There's also Scratch Messaging Extension, made by griffpatch, #Bring It Back, lots of extensions. But I do support the idea of an isOnline wiki page, just to inform people about what it is and how it works.


Pylar (talk | contribs) 21:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Could we get some more Wiki community input. Wikians, Ews, Admins?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about it, It is a very popular and useful extension. Thoughts Admins?
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 18:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought there was an EW here :). Anyhow- it seems to me that we have made articles for very notable extensions and that isOnline was receiving an article for being the most-used community extension which exists. Although based on the thisandagain quote we may want to reevaluate it :)
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 19:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Devil's Advocate:
The page seems to be written like a how-to page rather than an informative page. I'm sure isonline provides the same information on their website.
Most of the extensions/mods we have have some sort of affiliation with Scratch OR they have been used by Scratch. The quote that Makethebrainhappy is referring to shows clearly that the Scratch Team is not endorsing or connected with the extension.
By Scratch_Wiki:Editing_Conventions#Capitalization, even though it is isOnline without the initial capital letter, the first word has to have an initial capital letter in this case.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
That is precisely what I am saying. This is from the OP by me.
Third, are we advertising this extension? We are part of a Wiki at an educational site of one of the most prestigious colleges in the world. Does the college, does the Scratch Team, approve and support this extension?

-sip-

On a final note, I would like us to reevaluate our decision to include this as an article one last time.


Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 21:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
People think the page should exist and I am expressing my opinions that go against the grain as new insight. That is called a devils advocate.
anyways yes this extension is popular but it seems just like a separate extension not really worthy of being a separate wiki page.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 04:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
SO should we keep it as a wiki page? My main point was bolded just above, which has not been answered.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 16:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
seeing the content on the page i think it should not exist. i feel like everything on the isonline page could be written on their website rather than the wiki
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Should we delete the article then?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We should probably wait for some other admins/EWs/users before deleting the article. Perhaps it could get moved to a user's subpages.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I still support the article. Plus if IsOnline ever goes away the Wiki would be there to document its historical notability.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 17:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I see your point, but the thing with me is that by having this article, I believe that we are showing the the ST and MIT support these extensions. If iO ever goes sour, than we will have to document that too, correct? So does the ST support the article and by extension, the extension itself, does the college do the same?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it as any different from articles like BYOB or Explore (Scratch Modification) or Dream (Scratch Modifcation). The only difference I see is that it's an extension instead of a modification, but both still play a role in enhancing Scratch's current features.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 17:50, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a quote from thisandagain stating that the ST doesn't support isOnline. Also, we have a wiki page on something called Kurt which I didn't even know existed until I clicked the random page button. So if THAT gets a page, isOnline definitely should.
Pylar (talk | contribs) 18:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There's also the issue of pages that exist on the Wiki that wouldn't be allowed of this day. Kurt, and the other mod pages would of gone through the same amount of discussion if the page were created on this day rather than in 2013, etc.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
But the question is: Are those mods completely supported by the ST? I am aware that iO is not.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 18:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Of course not, they'll never officially support anything that's not theirs because don't want to be liable if something goes wrong with a program beyond their control.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 21:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
So then should they be deleted? Or, Should we move these to a category of users' extensions with a sice red template saying that these are only to document popular extensions and are not supported by the ST?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


Should we...?

Yes Done

Should we propose new changes to featured images?
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits) 07:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Featured images haven’t changed since my 2000 edit mark. I say aye.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Suggestions?
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 16:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
clicky
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 21:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
changed!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Removed Featured Project

This project, titled Metroid by a user (I dont know the name, was removed from the Featured projects bar for being a copy of a different project. Are we inputting this on the Featured Projects article?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Isn’t that like the opposite of sponsored by the ST? I say nay.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
20:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
But it's a significant event in Scratch's history. Right?
TheUltimatum (talk | contribs) 19:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Scratch Camp Articles and what to do with them

Yes Done

What do the above articles all have in common? They are all about Scratch Camps. However, there is already an article about all of the Scratch Camps here. Since there is (usually) a Scratch Camp every year, that will result a lot of articles about just Scratch Camps in a couple of years. Plus, each of the articles say pretty much the same thing -- what the camp's theme was, who the counselors are, etc. I was wondering everyone's opinions on this:

What if all the separate Scratch Camp articles were deleted except the main one (Scratch Camps), and on Scratch Camps we kept the sections about each Scratch Camp, and added a new section to that article every year about the new Scratch Camp. This would prevent new unneeded articles about every single Scratch Camp.

Thanks for reading, and I'd really like to hear your opinion. Scratch on! ;)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 00:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I never saw why each camp should have its own article in the first place. Support.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
01:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah... As I said, they're pretty much saying the same types of things. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
No Support. The deep down article will be different once we actually edit it. We need to include the camp page and all the sections/ other notable occurrences. :) They are all Scratch Team sponsored which was why they got their own articles. I'm not sure though why "Happy Birthday Scratch" was never turned into an article...
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 12:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
@Makethebrainhappy: Scratch Camps#Scratch Camp: Down Deep already includes a part on what the sections/parts were about. (That's what you meant, right?) Anyway, we can just include the camp page on each section on the Scratch Camps article.
What do others think?
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This is still No Not done -- does anyone else have an opinion? :P
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Support. The individual pages are short enough to be merged.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────No support. I'm with MTBH on this one. They are all ST sponsored, and should have their own articles. Also, in comparison, all the Scratch conferences have their own article, but are even shorter then the Scratch Camp ones.
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 21:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

After reading all the discussions and doing a bit of research on my own, I think I'll have to withdraw my support..
First of all, the act of merging something is to condense information into one page, such that there aren't any Wiki pages that are simply a restatement of another. Since this was a request of a merge, I think ST support does not matter too much in this discussion. ST support hugely reflects if a page should exist or not, but not if it should be merged.
Secondly, the individual camp articles do have a bit more information than the page about Scratch Camps. While the Scratch Camps page only describes the purpose of the camp, its members and has a brief discussion on its rules, the individual camp articles elaborate on it more, talking about its rules, forums related to it, week-by-week activities, etc. I foresee more complicated camps that will exist, so having an article for each will be the best thing to do going forward.
I think the articles are fine as they are now.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Drunken_Sailor and @KrIsMa-- That is true I suppose. Also, I guess there's only one every year, so it wouldn't make too many articles with the same topic. @Drunken_Sailor, thanks for pointing out that all the Scratch conferences have their own article, I didn't notice that when I wrote this topic. :P And @KrIsMa, I did look back at the Scratch Camp articles and now I do agree with you guys that there is enough different content that each one can have it's own article. For example, in Mix and Match Camp, users created sprites and backdrops and more, and in Scratch to the Future Camp, users made futuristic sprites, and other futuristic stuff.
Also, I agree that there is a bit more information on each different Scratch Camp page, and if we combined all of that, it would end up as a pretty long article. I do think we should keep the Scratch Camps article though, just in case someone wants to see a list of all the Scratch Camps.
Thank you everyone for your opinions, and I think now I've changed my mind about what I personally think the fate of the Scratch Camp articles should be. :P
@Kenny2scratch, I'm not sure what your final opinion is after reading all these comments after you posted yours, and I'm not sure if there's anyone that still thinks the Scratch Camp articles should be merged. If you still think so and you have a good reason, you should probably post. :P
In my opinion this is Yes Done, but as I said above it still may be No Not done.
Again, thanks everyone for your opinions and have a great day. :D I'm glad we had a chance to discuss this.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 21:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
We need to add the specific activities from the deep down camp (each of the parts basically). We should also include that the camp was mentioned in the scratch video update, that some of the projects in the camp were featured, that the camp received a lot of attention on twitter, etc.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 01:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I think we have all come to the conclusion that the separate Scratch Camp articles should stay on the wiki, and therefore this is Yes Done. Thanks everyone for your opinions :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 00:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Change “new section” wording from “Comment” to “Add topic”

^^ - I occaisionally get new users commenting at the top of my talk, and I think if the wording was changed to “add topic” it would be more clear that that is the better way to comment on someone’s talk.

To do so, an admin needs to change MediaWiki:Addsection from Comment to Add topic.

Thoughts?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe... How about "New topic"?
But I think "comment" explains it already...
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I think you need to change that to "new topic".
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 17:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
It seems like “Comment” doesn’t get the message through that you use this to comment - so that’s why I suggested this. “New topic” seems fine too - but “comment” evidently isn’t.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay -- yes, I support "new topic."
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 16:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
+1
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 19:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I changed it: tell me how you guys like it?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 19:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes Looks good! I hope that will help users realize they should post at the bottom :)
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
21:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks KrIsMa! :D
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Image for Statistics not updating

Hello. This is my first edit. I updated the image for the statistics page so it had up to date info. It's been ten minutes and the image hasn't changed. Could someone tell me what's going on? Edit: Thanks guys! Clearing the cache worked
Macbookacer (talk | contribs) 05:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC) -macbookacer

You’ll need to clear your cache - Ctrl+F5 on Windows, ⌘ Cmd+⇧ Shift+R on Mac. Then the image should be updated.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Kenny2scratch is correct. If you are on Safari, then hold ⇧ Shift and press the refresh button. If you ever forget, or you want to learn more, you can go to this wiki page:
Help:Hard Refresh
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there macbookacer! Please don't put your edit inside of my post... Thanks :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for editing it ;) This is Yes Done now.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 01:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Change favicon

No Favicon has not been changed yet

My brother suggested this, and I thought it would be nice, so here’s the idea:

Change the site favicon - the little icon that appears next to the tab title.

Currently, it is the 1.4 site logo. My suggested change is to the current Wiki globe icon, without the wordmark:

Wiki icon.png

Thoughts?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
06:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

support.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 06:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Nice
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 12:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
+1! This would make much more sense :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I support this.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 16:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
That would look better! +1
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
support
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I like the idea, but I think it should stay as it is the same as the normal Scratch Webpage.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 22:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea! I didn't really notice this for a while. It would easily help me distinguish between which tabs I have open that are Scratch and the wiki. :P
WolfCat67 Zorua Profile Picture.png ᙡᗝᒪFᙅᗩT67 ( Talk | Contributions | Subpages ) 22:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with using File:Wiki icon.png--
Apple502j (talk | contribs) 03:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@Customhacker -- do you mean the site favicon for scratch.mit.edu (the normal one)?
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 15:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe it should be that, but I kinda still think it should be Wiki icon.png.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 16:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm torn between supporting using Wiki icon.png or Scratch icon.png (the site favicon for the main Scratch site), as there are good things about each (I could only think of a few):
Scratch icon.png:
  • This would make it the same across all of Scratch.
  • It's part of the actual Scratch Logo.
Wiki icon.png:
  • It seems more "wiki-ish" than the other one.
  • It looks pretty cool (in my opinion).
    Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 02:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The Scratch Cat is a trademark of Scratch - just as the S is. I think the wiki is separate enough from Scratch to have its own favicon. I say the wiki globe is better.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
12:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think the Wiki Globe is better. The Wiki is separate from the main Scratch website enough that the favicons can be different.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 14:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Like Kenny2scratch said, the wiki globe still has the Scratch Cat on it, so people would probably still know it was about Scratch.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Bigpuppy Or, you know, the name of the wiki and the subject might make people realize it's about Scratch. :P
WolfCat67 Zorua Profile Picture.png ᙡᗝᒪFᙅᗩT67 ( Talk | Contributions | Subpages ) 17:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, bad wording. I meant it should still be related to Scratch (like it shouldn't just be the Wikipedia logo). And the wiki globe maintains that while still being the wiki globe.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 18:14, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
So we agree that the wiki globe is the icon we want? I'll ping scmb1 about this then.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Nice! :P
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 08:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Great, can't wait :D
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 02:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

should "x__0" become an article?

the user x__0 had a lot of impact on scratch, with theories about them and even users making accounts that worked in the same way. since they left scratch, maybe we could make an article about them?
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 07:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't it violate S:NOSP? If x__0 had impact like Kaj, maybe I agree.--
Apple502j (talk | contribs) 11:17, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a good point. I think it would fit better to be added under Scratch Trends, if it isn't already there.
Auroura_Wolf (talk | contribs) 13:16, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Who is x__0?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
In scratch trends, yes. But not his own article.
Pylar (talk | contribs) 14:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I will add them to scratch trends. Thanks for your opinions! When I will add them to the article, this would be Yes Done.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 14:20, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I disagree, this clearly violates S:NOSP, even as a subsection of an article. Could you name a precedent? If the trend is just making usernames similar to a popular Scratcher, I don't think it's that popular.. *shrugs*
Jokebookservice1 (talk | contribs) 18:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It is more popular than some of the things that are in the trends article.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 12:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a good point...
I see that you've already added the section, though, so this topic is Yes Done.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Making fan pages of a popular Scratcher isn't a trend too much. How many accounts do you see? I've seen no more than 10. What is a "trend" is the popularity of the user, and even if it's more popular than other things, it's not something that belongs on the Wiki, it's advertising.
Jokebookservice1 (talk | contribs) 16:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The style of the user is very diffrent than normal, and there are more than 10 of those users. This isn't a fan page.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 16:43, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Is this user more popular than griffpatch? And we cannot have an article about griffpatch as it violates S:NOSP. I would say more people know about griffpatch than this user. That being for its own article. However, even on Scratch Trends, I dont think that this user is as trendy as kumquats. I think it would be fine if you just linked a couple of projects or just put their name in the page of Animated Thumbnails
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Im changing @kenny2scratch's done to a not done - I will remove your template. This is for now, due to wanting more discussion, No Not done
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:21, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
No support. We should really remove the Scratch Trends article entirely. I know it's history but we really are not prepared to deal with reporting on these issues when it comes to purely scratch users. I never heard of this user. Why should I not receive an article? I mean :P, that guy only has about double the followers I do :P. In all seriousness though, if we can't agree to give Griffpatch an article, then we won't be giving any other people articles or sections.
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 01:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @customhacker please don't edit my message to change its meaning - you can mark it as {{not done}} afterwards instead of changing the {{done}}.

@makethebrainhappy I agree with not giving this an article - I don't know about a section. Also, saying things like "if we can't agree on this we won't be doing that" isn't really acceptable - what if we do agree to do that in the end anyway?

@OP I don't mind this getting a section in Scratch Trends - I wonder if griffpatch should too though.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Update to the Scratch News

Yes Done

There's a new Scratch Design Studio, iirc this goes on the Scratch News: https://scratch.mit.edu/studios/4228332/
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, I didn't know there was a new SDS! Neat. :P
WolfCat67 Zorua Profile Picture.png ᙡᗝᒪFᙅᗩT67 ( Talk | Contributions | Subpages ) 17:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Nice!
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 17:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It just came out (yesterday, I think?).
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 18:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello? EWs? Admins? :P
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes Done
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi there! It says "The Scratch Team has released a new Scratch Design Studio! Its description states:" but doesn't say anything after that. Could you fix that? Sorry for bugging you :P
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 23:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── missed this. fixed Yes Done
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 03:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Wednesday!

Hi everyone! It's time for another fresh, wacky, Wiki Wednesday! This is an event where we as a community come together to pick a good article, and showcase it to the rest of Scratch.

Everyone is allowed to suggest an article. What should we feature?

Note, the article should have good content, and be written well. Bonus points for images!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 02:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This? :)
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 08:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
How about Project? :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Help Page?
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 14:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, how about Tips Page? (Ugh edit conflict :P)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
How about this click
Makethebrainhappy (talk | contribs) 01:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe Removed Pac-Man Project?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────How about New Scratcher Status?
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 11:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Tips Page or (()_mod_())
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
We could do the featured projects page
Macbookacer (talk | contribs) 19:25, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that Tips Page would be a pretty good one. Good for timely information.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 23:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Thanks for the suggestions! The tips page looks a little unfinished so I'll go with the New Scratcher Status page :) Thanks everyone! -
LiFaytheGoblin (talk | contribs) 10:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, cool! :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright then!
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
01:46, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Yes Done
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 06:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

custom signatures

No Not done

Recently I've noticed many custom signatures break one specific rule:
The signature may not contain any background colors, images, or borders
Specifically, background colors and borders cannot be added to custom signatures. It is important to read that page fully before creating a custom signature. Please change it to satisfy that rule. Thank you!
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

another suggestion: we could also propose to scrap that rule so if you're up for it you may start a discussion.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 16:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
That is what I had said in my post here.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 17:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
clearly it got archived quicker than it should of! we'll label this not done so that doesn't happen.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Some signatures I've seen with background colors or borders don't seem to be causing any problems in my opinion, but that's just my opinion. :P
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
There was an issue that came up on the CP when someone used borders and backgrounds and some issues arose. I'm not sure what archive it's under but that was the reason the rule was added.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 17:27, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Then maybe it might be best to keep it as a rule.
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 17:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I found the section with the new rules here. Not sure if that was it. Was it it?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 18:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

yep, it's that one.
I still support a background-border free signature. keeps signatures super clear and also limits the amount of custom signatures on the wiki (keep in mind custom signatures are not recommended)
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 18:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Is the font on mine clear enough? Just wondering...
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 18:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@KrIsMa: I would support enforcing the rule of no borders no backgrouds (nbnb).

@Vuton: Yours is fine. If anything, I would have to change mine.

Content from older discussion (linked above):
</div>
If someone could fix the extra div tag, that would be great.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 21:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
You didn't even use {{collapse bottom}}... However, the extra div is something I've tried to fix and failed - no fix for that.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── In my opinion, that previous discussion is all we need - as long as the borders and backgrounds aren't all around the sig I think it's fine. I really don't see the harm in having sigs with borders around "talk" and "contribs".

Background colors may be a bit more problematic - I wouldn't be upset if a sig I made had its background color removed. So I'm fine with that.

also "Kenny2Scratche" is the worst spelling of my name I've seen in a long time...
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:29, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Change of Account Request Guidelines

We were discussing changing the account request guidelines, so here is what I have come up with. In the old request system, you had to find an article on the Wiki to improve. We've realized most people have difficulty doing this, and the acceptance rate on the Wiki is really low. We thought an entire revamp would be best.

The way the new system works is using Scratch Wiki:Flawed Article. People who want to get an account are required to point out certain flaws on this article as well as say a couple things they would add to it. We believe this more accurately tests their ability to understand our guidelines, editing conventions, and how the Wiki works.

Any advise on improvements to the New Guidelines? If there are no complaints it'll be rolled out as soon as possible!
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 22:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, I like the idea of Scratch Wiki:Flawed Article!
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 23:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
So I like the idea, but my thing is that the current way that people are currently doing it, I can easily tell which users deserve an account. The way you are suggesting gives them an article to look at and requires them to look for errors (yes, I have been watching you work on it). And some of those errors I dont think would be major errors in arcticles currently on the wiki. With your system, I dont think that we would see what weaknesses these users have. With these systems, there is no rocket. Your system tests the finding of the information of the user, not how much they can interpret instructions and search through many pages for errors, not just hunting possibly obvious errors on a given page. On the other hand, this gives users something to look at and find errors, and we can judge them based on how they think the extent of their work ethics need to be present. But I would love to see us try this system for a month or two. Because again, those statements up there are only an opinion, and not proven. The Wiki appreciates you putting your effort into this system. I would love to see how it works for a month or two.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 00:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ok. That thing defines the meaning of flawed. I really want to see how this works. But can you please instruct us on how to judge this accounts like the Admin Guide?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 00:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
You would judge them based on if they pointed out 3 flaws and 2 things to improve or not. If they did and you know they have identified 3 mistakes and pointed out 2 legitimate things that should be added to the article, then accept. If a couple things are unclear or you can't fully tell what they are trying to point out, then a partial reject would be better. If there is a major lack of effort, or if they only point out one mistake, then full reject.
Also, I would like to note that I did not just make this out of the blue; jvvg and some other EWs/admins were in support of this idea, though the conversation just coincidentally happened outside of the Wiki, but now it's being brought here.
With our current system, even the people who do find an article to create/improve (which is like 20% of people) don't usually do a good job of it. I think our account request system is way too open. It's too free, people point out their weaknesses, they go find something to improve to create. There are a million possibilities.
With this new system, it will be different because it's more cut-and-dry, gritty, and exact. There is one single page and they have to find mistakes on that particular page. There is no "middle ground" anymore, it is merely whether they did or did not find mistakes.
And they should be able to. 3/12 options for finding mistakes and thinking of 2 things to add should not be difficult at all. It's more of a test of do they at least understand what the Wiki is (because half the people applying for a Wiki account think they're joining the Scratch Team on the main site or something). Also, we can still include a hidden word, I think I have "squishy" as the word.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Apologies. I like the idea, but I think it should have the word too. I would support trying this system for a couple of months.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that we should not cenger the box, bold it, put a must read sign, as the point of this is to see if users can find the directions and follow them without us enforcing that.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You have a point but you can see it both ways. If it is how it is, I believe more people will see it and do the account requirements. It's all a question of how "tough" we want to be. I personally liked centering the box just because it looks a little less ugly honestly. But I'd be fine with removing the red flashing gif (which is actually on the current S:CONTRIB). I'm unsure if the flashing gif has so far resulted in less blank request notes.

Then again, on the actual page where you fill out the account request, we have a bunch of bolded red text saying how we can't stress how important it is to have read the stuff.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 21:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think everything is about all set. I have removed as much flashy stuff customhacker to put less emphasis on the box (though I still kept the shadow, I like my shadow). The new account request guidelines, just a reminder to everybody, will concern the following 3 things:
The "New Admin Guide" is just slightly tweaked to reflect the new system. If there are any final changes you guys think need done, please speak up. Also, the hidden word is still part of the guidelines. "Squishy" will be the word, and it specifically says to put it at the end of the account request. Once I get the go from the other EWs and admins I'll implement the changes.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 01:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
You have my go.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 23:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually I'm going to check with scmb1 beforehand.
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 00:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably a smart idea.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 01:26, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes The new request system is in place - I've noticed waaay fewer accepted requests :(
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

I will be out for a few days

I'll be in Singapore for this weekend, and I don't expect much wifi. If there's anything that you need an active user for, find someone else (maybe WolfCat67 again :P). If it's something that only I can take care of or answer, you'll have to wait until Monday. Admin issues, as always, should be taken care of by (guess what?) an admin.

That's all, I think. See you in three days!
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
07:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

one of my scratch friends is from singapore! Anyway, I hope you will have fun!
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 10:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Have a good time! :P
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 14:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Have fun, see you later :)!
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 14:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Have fun, see you later :)!
This message was brought to you by the totally original message system, and definitely not;
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 00:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
They have said that they are back, so Yes Done, I guess... :P
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 15:43, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I asked on Discord for this to be marked Yes Done.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
10:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Change the style for code elements

Currently code looks like this; newest versions of MediaWiki have code looking like this. This is an improvement - the border differentiates from a possibly identical background and font to show that it's supposed to be code, and the text is slightly padded for extra goodness.

To change the style, the following needs to be inserted into MediaWiki:Common.css:

code {
    color: #000;
    background-color: #f8f9fa;
    border: 1px solid #eaecf0;
    border-radius: 2px;
    padding: 1px 4px;
}
pre, code, tt, kbd, samp, .code {
    font-family: monospace,'Courier';
}

Thoughts? And if we agree to make this change, could an admin edit MediaWiki:Common.css and add that? Thanks.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
12:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing I could see in the code was the font change, which I would assume was added in for emphasis manually. Edit conflicts, my old friend.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 13:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree as well. It would be nice if we updated this to also include syntax highlighting maybe similar to that of the forums?
TheUltimatum (talk | contribs) 18:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@TheUltimatum Syntax highlighting would have to be included in an extension, which is much more difficult to add than a simple interface edit.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
08:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

About "user-generated content" and Scratch Mods

I've noticed that though "user-generated content" is not allowed by wiki guidelines (barring the culture exceptions), there are quite a few articles dedicated to mods. We have Insanity (Scratch Modification), Snap!, and BeetleBlocks, to name a few.

These are obviously user-generated - all of them are created by users on Scratch and none are sponsored or QA-ed by the Scratch Team. However, I feel like these don't constitute culture exceptions to S:NOSP like Kaj and Removed Pac-Man Project do - they don't feature as prominently in the community as actual culture exceptions do, and New Scratchers aren't going to come wondering "what is Snap?" any more than "who was Kaj?". In other words, mods don't really count as culture exceptions, and by that train of thought they violate S:NOSP.

The question is, what do we do about this? We have a few options:

  • Keep those mod articles but don't make any more
  • Delete the mod articles and any others that follow
  • Add modifications as an exception to S:NOSP and keep those mod articles

So:

  1. Do you agree that mod articles violate S:NOSP?
  2. If so, what do you think our best course of action on them is?
  3. If not, why not?

With that, discuss!
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
12:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Interesting point. Personally I will say that they maybe should get an exception since;
  1. The articles have already been made and polished, so it would be a lot of work to be thrown out.
  2. They are different from specific things like a project or user since they add new blocks and functions, which can be worth documenting their purpose.
That being said, they are user generated, so this really should get some more discussion. Let's just wait for the community consensus.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 13:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it mods should have their own documentation on their own websites, and not on the wiki. That way if people need documentation they can find it from a more official source - the mod developers themselves. However, I know these articles are already cut-and-dried - that's why I included "Keep those mod articles but don't make any more" as an option.
So my suggested course of action is: Keep the articles, but if someone tries to create a page for another mod, delete it and tell them to make the documentation on the mod's own website, not the wiki.
Other opinions are still welcome! This discussion is far from over.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel like I brought this up in an earlier discussion. I feel like they should be deleted - and in this discussion we may need to include isOnline again.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I really don't see a need for them. As much as they are popular and helpful, We are basically just putting ads for them on the site.
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 17:26, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Customhacker we're NOT bringing isOnline into this discussion - I'm talking about Scratch Mods, not website extensions.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
02:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Well it does modify the website in some way - and it does have to be downloaded. Not trying to argue here. We can also find a way to put them in a userspace if people still need them.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 14:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Should we make an article about the new way to feature projects?

so there's this studio now, and it's an official scratch team thing. Should we make an article about it?
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 15:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

No, there is already a section about it in Featured Projects.
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 15:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
oh. Yes Forget I have created this section at all.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 16:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
xD
Vuton Logo.png -ᐯᑌTOᑎ- (TᗩᒪK | ᑕOᑎTᖇIᗷᔕ | ᑭᗩGEᔕ) 17:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

NEW Guidelines for Writing an Account Request are Implemented!

Attention (mostly EWs and admins)! After talking with scmb1, both she and @ceebee liked the idea for the new guidelines for writing an account request. Scmb1 had a few recommendations I have implemented. As we have had discussions on this already and we all were pretty much in agreement, and since I have scmb1's go, these changes are now official. So the account request system is no longer "find an article to create or improve" - instead it is now the Flawed Article system.

New guidelines: S:CONTRIB

New Admin Guide: Scratch Wiki:Become a contributor/Admin Guide

Flawed Article: Scratch Wiki:Flawed Article
Turkey3MiniProfilePic.pngTurkey3Sig1.pngTurkey3Sig2.pngTurkey3Sig3.pngContributionsTurkey3Sig5.png 20:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I love this new system! Really well done Turkey3! :D
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 21:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Cool-cat-emoji.png Awesome!
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 22:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Read and Understood - will take sometime to get used to.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 01:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I am practically already used to it since I've just been talking about it for so long. :P But I do think that this is a good improvement since it revolves around actions rather than what they say, while at the same time, not being too harsh or difficult on those who may have never been on a wiki. I'm interested to see where it will go, and how it'll do. And I'm sure that the Admin Guide will be a good change as well. When you realize that you just wrote a novel about the new request system.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 22:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The Lonely Images Directory!

so I recently have created The Lonely Images Directory, which is a place where I will put images that would be great on the wiki, but right now can't be added without major changes to articles or creating new articles. If a user wants to find an image for a new article, they could search in the directory and find the image they need. If you want to help me with this directory, you can find info in the directory on how to do so. Anyway, I just wanted to show you this directory and to see what you think about it.
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 17:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You realize you can also just upload them and let people use Special:UnusedFiles?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
04:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
oh. Yes Why do I make useless topics so much
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion for two new templates (and this time, this idea might be good.)

So, I have an idea for two new templates that the wiki could have. Well, not really new. I'm talking about User:Customhacker/Inactive Template:

Palm Tree.png Community_Portal will be inactive from MM/DD/YY to MM/DD/YY due to the fact that they are on vacation. Currently, the best place to contact them is on their talk page.


and User:Yzyzyz/template:normal skin:


Caution (2).png note: my userpage and talk page were edited and meant to be viewed in the Default skin, so please try to use it when viewing my page.


These two templates are very good in my opinion, and they even have documentations. My idea is to include them on the wiki in a normal template form. what do you think?
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 11:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe this came up somewhere about userspace templates, and it was said no - but I forget the reason.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I personally don't think they should be added because (as Customhacker said) they're userspace templates. If someone wants to use them, they can just go to User:Customhacker/Inactive Template and User:Yzyzyz/template:normal skin in my opinion. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry about Unsigned.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 23:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
We agreed multiple times in previous topics that userspace templates should remain userspace templates - if you want to use them, just use the userspace link. Especially templates like these are purely cosmetic - you could make your own "I'll be inactive" message in your status, and I literally used my own header template to say my userspace is best viewed in vector.
I don't think that userspace templates should ever become templatespace templates - they are meant solely for userpages, meaning editing a user template in templatespace (which would be totally allowed) would basically be partially editing the userspace of multiple people (which is totally NOT allowed).
I'd find all the topics rejecting userspace templates as templatespace templates but I'm lazy
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
03:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
ok... Yes I need to thing about what I suggest more...
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 13:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Admins & EWs

Could you please go through Category:Pages in Need of Deletion and delete the pages in there? Some of them have been there for quite a while.

Thanks! :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 20:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes Done by KrIsMa
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 21:11, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

References and spaces

Yes Done

Hi everyone! Sometimes when I'm editing a page, I see this:

This is a random sentence. [citation needed]

Or this:

This is another random sentence. <ref>testing 123</ref>

Now, since on most articles there is no space there, I usually just remove the space, and make it like this:

This is a random sentence.[citation needed]

But I'm wondering if I should be removing the space there (is it supposed to be there?). On most pages the space isn't there, so that's why I do it, but I just would like to know how it's supposed to be. In my opinion everything should be consistent across the wiki (even small things like spaces).
Thank you for reading! :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 16:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is such a trivial matter to make such a large topic for...
As I recall, the standard is (sentence)(punctuation)(ref/cn)(space)(next sentence) - i.e. this is an inaccurate sentence.[citation needed] this is the next sentence.
So what you've been doing is correct. Keep on keepin' on.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
00:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes Alright then, thank you
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 00:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Shall we upgrade MediaWiki?

MediaWiki has now hit version 1.29 - and we're still on 1.22. I suggest (and I do not suggest this lightly) that we upgrade our MedaWiki version to 1.29 - here's some stuff about that:

Pros:

Cons:

  • Upgrading is difficult, so the entire wiki would be down for a few days
  • Some backwards-incompatible changes (mostly API changes), meaning older bots will be broken

Despite the cons, and because of the pros, I think we should upgrade. Shall we?
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
05:49, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about media wiki, so IDK...
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 10:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
What new features are available that we need?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 12:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
v1.29, v1.28, v1.27, v1.26, v1.25, v1.24, v1.23.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
12:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
care to elaborate on "Some changes that we need now would be included in the upgrade"?
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 21:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
What do we need of these? What portion of this is so important that we need?
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 02:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I did a quick skim through the pages, but nothing in particular caught my eye. There have been a lot of changes, and I'm sure that we should update it at some point, but I do think it will help others if you give a quick run-through of what you think are the most important changes for why we should update the MediaWiki. After all, it does seem to work pretty well as of right now.
Duckboycool.jpg  Duckboycool  (Talk | Contribs | Edits) 12:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with others — in my opinion, we should only update it if we know there's something in a new version of MediaWiki that we really need or will help us edit a lot. I think we're fine with the current version of MediaWiki, but if there is something in one of the newer versions that we need, I think maybe we should update it. (As long as everything won't break :P)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 22:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

new template idea

My idea is: {{Template:User on scratch}}. basicly, it links to a user on the main site, so when you type in yzyzyz (or any other user), it produces yzyzyz. what do you think?
Yzyzyz (talk | contribs) 15:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion I don't think it's needed, since it isn't that hard to write [https://scratch.mit.edu/users/yzyzyz/ yzyzyz], but that's just my opinion. :)
Bigpuppy Logo.png bigpuppy talk | contribs 15:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
We also have the User template, so why not this one? I would also suggest that you could make switches for Talk, Userpage, Scratch page, etc.
Customhacker Logo Blue.jpg Cυƨтσмнαcκεя ( тαʟκ | cσптяıв ) 16:51, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
cool idea! however, it is very specific and of limited use - mostly only used on talk pages. don't think it is needed.
the benefit for the user template is it lists out contributions and everything that is required for a signature - saves effort! the user template is easily replaced with a copy and paste link.
KrIsMa Anamation2.gif KrIsMa user | talk | contribs | edits 22:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • This page was last modified on 22 September 2017, at 22:20.