Is this article okay?

It doesn't seem to have much relevance to Scratch... it looks more like a Squeak advertisement. It doesn't seem to fit on this Scratch wiki.
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 06:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's the program that Scratch was created in, so I suppose it's okay. But when Scratch 2.0 comes out it really won't have that much relevance...
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 07:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it's what Scratch was programmed in - but this article doesn't really have anything to do with that...
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 08:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well actually, reading through the article, it seems it explains what Squeak is, and things, which aren't necessary, plus all this information and more can be found on the Wikipedia page about Squeak.
WeirdF (talk | contribs) 08:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Jwosty asked me if I can create an article on it, and I said it was OK :). Even once there's Scratch 2.0, we can still keep the article.
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
(Continuing 10 month old discussion) Yeah, why do we need information on Open Cobalt? Or Pharo? They have very little to do with Scratch and aren't needed.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 15:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Jonathanpb (talk | contribs) 00:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
That is actually why I moved it from Squeak to Smalltalk; it talks about other smalltalk programs.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 04:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone seems to agree, yet nobody has said to do it yet...
BWOG (talk | contribs) 13:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
So do it. :3
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I think we should keep them because it's interesting information and it is pertinent to Scratch slightly.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 13:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
How is Open Cabolt or Pharo pertinent to Scratch?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
This Wiki is for Scratch, so it has Scratch related topics. Pharo has at least some relation to Scratch (Based on Squeak) but Open Cobalt is even less related, as it's based directly on Smalltalk. I suppose you could call Pharo a cousin of Scratch, and Open Cobalt a great-uncle. Or something. Maybe you get the point. But the point is that they aren't related. If we keep the unrelated stuff, we might as well add all of these to the article too. And we're already wasting 963 KB on the images.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 14:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL it doesn't have Open Cabolt there.
However, you're right. I'm removing the section on Open Cabolt and calling Pharo a "cousin" of Squeak.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 14:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's really only the OC images that take up so much space, and I guess I'm fine with removing OC.
Veggieman001 (talk | contribs) 14:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
What about Pharo? It isn't needed. Neither are the screenshots of a newer version of Squeak.
BWOG (talk | contribs) 15:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

An article on Flash

Because of this, we will have Flash when 2.0 comes out, right?
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 10:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Outdated screenshots

Squeak 5.3 and Pharo 8.0 are currently the latest versions of Squeak and Pharo, making the screenshots in this article outdated. Should these be updated?
Scratch137 (talk | contribs) 23:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure this should be updated, as Scratch 1.4 (the latest version of Scratch that uses Squeak) uses the older versions.
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The Scratch 1.4 Source Code contains a file called SqueakV2.sources, and Scratch 1.4 itself says that its Squeak version is from June 1st, 2003. This leads me to believe that Scratch 1.x runs on either Squeak 2 or 3, which is already older than the version shown in the article. Pharo, as far as I'm aware, doesn't run anything Scratch-related, so I don't really see an issue with updating that one.
Scratch137 (talk | contribs) 04:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.