Talk:Scratch 2.0

Scratch 2.0 Beta Testing

Recently, in the history, I noticed JSO removed info about Scratch 2.0 beta testing "by request of lightnin". I do not think that's reasonable. So here is my reasoning:

1. This is the Scratch Wiki, made by Scratchers, for Scratchers. Not by the Scratch Team for them to decide what to tell members about. It should be our decision on what should be allowed on the Scratch Wiki - not saying though that the Scratch Team can't have an influence.

2. There was a recent incident, on my "role model wiki" - I look at it as a good example for this wiki. It's the RuneScape Wiki. Now, the main game of RuneScape (which the wiki provides information about) is made by Jagex - they make many different games. But they wanted to reach out to different fansites - so one they decided to affiliate with is the RuneScape Wiki. Now, the RuneScape Wiki had a "Jagex Staff Portal" article - in which it was a special website for Jagex Staff Members to enter the game with special tools. Once they were affiliated, within 24 hrs, Jagex requested the article to be deleted, and it was. This caused frustration within the Wiki community. It's still deleted, but I don't want that mess to happen here - we deserve to put the information we want on articles.

I don't remember this one. But RuneScape is awesome. Can you simplify what you said here? Thanks. ~ ScratchDude101 ♦ talk ∆ contribs 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This was a long time ago - I don't think it matters any more ;)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

3. What's so wrong with having beta testing info? Everybody deserves to know - and I honestly wonder why the Scratch Team had the testing list open temporarily at the very beginning of Scratch, and not anymore. Most likely many of those original people were just visiting Scratch for a short period of time - thus they're most likely inactive and don't have "a full veriety of Scratchers of the community" - so more people deserve to beta test. But of course, I'm getting off-topic.

4. It's only 1 sentence. It can't possibly cause much harm - and it's not giving much away - it just fulfills the purpose of providing information on everything related to Scratch. Plus, it's not something as devastating as something such as having a complete on the Scratch Developer Website along with the URL, and the password to get to it if there is one (just an example).

Also, I'd appreciate if I could see wherever Lightnin requested the change - whether it was on a chatroom, email, or on the moderator forum.

Thanks,
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the details about the removal but I know there is NO beta version of Scratch 2.0 and hence there is also NO beta testing list for Scratch 2.0. I saw a bunch of people sent emails to help@scratch asking to be added to "the list" but there is no such list so it just becomes a waste of time. I think it is important that the Wiki does not spread erroneous information that wastes people's time.--
andresmh (talk | contribs) 23:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the months delay :p I removed the info because just because it wasn't right, not because you aren't allowed to spread the info in gereral. There was/is no beta testing program, there was/is no beta version of Scratch 2.0. JSO 11:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to clear up what happened, is there was a pre-alpha test at scratch-day 2011 (modding area). We were told not to give it out, because they thought it would look too "Un-professional", so I'm not at a liability to share it, however, I can indeed say that there was a pre-alpha.
Gbear605 (talk | contribs) 00:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I have an idea

How about we just say that there is some speculation that a Beta Testing List exists, but there is actually no such thing? I'll add that to the article now...--WeirdF at some point in time

About Flash and Scratch

SCRATCH is the best with Java. For Scratch 2.0 the editor has been talked about to moving online and remixes online(along with the actual download program). That's cool, but it's harder and slower for Flash to work like that and Java is better for most cases. The only case where Flash would be good for Scratch is for developers on Kongregate and NewGrounds(like myself) to upload stuff. If not, it's cr*p. Just plain cr*p. ~ ScratchDude101 ♦ talk ∆ contribs 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment about your opinions - but the talk page of the article is for discussing the content and such - thus for Scratch 2.0, if you want to talk about it, you should talk about it on the forums, and post your opinions there :).
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 21:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What's that picture doing here?

It seems weird to me to have a big picture in this article whose caption makes it clear that it has nothing to do with Scratch 2.0! I'm guessing whoever added the picture originally thought it was a proto-2.0, and when someone else found out that isn't true, the caption was changed. Why not just flush the picture?

P.S. I made a small change to clarify that the Scratch Team aren't talking about adding BYOB, just some form of procedures. —Brian Harvey (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You're right - it'll just confuse people. Deleting - it's just silly to have there.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to make Turbo Mode without hitting see inside as of when Scratch Day, but I think that Java Player should still be an option along with Flash Player as the default. Some games work best with Java, whilst others need the Flash Player, and sometimes even Turbo Mode for stuff like 3D games. Please still implement the options for both! :) Or even a block or option that sets the default to one of them when you view the project.
XComputers (talk | contribs) 22:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Did the Scratch Team confirm Cloning for 2.0?

I saw that it was listed as a confirmed feature. I know that there is a suggestions page about it, but from the comments on it, it seems that they're aren't going to put a cloning feature in for 2.0, due to the fact that it is unstable.
OldWheezerGeezer (talk | contribs) 17:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at it, quite a lot of those are not confirmed, not just cloning... Maybe we should have a "Features" section, and the sub-sections of that would be "Confirmed" and "Unconfirmed." In fact, isn't that what it used to be?
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 17:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, check now :)
OldWheezerGeezer (talk | contribs) 17:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What will happen

...to this article when it is released?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm... I have no idea... I suppose we delete it, redirect it to the Scratch article and rewrite that.
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 19:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to delete, just replace it with #REDIRECT [[Scratch 2.0 (Current)]]. :3
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The Scratch Program Category

Does it need to be there?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well... It's a program... And it's to do with Scratch (considering that it is Scratch) so I don't see anything wrong with it...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 19:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Scratch 2.0 will be a version of the Scratch program, so I think it's fine how it is :)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The cat

Is that HD cat anything real, or just made by ElectricSparks? If it's not official, I don't think it really has anything to do with Scratch 2.0...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What was the picture? I wanna see :P (Even if it isn't real)
BWOG (talk | contribs) 19:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

just the hi def version from wikipedia
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

HD version of what?
BWOG (talk | contribs) 19:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Scratch Cat. It was just a smaller version of the version on that page that is all smooth and stuff.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiplayer?

There have been rumors about multiplayer. But, what if they made a feature that allowed scratchers to easily use multiplayer in their projects?

Sku2000 (talk | contribs) I think there should be a feature that reconizes scratch accounts & connects them to the project.

Sorry, talk pages are not for chat; if you have a suggestion for Scratch 2.0, submit it on the suggestions forum or Scratch Suggestions.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Link not working

The link to the Experimental viewer is not working, as the viewer was apparently deleted. Should I delete the link because it no longer functions properly?
SJRCS_011 (talk | contribs)22:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we could rephrase it to "The Experimental Viewer used to be available here:"? xD I dunno :P
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 07:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs updating

Could someone update this to fit with the new blog post?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 16:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I added it just now! ;)
Sku2000 (talk | contribs) 23:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gallery

Since there's so much information (as well as speculation) about Scratch 2.0, since it's such a big topic, pehaps we should include a gallery at the bottom of the page so people can click and see the different pictures? This could include pictures from blog posts, possible features, etc. What do you think?
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 19:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. We don't want the images getting out of hand. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 17:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots

If anyone has screenshots of Scratch 2.0 that's NOT on the wiki, it would be nice to have them here.
Dadkid101 (talk | contribs)

There aren't any screenshots available, sorry.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 19:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We can make some available by pestering someone with prealpha! But seriously, someone with prealpha should give us screenshots.
Wolvesstar97 (talk | contribs) 08:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone like me, veggie, and Lucario? Lol.

The pre-alpha is so outdated though. Anyways, the whole thing, well, a bunch of it, will be available on Scratch Day.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 09:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't know that.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You are a Scratcher. I am a mod. I have access to information. xP
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually veggie, it was mentioned here, on the Scratch Day website (scroll down to the bottom). :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, okay.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking screenshots of everything once it comes out. Are we going to have a "wiki race" to update this? :P
Wolvesstar97 (talk | contribs) 19:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's going to be more like everyone will race to upload their images and then I'll upload all my better ones and everyone will be astonished.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No, we upload our images, then you veggify them. :P

Or maybe i'll veggify my own. :O
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually won't veggify them; my screenshots have superior pixels. It's a lesser known fact, but it's still true.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

References

There's already quite a lot of references (fourteen as I post this), but I think for this article since a lot of information is changing often, it would be useful to have more references -- especially for sections such as the list of features. Remember that a reference can be used more than once in a single article, like this:

Text text text.<ref name=Scratch>http://scratch.mit.edu/</ref> Text text text.<ref name=Scratch />

I hope that example helps. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

0_0

So... I pretty much know that they aren't but I want to check, were cloud variables, "See Inside" and user customization pages canceled? I heard it on the forums.
Wolvesstar97 (talk | contribs) 04:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference?

I can't image they would be...
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh what is with people and their rumours. No they were not.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that you saw that too. :/ Well, thanks anyways.
Wolvesstar97 (talk | contribs) 19:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

jiggler.media.mit.edu

Should I mention that jiggler.media.mit.edu is the same as alpha.scratch.mit.edu?
Wolvesstar97 (talk | contribs) 05:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

How'd you find that? :O

I don't think it's necessary. :P
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:52, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm magic.
Wolvesstar97 (talk | contribs) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

You can find it from the ScratchEd video thing.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 23:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not incredibly important, but it is a valid piece of information. So yes, I think you can mention that jiggler.media.mit.edu redirects to alpha.scratch.mit.edu.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 23:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Wondering about something in the article

In the article, it says there will be 'Procedures, similar to the Scratch Modification BYOB, but only Stack Blocks'. Correct me if I'm wrong (this is why I don't want to add it) but I think there was a way of deciding how the block you create is used. --
Hadlab (talk | contribs) 17:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Just stack blocks.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the alpha version?

I tried going on the Scratch 2.0 website([1])and it popped up a dialog saying Restricted. What happened? Did the Scratch team close down the site because people weren't using it appropriately? Now I have projects made with the alpha version that I can't access now.
Davidkt (talk | contribs) 17:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As it says in the article and in the announcement the Scratch Team made on the forums, the alpha was only available publicly from May 17 to May 21 for Scratch Day. The Scratch Team have also mentioned that there may be another short public release later this summer though. :)
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 17:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did they close it,though?
Davidkt (talk | contribs) 18:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Because they chose to only make it available for a limited amount of time.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 18:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I am confused of why the ST and moderators are hiding the Alpha version. What is there to hide? I don't get it. I have had the question for a long time, and I want an answer (sorry for being so demanding). Is it because of spammers?
Joletole (talk | contribs) 22:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's because it's still in development, and they don't want to have people watching their every change because a lot of things are still broken or in progress. Still, I'm not an official source and this isn't really the place to discuss this. I'd recommend shooting an email at help@scratch.mit.edu.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 01:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Two previously unconfirmed features demoed at Scratch@MIT 2012

I moved scenes (a feature very much like BROADCAST but announcing a scene change) and user-id (wording updated to clarify that the project does not see an actual userid but rather a code generated from a hash of the userid and the project id, to protect anonymity) from unconfirmed to confirmed, based on demos by John Maloney at the Scratch@MIT conference last week.
Bharvey (talk | contribs) 01:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I really need to get myself to one of these conferences one day...
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 01:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Although those conferences do probably have some cool stuff, they're generally for educators and stuff, as it consists of more hour-long presentations and such (at least from what I know). Scratch Day is much more fun (IMO). :P
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 17:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Beta

Could someone notify me when the beta version for 2.0 is released? Anybody?
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 23:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place for this; you should probably make a project about it. The talk page on a wiki is generally for discussing the article itself, not what it's about.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 02:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This might help you though.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 23:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm... i use the beta by going here http://alpha.scratch.mit.edu/scratchr2/static/Scratch_new.swf and using some javascript in the screen that you get when you Ctrl+Shift+k
Coinman (talk | contribs) 00:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Confusing titles for 2.0 features

The title says "2.1 confirmed features" and "2.2 possible features" which makes me think those will be in scratch 2.1.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 00:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

For me it says "2.1) Confirmed features". It's much nicer to have the menus with the ")".

Maybe we should make it the top header? The "release of 2.0" section isn't so useful at this point in time.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. i think it is different for each computer because when i used a different one it did not show it all.
Coinman (talk | contribs) 14:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally think it should be left as is. It's understood that since every item in the table of contents starts with a number, it's not part of the actual title. Also, if you go to the section itself, you can easily see that it just says "Confirmed Features" and "Possible Features".
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 03:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It was just one of my computers that had that so it probably has somthing to do with the computer ☺
Coinman (talk | contribs) 03:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Progress reports section is really large

Maybe it should be expanded into its own article?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Bump.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, i agree
Coinman (talk | contribs) 14:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice

Scratch 2.0 look very cool,I can not wait to try it --
White41 (talk | contribs) 10:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hey, White41! Talk pages aren't actually for talking about the topic of the article. They're for discussing how to improve the article.
Technoboy10 (talk | contribs) 14:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

History section

Suggest we move the "History" header to be below "New Features".
Blob8108 (talk | contribs) 08:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Support
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 16:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean like Paint Editor#History? Definitely support. It takes quite some time and research, though ;)
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Known Bugs Section

If you are not sure, wouldnt it be better to put "citation needed"
Customhacker (talk | contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This article needs heavy reference updating

None of its references are up-to-date with the new format - I will try to update them when I have time but help would be appreciated.

[offtopic]OMG andresmh actually used the wiki?![/offtopic]
kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  10:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll start on some. :)
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 11:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :D I’ll see if I edit conflict with you at all :P
kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory  11:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

:P probably.
Drunken_Sailor (talk | contribs) 12:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Adding more photos

i found this project: https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/383568/ and im wondering if we could use some of the photos, bad thing is that they are bit map.
Mooaus2940 (talk | contribs) 17:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think most likely not. They're very pixelated, and we already have pictures like that on the wiki.
han614698 talk • contribs (2,572) • profile 01:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)