Talk:Paint Editor (2.0)

merge

although this article is still in progress, it's pretty short right now and could definitely be merged with the paint editor article. i think that they should remain on the same article at least until the release of 2.0, upon which we've still got to decide what to do about 1.4 info.
veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 22:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's useful to show the contrast between the two paint editors, since they are totally different. People fluent with the old editor will need time to adjust, trust me. I find the new one hard to get around, so I'm sure other Scratchers will too. You would know, you're a graphics whizz. ;)
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 05:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's a good idea to merge the two articles about the Scratch paint editors - but not yet. I think it would be better if we wait until Scratch 2.0 is released, and then moved the contents of this article to the main paint editor article (essentially replacing it), while deleting this article. Then on the paint editor article, we could add a note at the bottom linking to the previous version of the article made for Scratch 1.4. It's a very convenient use of the article history system on the wiki, and I think it will help focus the edits on updating the new Scratch 2.0 paint editor with more information, rather than having an extra article where people will just be fixing grammatical errors or links about an outdated paint editor.

Besides, even right now, I think the page would be too cluttered if we decided to include info about both editors on the same page. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah, we could move the old one to Scratch 1.4 Paint Editor and this to Paint Editor.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 07:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This Page

This page, including templates and whatnot, has 6811 words 41348 characters. That is a lot......
-PRO- (talk | contribs) 15:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

True
derpmeup (talk | contribs) 15:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Add?

Quote:

Author:	KingOfAwesome58219 (source)
Text:	“ Paddle2See suggested that I somehow incorporate this post I made at (link below) into the wiki page about the paint editor ”

The link
jvvg (talk | contribs) 19:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

What if we made a separate paint editor tutorial, or completely overhauled the current article format for one more tutorial like? I think that would work. (Note to self: User friendly)
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 04:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ernie and Jvvg, perhaps I could make a video tutorial? I can do some screencasting and I have a good mic. I can make a good tutorial describing all the functionalities of the paint editor.

If you ask me, the wiki page covers everything on that guy's forum thread. His way is more structured though as a tutorial. I don't think the tutorial context of "Let's go drag this rectangle..." fits well in a formal article. Maybe we should link to his forum topic instead.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 21:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Since this page is really long and a bit hard to navigate, it seems like it would be better if some of this information could be moved to a different page. Bitmap tool information would move to Paint Editor/Bitmap Tools and vector tool information would move to Paint Editor/Vector Tools. Information about both would stay in Paint Editor. Afterwards, we can link to the sub-articles like this:

Bitmap Tools

Main article: Paint Editor/Bitmap Tools

Thoughts?
ErnieParke (talk | contribs) 04:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Support, good idea!

Hamish752 (talk | contribs) 04:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't see it as necessary since the article has a table of contents. I don't find it difficult to navigate.
Turkey3 (talk | contribs) 05:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Turkey. I find it easy to navigate because of the table of contents.
CrazyBoy826 (talk | contribs) 21:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)