Is there a workaround page for features like variables? There is a way to have a workaround for variables with lists. (I'm pretty sure)
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 19:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


There are two forever if blocks: In the "Removed blocks" and the "Non-Existent" sections. I would like to remove one of them. I suggest the second one. What do you think?
Yzscratcher (talk | contribs) 19:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, you should remove the second one because it does exist, in scratch 1.4.
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 11:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The one in the "non-existent" section is "if forever:" while the removed one is "forever if"; I agree their function is the same but the two wordings may be necessary, so I think it should be kept.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
09:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


I want to be careful about adding another nonexistent block so I'm ignoring the general policy of edit first, questions later. Would it be a good idea to add a sorting-list algorithm/block, simply on the grounds that sorting is a fairly common and low-level operation? If so, do we want to decide which other sort to use (in this case, I think quicksort and mergesort are the major two contestants) or use both? The problem with quicksort is that it is O(n^2) (though this is rare), and so not entirely 'better' than bubble or insertion sort. On the other hand, quicksort cannot be done 'in place' (something I'm kind of attached to xD). Thoughts, comments?
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 15:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to say that this is a good block to add, but how would you design this into a block? Besides, we already have an article on sorting a list, the Sorting Values article, and a duplicate "section" isn't really needed. Though you could add merge sort to the Sorting Values article if you want. It would be a nice addition.
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 23:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Should probably be a separate article.
blob8108 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks for the feedback guys :)
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 16:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

glide () secs to x:() y:()

We seem to be missing a workaround for

glide () secs to x:() y:()

Shall I add it or will someone else do it?
Kenny2scratch (talk | contribs) 07:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have a workaround, go ahead and add it. By the way, for stuff like that (i.e. stuff that clearly improves an article), you don't need to ask, just go ahead and add it.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 15:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Adding the workarounds for the Set X to () and Set Y to () blocks

I know that giving workarounds for blocks like these is a bit silly, but they're still workarounds... what do you think?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's The Thing : Some Of The Blocks Look Squished. Do We Need To Fix That Or Something?. Even I Can't View It. And I'm Patient!
Mrsrec (talk | contribs)
Oh, and how about the Motion Reporter blocks?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, I accidentally missed those... I'll go add them...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see why I missed them! They're not categorised under Workaround Images...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
They're not categorized under that? O_o *checks* Oh, you fixed them :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Aren't nearly all of the workarounds pretty much useless? While it is certainly fun to come up with workarounds, is it really necessary to have them on the wiki if they are in no way superior to the block itself. Why are there workarounds on basically every block page (sorry if this has already been debated)?
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 22:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a valid question. I think that it contributes, because then people can see and understand better how blocks work and the internal workings of Scratch.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

An order for listing blocks

Right now it looks random... how about listing them according to block shape? And for the blocks that are the same shape (ie. Motion Stack blocks), should we list them alphabetically or in the order that they appear in the Scratch program?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 10:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, when I'd finished the article, I thought the same thing, but I'd spent ages doing it, so I thought "I'll do something about that some other time." Personally, I don't think it should be based on shape, it think it should purely be the order that it appears in the Scratch Program...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 10:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay :) I agree with you... anyone else want to say something?
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I put them as order they appear in the Scratch Program.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Should we add the workaround for the Draggable Sprite Feature?

It's not a block, but it is a workaround. Should we add it?
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 18:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well... The title is List of Block Workarounds... Maybe we could add a thing at the bottom noting that, but let's wait to see what other people think...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree; this is "List of Block Workarounds" (as WeirdF said :P), and renaming it to "List of Workarounds" would make it too vague. But this is just my opinion :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
That's definitely understandable. I have no strong opinion either way. My only argument for adding it is that, as far as I know, Draggable is the only non-block workaround, so it's not like we could make another page for it... Of course, it doesn't really have to be on any page-- people can just find the workaround on the Draggable Sprite Feature page.
Scmb1 (talk | contribs) 00:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
What about having a note at the top saying there is one other workaround that isn't for a block?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think so, but in a separate spot at the bottom of the page.
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 18:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


Yeah, a lot are missing. And most have simple workarounds.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well add whatever's missing then...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 09:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Stop telling people not to use them!

Some people (like me) spend time making these. There is really no real reason to tell people not to use them.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Just because you made spent time making these, doesn't mean we shouldn't tell people to not use them. We want to help Scratchers, not give them bad information. But don't be insulted -- it certainly does take a lot of work to make many of these. Reading the history of the page, I see that you removed Chrischb's edit to the top of the article, which I suppose was reasonable since it was biased. However the truth is, some are useful and some are not, so perhaps you should re-add the statement phrased along the lines of "While interesting, some of these can be found more impractical than others, so common sense should be used while using these workarounds."
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, that is one reason I put some of them up for download on SR. I'll add a few more of the longer ones too.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Does the multiplication block really have to be that long?

Couldn't you just do

ask [Factor 1 equals] and wait

set (factor 1) to (answer)

ask [Factor 2 equals] and wait

set (factor 2) to (answer)

Show (product)

Show (factor 1)

Show(factor 2)

{If <<(factor 1) is greater than 0> and <(factor 2) is greater than 0>>

{Repeat (factor 2) times

change (product) by (factor 1)}


{If <<factor 1= 0> or <(factor 2) = 0>>

Set (product) to 0


{repeat (abs of (factor 2))

Change (product) by (factor 1)}


{If <<(factor 1) is greater than 0> and <(factor 2)is greater than 0>>

set (product) to (product)


set (product) to (0-(product))
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs)00:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC) }

BTW, I am making both Scratch and BYOB versions of my workaround.
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs)01:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yours doesn't allow for decimals or negatives.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Misspelling in block image

Some blocks say recieved instead of received.
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs)01:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

So change it. That simple. ;)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 20:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to transcribe all these? :P

I'm sure whoever does will do it in pieces. :P I'll do a couple.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I was about to do some, but I noticed that the pictures link to the respective articles. We can't do that with the block plugin, so should we leave these alone?
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 05:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I think leave the blocks alone, but transcribe the workarounds. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
If we could continue to work on transcribing these workarounds, it would be greatly appreciated :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'll probably be able to work on this a ton this weekend.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 21:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Floor and Ceil

I think somebody should add floor () and ceil () to the list of workarounds for non-existant blocks. You can see how to do it in this post.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Do it. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, Why

Why are there tremendously long workarounds that really don't offer a good alternative, or teach core concepts behind blocks up there. The number one culprits are probably the multiplication and division blocks. To be blunt, everybody should have a good idea of what these blocks do, and those that don't can certainly find better ways to learn than trying to decode the walls of script. Nothing against those who wrote the scripts (in fact, I admire their commitment and programming skills), but they just don't seem to contribute to the page.
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 00:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a valid point - I agree with you. Not *every* block needs to have a workaround. Let's see what others have to say. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment on my commitment and programming skills.
Lucario, not every block needs one, but if we have one, there's nothing wrong with putting it in. At least that's how i feel, having made many of them.
And about those two, the multiplication and division blocks, they actually can teach. I analyzed the way i did the math in my head when multiplying and dividing, so this can explain it to someone who doesn't get it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with MoreGamesNow. Why do we need workarounds in the first place?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Other ways of doing the block. For me at least, seeing another way of doing something can open up my mind.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
In that case, how about putting something more informative, like the (annotated) Squeak code behind the block? That way users see how the block was designed by the programmers of Scratch. Actually, should I make that page separately: "Blocks/Squeak Codes" or something? I volunteer to fill it up. :)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The Squeak code of every block in 1.4? :O List of Blocks' Squeak Codes would be a better title, IMO.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Is that a yes? Also, I'd put in a section on each block's article with the code.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 09:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
A yes to the page. As for putting it on each block's page... i think that might make it a bit too technical. :/
I'll make a mockup for the page design in one of my sandboxes, then link back for you.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Here. What i'll do is edit Template:Block, to add the link to the code automatically. Which means the section headers have to correspond to the page titles, or more specifically, the title on the sidebar header.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
@ Scimonster: I understand that, but I don't think that some workarounds offer much insight or do much "mind opening" (namely, the multiplication and division scripts). Criteria I would offer to whether a work around is "good" or not is this:
-is it reasonably concise?
-does it further understanding of the block
-does it have any advantages over using the block
If anything matches these, it could reasonably be considered a "good" workaround; out of curiosity, are there actual criteria already is place?
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 11:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if any do though. :/
Some that could be removed from this list, but kept on the pages, would be the ones that use non-existent blocks.
There's one criteria: it has to replicate the block. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
@Scimonster: "There's nothing wrong with putting it in." Frankly, there is. There's quite a few arguments that they're not "notable" enough, and they take up a lot more space than what is practical. I think having workarounds is very useful for blocks such as "if on edge, bounce", and "point towards". Of course, we have added much more. However for very basic operator functions such as multiplication and division that are in almost every programming language, they are not necessary. If you would like to have a separate sub-page or tutorial article about the script and how it works, then feel free to do so. But it doesn't belong here.
@Scimonster and Hardmath: Having an article about the squeak code of blocks sounds valid. My only concern is that Scratch 2.0 is coming eventually, so it may not be useful for long. However there is no public release date, so it's not a major constraint. Good luck with the article. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
To add a new perspective on things... I think they're just interesting. Even if they don't have a specific purpose they are interesting to look at and figure out, and perhaps maybe looking at workarounds for blocks like this can help people figure out how to do things that are slightly different from what the original block does?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 22:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. They are.
@Lucario: I thought of that. If 2.0 is open source (not sure it will be :S) we'll include an article on the Flash codes.
And Lucario, what do you have against workarounds? You seem to be campaigning for some of the coolest ones' deletion. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
For myself (I know I'm not Lucario), I have nothing against workarounds, so long as they're not so long that there is really no chance of your average Scratcher even coming close to understanding why it works. I'm not campaigning for the deletion of all workarounds, simply the awkwardly/outstandingly long and complex ones.
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 21:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
@WeirdF: They certainly are interesting. However I think this article would be most useful for the majority of readers if it just includes direct and practical workarounds, rather than explaining the mechanics of multiplication through a series of scratch blocks.
@Scimonster: I do not have anything against workarounds in general. Again, as I posted before, "I think having workarounds is very useful for blocks such as 'if on edge, bounce', and 'point towards'. Of course, we have added much more. However for very basic operator functions such as multiplication and division that are in almost every programming language, they are not necessary." I think MoreGamesNow has the right idea.
Saying that the () * () and () / () are the "coolest" ones is biased - you might think they're cool, but another person might be intimidated by how complicated they are. Also, if you look at my messages, I never suggested that any of these workarounds should be deleted. I am only suggesting that you have separate sub-pages or articles about these scripts and how they work. I would appreciate if you read my messages carefully before you make your responses.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, it is biased. :P And i never said that you said you wanted to delete them; it just appeared to me that you didn't really like having them here, which would imply their effective deletion.
If several people don't want them taking up space on the page, i can deal with that. But IMO, the first ones that should be removed are the ones that use non-existent blocks, such as the pen ones, and graphic effects.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I'll concede that the ask block's workaround is a little long, and could be condensed (said to just repeat the code).
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I see how people think these workarounds are cool from a programming point of view, but I'm not sure it is exactly knowledge, information or a tutorial. It's something which can be done, but has limited application, not to mention they are usually either really long or really obvious; in either case the user has a better alternative.
In fact, in my opinion, workarounds of non-existent blocks using the existing ones would be so much more useful. For example, a [press green flag] button can be made by broadcasting scratch-startclicked. (number of costumes) can be made with a clever series of costume switches. This is new knowledge, and, in my opinion, beats the workaround for ()+() any day.
Workarounds show the internal workings of the block, but can't that be written out in words? I think it would make more sense to anyone if rather than that huge script, someone actually explained the trigonometry behind the point to () block workaround.
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 11:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
@Scimonster: I quote what I said before, "If you would like to have a separate sub-page or tutorial article about the script and how it works, then feel free to do so. But it doesn't belong here." Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I want to delete them. I'd appreciate if you don't make assumptions in the future. Again, I don't think these should be completely removed, but they don't really belong on this page.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 00:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This is a list of workarounds, right? Why would a workaround, even if it's long, not belong?
Oh, and making assumptions is part of human nature, and can be used for survival in some cases, so, i'm not taking that part too seriously, lol. But if you intend for people to take your writing at face value, i'll try to do that.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Guys I have the solution. Let's delete the wiki.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Seconded :P
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 20:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sine, Cosine

So, you can approximate sine and cosine (well, technically all functions) using a Taylor series (I think that's what it is called). Should this be included as a work around? Example: Sine (x) = x - (x^3)/3! + (x^5)/5! - (x^7)/7!...
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs)

Hmm... I don't think that's really necessary. Perhaps it can be included in the article about the () Of (), but it doesn't really belong here (after all, you would only get approximations).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

abs (distance)

Is the absolute value block necessary for the "distance to x:() y:()" block, or am I overlooking something really obvious?
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. I'll fix it.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, Scratch doesn't report a negative difference in the original distance to [sprite] block, does it? That's what it's for.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
What I mean is that the square root of (x^2 + y^2) is always going to be positive, even if x and/or y are negative.
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 21:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
And I think it is also unnecessary for the "(distance to [sprite]") block workaround
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 21:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh, i get it now. I was misreading the script i guess. Yeah, squares will always be positive.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 06:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding Main article: List of Block Workarounds to Articles that have workarounds in them

Should i do that?
Coinman (talk | contribs) 13:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea.
But use {{main|<article>}} for it.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

XOR (and others)

Would these fall under "Non-Existent Blocks" or are XOR, NAND, NOR, etc. beyond the scope of this page? E.g. XOR = NOT<<boolean>=<boolean>>, etc.
MoreGamesNow (talk | contribs) 14:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

i think that would go under non-existent blocks
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 15:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
It might be better to just list those on the Truth Table page. :/
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:20, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Scimonster - to me, XOR and other logical operations don't seem necessary for this page - they can just be included on the Truth Table article.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

workaround for pen

Make a sprite and have it stamp for pen, but multiple costumes will be needed for different colors.
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 22:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't you have the sprite red in the first place, and then use the [set [color efffect v] to ()] blocks? And to replicate the shade, you could use this:
set [brightness v] effect to (((Value) / (2)) + (50))
It's not a true workaround because a shade of 100 isn't true white, while 100 above is true white. ErnieParke

workaround for Drag in Window

Here I made a workaround for the Drag in Window option in 2.0 that sometimes doesn't work. Does it belong here in a section called Other, even though it's not a block?
Curiouscrab (talk | contribs) 18:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say no, because it's not a block workaround.
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 19:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Scripts Going off Page

I noticed while looking through the page that there were a few workarounds that were wide enough to go off the page. The problem is that you can't scroll them to see the whole thing, so it becomes slightly useless to have them. Does anyone have ideas that would allow all of the script to be viewed?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 18:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like Scimonster came up with a solution to this problem, so thank you!
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 19:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Scimoster, could you also fix the up/down, and (some places) the left/right? Thanks!
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 21:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Scrolling left/right is possible now... and Squirrel, Scimonster hasn't been seen since nearly 2 years ago. You're probably not going to get a response ._.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, ok.
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken table display?

The first column of the first table seems to be too thin to hold all the hat blocks inside it on Chrome. Here's a screenshot [1]
Scratchisthebest (talk | contribs) 14:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm using Chrome and I'm not getting the issue. Then again, it's currently 2019 and this was made in 2014... It might just be you...
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 16:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

added non-existent block

I added the workaround for non existent block

(round () to the nearest ()) // category=operators

JonathanSchaffer (talk | contribs)

It does exist, technically
Banana439monkey.png banana439monkey (Talk | Contribs | Scratch | Edits (3,231)) 18:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC) So you mean:

(round () to the nearest ()::operators) 

MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 15:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

That's too large.

List of Block Workarounds became too large. Do you want to make a new page "List of (Category) Block Workarounds" (like "List of Motion Block Workarounds") and categorize?--
Apple502j (talk | contribs) 01:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, with the contents feature, it can make it easier to navigate the page. Though, that still might be a good idea, then linking them at the bottom of the full page.
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 17:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Non Existent Blocks

If I have an idea for a block that could have a workaround, could I add it to the Non Existent Blocks section. Or does it have to be suggested somewhere else for someone to add it?
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 15:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


When adding a section for a block in the tables, do you always add it on the bottom or in order of the blocks area of the editor?
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 12:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User Complaint

the block workaround page is falling out of date. some workarounds are either incomplete, don't work, or are inconsistent with the main page. one example being the userid workaround which won't work “until cloud lists are added” even though the st said they will never add it.

here's the article i mean: List_of_Block_Workarounds (look ma, i can use the [wiki] tag!)

i can give a more detailed list of what exactly i feel needs changing if any editors are confused


Moved from SW Forum
TenType (talk | contribs) 01:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Glide () seconds

I have a workaround for the

glide () secs to x: () y: ()

block. The only problem is that is is very similar to an existing workaround, should I add it?
MrSquirrelDeDuck (talk | contribs) 13:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Splitting up this too?

After splitting up Scratch Trends, I think it may also be worth splitting this up in a similar way (this time by category).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 03:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

They already are split up by having them on individual block pages, this page is simply a duplicate effort. It is also relatively unmaintained being extremely out of date (while S:SOFIXIT should apply here I expect the duplicate effort to be a problem here). In addition I would expect any "List of..." article to be links, which this is not. For that reason I would suggest deleting it, as all the content is already available but split and in a more up to date fashion.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 08:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
What does S:SOFIXIT mean?
Mlcreater (talk | contribs) 14:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
At least one of the arguments for splitting Scratch Trends would apply to this article as well. Specifically, I am thinking of SSB20 and leahcimto's argument about lag caused by editing so much content. I have to say, Yes Support because it is more bytes to edit than the old Scratch Trends, and the scratchblocks and table structure make it take about twice as long to read than an equivalent length of paragraph-styled text.
Mlcreater (talk | contribs) 15:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
It's also split up into categories already, similar to scratch trends. It would be kinda sad for this article to go too because it's one of the biggest lists, but I do support this for now Yes Support
ScratchCatHELLO (talk | contribs) 16:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Please, No No support. We don't need that drama again.
Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I think that this article is readable, but is about as long as Scratch Trends, so I would support splitting it up, but would we need an separate article for each and every category? Because that sounds like a bit much if someone wants to edit a bunch, or if a reader wants to know a bunch of block workarounds and not jump back and forth pages. So right now, I am neutral, but that may change if I get more info. I also think that part of why I think it is harder to read is because that there are so many Scratchblocks taking up lots of space with the description too.
Leahcimto scratch profile picture.png leahcimto talkcontribsprofile 22:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It doesn't make sense to split this article. You see, it made sense to split up Scratch Trends. The original Scratch Trends page was like small articles in an article. But in this case, it is not. I don't like the idea that this is going to be split in to like "Event Block Workarounds", "Operator Block Workarounds", etc. For now, it's a no for me until I'm proven wrong or somebody clears this up.
4096bits PFP New.png 4096bits | Talk | 774 Contribs 22:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it would make sense this time to store the categories as subpages, and then transclude them into the main article, each with a notice, “This section is transcluded from [[List of Block Workarounds/{{{category}}} Blocks]]”? This could let people read only a specific section if they wanted, but still read the whole article if they wanted.
Mlcreater (talk | contribs) 23:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Mlcreator, that would take up unnessary storage space.
Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 00:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not really sure if this should be either. So maybe No No support
ScratchCatHELLO (talk | contribs) 00:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Since it seems nobody has addressed what I said above, I will remind again that this content is already split via block pages. As such, this page is simply a duplicate effort.
Since there aren't really any good ways to make this into a disambig page (without essentially linking to the workaround section on every block), and there are not any good places for this page to redirect to, it should likely be deleted.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 00:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Please, Naleksuh, the drama surronding the deletion makes it unreasonable.
Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 02:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm less concerned about any "drama" and more concerned about what would best improve the wiki.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 03:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I think lovecodeabc has a good point. Is it really worth it? The page is already here, it's helping people, so isn't deleting it more trouble than it's worth? I do see your point, but would it really improve the wiki?
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 04:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yay! An outdent!
Yeah, sure. See Jackson49's post.
Lovecodeabc Links: talk page | scratch profile | contributions 13:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I am leaning towards no support for splitting up in the article, but just deleting it sounds like a bit much to me. It’s a place to get workarounds for all the blocks all together without needing to jump through pages so I would definitely say No No support for just deleting this, no one wants to see some workarounds for blocks by jumping to each and every block page.
Leahcimto scratch profile picture.png leahcimto talkcontribsprofile 18:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah. I'd say No No support for deleting or splitting up the article.
Jackson49 (talk | contribs) 18:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks like the consensus is generally not in favor of splitting this article, so I guess we can table this discussion. I do have a few closing comments though.

Naleksuh, if you believe this article should be deleted, please make a separate discussion thread for that.
Lovecodeabc, I don't think that drama is really an issue. There wasn't actually that much drama with regards to splitting up Scratch Trends, and in the end the discussion that occurred was mostly constructive. Storage also isn't a huge issue at least when it comes to text, and article reorganizations shouldn't be avoided simply on the basis of storage.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 00:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It is quite common for multiple solutions to be proposed, part of the reason why deletion discussions are not binary outcomes either. No need to create new sections instead of participating in an already existing discussion.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 01:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"xor" should be "nor"

<not <<... :: grey> or <... :: grey>>> is actually nor, not xor. xor is this: <not <<... :: grey> = <... :: grey>>>
Donotforgetmycode (talk | contribs) 20:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the better solution is updating the workaround as opposed to the block being worked around, as xor (at least from my experience) is more commonly desired than nor.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 20:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Syntax error

So in the "all at once" section there is a syntax error.
It looked like this

 all at once (::stack):: control

But its supposed to look like this.

all at once{

Can someone please fix this? It's really bothering me and I cant fix it myself.
Evanzap (talk | contribs) 18:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


I noticed in some of the operator blocks workarounds there are blanks. Sometimes they are intentionally supposed to be blank for the workaround, other times they are supposed to be values. But it's very unclear what values they need to be. Could someone fix this? As I said, it's very unclear, so I can't fix it myself.
ScratchCat1038 (talk | contribs) 23:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.