Perhaps, since this is the template about 2.0, we should use the 2.0 styling for it? Just a suggestion. :)
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds cool, but how exactly would we imitate the 2.0 styling? :P Or am I misunderstanding
Chrischb (talk | contribs) 11:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Lucario worked on it in one of his sandboxes (he has more than me now!) Aha, User:Lucario621/Sandbox9. Just copy the stub styling and replace the text.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Just did it. What does everyone think.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 12:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good; thanks joletole.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 12:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Clock.png This article or section contains information about a future version of Scratch that is unreleased and is subject to change before the full release. Some Scratch Blocks might not display correctly on this page.

I think this styling looks better.
Bsteward (talk | contribs)15:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

TBH, i do too, but it's not used anywhere in 2.0, so the current is more accurate.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 15:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

MiaFan2010, first of all, we have all agreed that we are keeping this template the way it is. Second, even if a discussion is over, you can't just delete the entire page. If you have a good reason of changing it back to the old version, I am sure we would all love to here it.
Joletole (talk | contribs) 20:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"future version of Scratch"

Why not be blunt and say "Scratch 2.0"?
Hardmath123 (talk | contribs) 08:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that would be quite a bit simpler. But the advantage of the current way is that we don't have to change it with every version, and it still be used on articles that are about updates that will be released in Scratch 2.1 or later (since the Scratch Team mentioned that some features won't be available during the initial release.) Overall it is a nice suggestion, but I don't think it's totally necessary. :)
Lucario621 (talk | contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, such as on Procedures. It mentions 2.1.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 08:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


The clock image looks squashed.
3sal2 (talk | contribs) 16:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

that's why i use vector skin not s2cookie
but this is a problem
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 20:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 11:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It looks squashed in the ScratchWikiSkin. Again, that's another reason why I still use Wiki vector. :P
Mathfreak231 (talk | contribs) 12:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it looks the same.
Scimonster (talk | contribs) 13:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)