Line 207: Line 207:
:Yes. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:Yes. <scratchsig>Krett12</scratchsig> 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah, we need them to point out where events were announced. I could easily put in something like "jvvg was added to the Scratch Team", but a reference to an announcement verifies that.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 16:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
::Yeah, we need them to point out where events were announced. I could easily put in something like "jvvg was added to the Scratch Team", but a reference to an announcement verifies that.<scratchsig>jvvg</scratchsig> 16:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Hm, we should do that.

Revision as of 14:47, 29 August 2014

What should and should not be put on the timeline?

Just curious... I saw the archived forum stuff on the timelime :P I don't think they're important enough to be mentioned... ^^

Thanks for going over the timeline btw Scimonster :3
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
idk, I think that it's an interesting event.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
But is it really big enough to deserve a mention on the timeline? :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not the jump to tool, but there was a big discussion about the removal, about how it's getting rid of Scratch history and blah blah blah. ;)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right ^^ I suppose we can keep the Jump Bar thing too? (Otherwise it'd look like the archived forums were never made available again xD)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


I made somewhat of a TOC in my sandbox. Is it good?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's really necessary... :S The timeline isn't very big, anyway.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
But wouldn't it be useful to just jump to a certain time?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I like the first one, except for the red part.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
How about now?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I like.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That 2-1.
I doubt we'll get anything from Jon or Chris right now, since it's 2 in the morning there. XD
When I have about an hour free time, I'll try another.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: Done.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the first better still
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey hey if you want to be able to jump to certain times, you can put the TOC back (there's __NOTOC__ at the bottom of the article). :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I know that, but I wanted a cooler one. :P
It's sorted by date and year, and shows all.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
But I like the normal one :3 :3 :3 (You did awesome though :D)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 11:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Glad to see I get some recognition for the work I put a few hours into. ^^
2 for and 1 against; we need another opinion.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh please.
Table 3 is probably most practical, simply because it's simple and the shortest. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Fine >.<
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Less important events

Should we have some less important events, such as the ###-second rule being changed for new Scratchers and other stuff like that?
BWOG (talk | contribs) 18:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it was recently changed to 180.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
It's been changed so many times already, what's the big deal :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

1mil and 2 mil projs

What was the exact date the 1,000,000th project was posted? Anyone here know? I'll add 2,000,000 as soon as this link works. ;D
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll have to ask the Scratch Team about that.
GameHutSoftware (talk | contribs) 15:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
It was April 21st 2010. I checked on the forums. (I used a cached version from Google)
BWOG (talk | contribs) 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Past Images?

Would it be a good idea to keep an archive of past images of the site? Maybe add a time lapse video?
Cygene (talk | contribs) 18:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm this is interesting. :) But I don't think this is really fitting the topic of the Scratch timeline.

ProgrammingFreak (talk | contribs) 19:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, we have one on the Scratch Website page. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I meant kind of a more specific, dated, etc. Time lapse
Cygene (talk | contribs) 20:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: veggie, why did you rollback PF's edit? :S
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah? :B
ProgrammingFreak (talk | contribs) 19:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Might have been an accident? I often rollback edits accidentally when I try to click on their username or an article. But I always undo it.
Also, I like the idea of a time-lapse, it would be cool, but not really necessary. And also where would we find a massive archive of pictures of the website in the past?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I have a folder with timelapse pictures, two each month, of the website until December, 2008. I was planning on using it for the 2000000th project design studio thing, but gave up. I got it from the wayback machine (it's awesome)
Cygene (talk | contribs) 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
ProgrammingFreak, you might want to fix your signature up there.
Cygene (talk | contribs) 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Was Weekend really the first project?

SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The URL has 104, but the Scratch Team could have started uploads at 104.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 22:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's the first one that the Scratch Team kept online; the other 103 were probably tests :/
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I can actually reference the date, but it's in a big mumble-jumble of URL-encoded info. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't those be on it?
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs)13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably, yeah. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Yay, research. :P
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs)15:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Date Scratch released

Here, andresmh says it was released on May 15, 2007. Which is he referring to: the website or the program? Once we find that out, we need to change a few dates around.
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs)16:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Better link. ;)
Just ask him. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
According to archived version of the Scratch Website from the wayback machine, the Scratch Website was accessible in 2006 and early versions of Scratch were available for download in January 2007, so I do not know what andresmh is talking about.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 21:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
We publicly released the website and the application on May 15, 2007. We had many versions of both before that date. --
Andresmh (talk | contribs) 03:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Added Scratch 1.0's release to the timeline, thanks for clarifying ^^ I referenced this talk page :P
I didn't change the date the website was put up though; the website was around before Scratch 1.0 came out I'm quite sure.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

December Image Removal

Since there was a 'Nasty image Attack" on the forums, & the images were removed, should we add that to the timeline?
Sku2000 (talk | contribs) 21:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that is necessary.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 03:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes. We have the other image removal on, the one that caused the New Scratcher status.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I would say yes, since the image removal in particular has had a large impact on the forums. Something like "Due to a trolling attack, the Scratch Team decided ..."
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Mabye we could ask someone on the Scratch Team if we should add it.
Sku2000 (talk | contribs) 20:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
What should the date be for it?
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 20:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

A couple of people said the image attack happend on the 25th or 26th. I think mabye a Moderator or a member of the Scratch Team might know the day the images were removed.
Sku2000 (talk | contribs) 20:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to use this "discussion" stuff so this post won't be quite on track, but it happened at 8:00PM or so on December 26 (Scratch Time, of course).
Coolstuff (talk | contribs)

This section of the Scratch FAQ tells how to use discussion pages, thanks for telling when it happened.
Bsteward (talk | contribs) 15:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
@Coolstuff: Haha, yeah don't worry about the indentation xD Doesn't really mean a whole lot xD. Not organized like reddit or anything.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 05:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Major Forum Changes

On the announcements forums, Lightnin announced that there would be some major changes to the forums on Jan. 26th. Should this be added to the timeline?
Sku2000 (talk | contribs) 14:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

When we know exactly what changes are being done (i.e, they've been done), we will add them. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I added what they said would be done, because they did say exactly what they were doing, and we can change 'em later if they change their mind about anything.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 18:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
We will certainly add them when the time is right. However adding future events doesn't really seem right, if you ask me. ;)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Scratch YouTube Player

I kind of doubt that it would be necessary to add the creation of the Scratch YouTube Player to the timeline, but I'm not sure. Should we add it?
Sku2000 (talk | contribs)

That's a good suggestion. I personally don't think it should be added because it's a subtle change that only forum users would notice and doesn't really impact the forum a lot.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Hm... I would think it's worth adding. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I would be in favor of adding it.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it could do with a spot too.
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 04:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, so you have all stated your opinions that you think the Scratch Youtube Player deserves a spot, but none of you have actually explained why. I'll restate my point again, I don't think it should be added because it's a change that affects less than 2% of the users; hence its insignificant.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well considering there are other trivial things out there like Wolfie and fullmoon retiring (which you could say also affects only 2% of users), the player deserves a spot IMO :/
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
+1 ^^'
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 04:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't really consider that. I suppose you're right...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
And also the archived forums being hidden.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I think we have came to the consensus that it's OK to include information about the Scratch YouTube Player in the timeline, so I will add that now.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Uhm - luc - you seem to have been forgetting that *I* made the player. How could it possibly be insignifficant? :D :D :D :D jk
JSO (talk | contribs) 18:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Broken Februarys

There are 3 headers titled February, and two of them have the anchor "February". The third is "February_2". How did this glitch happen??
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

They're "February", "February_2", and "February_3" for me. All the other months are like this too, actually, but they seem to work. Hmm...
And I think it's automatic.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I know it's automatic. And not in the table; I fixed it so that it would work when it's fixed. In the actual source.
Whatever; I can offset it with my own div tags with IDs.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't include or gray out?

So if you look at the source for the special TOC, you'll notice that the rest of the year is included in a comment, saying to move them out when they pass. My question is: should we hide them from the public (like we do now), or show them in the table, but grayed out?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, I'd love to see what it looks like greyed out.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think they should continue to be hidden. Those dates haven't come yet. Plus, I personally like how we do it now. ;)
Sku2000 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Table of Contents

I think we should move the Table of Contents to a subpage, like Scratch Timeline/TOC. Then on the main page, we would add {{/TOC}} to make the Table of Contents appear. This way when people are editing the main article, they don't have to scroll through the long Table of Contents before getting to the main content to edit. What do you think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 16:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Then we run the risk of it showing in Special:Random, and it also adds to the {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} count. Maybe as a template? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That's not a problem. This is intended to make the editing process easier, so it's perfectly fine to have it as a subpage. We're treating it as a template, but since it's only going to be used on this one page, we can have it on the main namespace.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
If that's what you think...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say by that. It wouldn't work as a template, since pages in the Template namespace are intended to be able to used in any article based on the article's needs. This TOC is exclusive to this page, as no other articles use or need a TOC like this one.
Considering articles that are Lists and Disambiguations can appear in Special:Random, a subpage shouldn't bother you.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Lists and disambigs are content pages.
That's true about the Template namespace, but still, we can make exceptions, right? *sly wink*
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I think putting it as a normal content page is perfectly fine. For things like Help Boxes and Archive Headings we've done it with the subpage method, so that's how we should do it in this situation as well.
If you're really worried about Special:Random, there might be a way to include a message at the top of the page that is not transcluded and says "Visit the main article here" with a link - or maybe even a redirect.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
A redirect won't work, but a message will. I've tried it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The forum date looks incorrect

According to the first Scratch forums SVN changeset, it was set up on December 25, 2008. That's VERY different from what it says here! (Sidenote: how could it be released before the site??) The problem is, the 39th post (earliest remaining/publicly available post) is from, yes, March 7, 2007. How do we resolve these contradictions?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

My best guess is that the "SVN change" set is all of the information that came after a move the Scratch Forums had in 2008. I wouldn't worry about what the website says there. Don't try to deny that the forums existed before 2008 - BELIEVE me, it was there. xD
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's when they uploaded the source code to Assembla. They were definitely there before that.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
As I said, the first post was from 2007, so, yeah. :P
But if the website was publicly released on the 15th, would the forums have been available a week before that?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly. There's something called "beta testing" which some companies/organizations use before publicly releasing a product. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL I know all about that. I use a beta browser more often than not.
Lightnin was on the wiki; why couldn't he have gone here? :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

New lines

In the last few entries, the whole stuff is smashed together onto one line:
1—Something 2—Something Else
Shouldn't each date be on a separate line:
2—Something Else

Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I will fix it.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Dual wiki release

360-International wrote that the wiki was released on 12/06/08. However, we also have it being released a year and a half later, 06/03/10. The latter has a reference, but the former doesn't. Perhaps the later is the official, while the 2008 is the Wikia wiki?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the first date is the date that the Scratch Programming Wiki on Wikia was created. The latter is when the Scratch Wiki on the Scratch Website was publicly released. This should be clarified in the timeline.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 04:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 00:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Are short downtimes like server maintenance really important enough to belong here? And if so, why?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 03:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
+1. Too minor.
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Google Search

I added when the search was changed to Google Search on the timeline. Was this necessary? Should it be removed? Also, should there be a question mark on the date? I used the WayBack Machine so...ya.
Mariobros406 (talk | contribs) 00:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyone want to update this?

It's a few months behind. We've had 5m projects, trademark law, new ST members, and maybe some others.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I will tomorrow, unless some racer wants to beat me 0_0
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 23:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Ehrmahgersh, there are so many references on this page...

Has anyone noticed that?
Goldfish678 (talk | contribs) 15:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Krett12 (talk | contribs) 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, we need them to point out where events were announced. I could easily put in something like "jvvg was added to the Scratch Team", but a reference to an announcement verifies that.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 16:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hm, we should do that.

Goldfish678 (talk | contribs)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.