What's with the block amounts???

This is confusing. In Scratch 1.4, there are 125 blocks. I counted on Scratch 1.3.1 and included the string blocks on operators. I counted all the blocks except the stack blocks, and then took the amount of other blocks away to get the amount of stack blocks. I think I did include the list block and variable block, which the one in the block shapes bit didn't. Although, the amount of blocks in the block shapes section the amount of blocks mentioned adds up to 126, not 125. Weird...
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 16:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So change it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know which ones are right!
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 16:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh, I triple-checked the figure of 125 blocks before including it :P I'll just do another check...
Got 125 again - at first I got 120, but Chris reminded me to count the Motor blocks :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I included the motor blocks and got 120 different block types, not including the variable and list names.
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 07:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Uh, those are blocks :P (I only counted one of each though ;))
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
In the Block Shapes section the reporter block shape says there are 29 reporter blocks, not including the endless about of variable and list names.
SpiritMaster (talk | contribs) 11:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok, recently I counted all the blocks and got 131. Neither of them are correct.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I just counted again and got 128.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 20:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
I got 128 too. I'll change it to 128 for now...
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Restructure what it says on block pages

I think that on block pages that instead of saying, for example:

The Change Size by () block is a Looks block and a Stack block.

we should perhaps say

The Change Size by () block is a Looks stack block.

I really don't think there's any reason we should have the block shapes capitalised.
Thoughts? (also is this the right place to put this?)
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusing thing about that format is that it consists of three links that are all next to each other, not separated by any un-linked words (so some people for example may click on "block", thinking that it linked to the article "stack block"). True, the links do underline and have different link pages to distinguish themselves, but those are details that only more computer-savvy people might notice.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 02:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. What about like

The Change Size by () block is a Looks and stack block.

That way it's still short and gets all the links in. (And what are your thoughts about not capitalising the shape name?)
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It does seem more compact, but i voice the same concern as Lucario...
Not capitalizing the shape names makes sense though.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
How about "... is a stack-shaped looks block"?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 02:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You mean "The Change Size by () block is a stack-shaped Looks block"? That way it is more condensed, and you can still clearly tell the links apart.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Categories vs. extensions

It appears that in recent versions of 2.0, it is calling the additional hidden categories that deal with hardware—PicoBoard blocks and WeDo blocks—extensions rather than categories, which honestly make a lot of sense. There's also a new menu for selecting extensions and while there's only one category (Hardware) so far, I'm guessing there will be more in the future. (In addition, it appears through the shift-click menu that you can import experimental/non-official extensions.) How should we differentiate between these?
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 04:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Change this to better fit the disambig?

I just created a new disambiguation page for blocks today at Blocks (disambiguation). My idea is to change Block and Blocks to redirect to the disambig page and to move this page to Blocks (programming feature). There is a lot of support, but also a lot of resistance. Should we start this plan?

Pros

  • Easier to find the other pages
  • Matches the other disambigs: first it all redirects to the disambig, then diverts to different pages

Cons

  • It takes longer to get to the main blocks article


CrazyBoy826-Icon.png CrazyBoy826 Talk | Contribs | Scratch account
17:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)