[crossfire] <DKIM> Re: <DKIM> Wiki Changes

Sat Sep 20 08:37:09 CDT 2014

Hello.

Sorry for the delay :)

Yes, I'm describing the difference between the wiki and the website.

I think it's nice to have a manual on the site, maybe written through the 
wiki, but still "stable". Something we could distribute with the game, if we 
wanted :)

As for the TODO list, please, don't mistake the tool and the goal - I don't 
feel like using Yet Another Better Tool Than The Ones Before (tm), the list is 
just there for people to use if they want.

The wiki isn't that great? Then use SF's bugtracker, or scratch the table on 
the wiki and put stuff randomly, whatever.

Just my 2 cents of course :)

Kind regards

Nicolas

Le samedi 13 septembre 2014 13:22:40, David Hurst a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> I'm very glad to see an overall positive response to these changes and it
> does motivate me to continue to improve this resource. I can now say that I
> know the content on the wiki backwards as a result but If you were to ask
> me how far progressed the wiki pages are as a project, i'd probably be
> saying about 15% :).
> 
> Nicolas, If I understand correctly I think what you are describing is less
> about the wiki itself than the joins or connections between the wiki and
> our current web presence sites (crossfire.real-time.com, crossfireatlas).
> There are some general design approaches to the website that I have
> suggested regarding better or more seamless integration between these pages
> but i'll leave that to Leaf to look at when he has the time. In the long
> run I think the majority of content should be moved to the wiki pages.
> Specific scripted pages like the metaserver2 and atlas present a challenge
> but they don't need to be changed anytime soon. There are literally
> thousands of game wiki's and hundreds of RPG wiki's out, many of which have
> proven that wikis work not only for guidance information but for game
> mechanics documentation. Why?
> 
>    - Wikis can actually provide very nice and consistent look and feel with
>    little effort and can be updated without major work. Wiki's are not
> limited to the current look and feel we are using, take for example this
> wiki: http://dota2.gamepedia.com/Dota_2_Wiki.
>    - Often contributors may not have any skills/inclination to change code
>    or build maps but may be happy to keep wiki pages up to date (such as
> me). - It is also much easier to design the structure of the website by
> using a wiki system (or any document management system) to 'chip away' at
> documentation over time.
>    - Changes are much easier to monitor (and revert ;)) by a group of
>    contributors rather than leaving all the work to a web-admin.
> 
> Regarding the wiki as a development documentation point, I don't really
> feel confident in making many changes to these pages as I wouldn't say i'm
> a contributor in that sense.That said I am in two minds about the
> development section on our wiki. On the one hand it is a very easy way to
> jot down ideas and thoughts and have them accessible in general. On the
> other it can be a maze for anyone that isn't involved or new. Possibly
> providing a little more structure could be all that is required?  I would
> suggest though one thing that I do feel strongly about that might help. At
> present we appear to be using this table
> <http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/dev_todo_new> as a TODO list which is
> clunky to make changes to at best. Can I suggest we consider a system such
> as http://flyspray.org/ to help keep track of work? I understand the main
> focus of flyspray is as a bug tracker, which Sourceforge does an excellent
> job of, however I think Sourceforge's 'feature requests/current projects'
> system feels more suited to external recommendations than an internal TODO.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Saru
> 
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Tolga Dalman <tolga.dalman at googlemail.com>
> 
> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > Thanks for the great work!
> > 
> > On 09/13/2014 01:43 AM, Rick Tanner wrote:
> > > On 9/12/14 5:10 PM, Nicolas Weeger wrote:
> > >> Players information is on the official website (though it may require
> > >> some update, but that's another topic), and it should probably be
> > >> there because that's the page you'll see first when you discover the
> > >> game. Having whole player manuals there is great.
> > > 
> > > My hope was the wiki would be the draft or living copy of such content
> > > while the website would hold or present the "nice and pretty" version.
> > 
> > As it is, the wiki is indeed a good developer's reference and should be
> > extended. However, I think it would be also nice to have the official
> > manual
> > in the same wiki.
> > Wouldn't it become too cumbersome to maintain two documentation sources
> > in the
> > long run ?
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v2
> > 
> > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUE+uvAAoJEATLYSm2cxP94q0H/jgYUBM9AZieqOCugteqpv4V
> > OnZZb1hx/bvCu3Sp/zT7z5ZHcGf+qUhihMzNnNmbWHFO8zbhAwLBf+mXWzizGo3m
> > xP+GXzPTnEnrYyaZgQrXUDmtQib4a57+aMK9FNZT3RxYXmirpKh0rtSnMoQOlAmi
> > UeNKlreTE4wcbdSXl2G96s8dCAWqbUP/c/JOV5SfudsZT56W62Hpml8booJ311fL
> > 1S1FFOfYIMrpfuK7EA0jAFQdoCZhZrTxflxwVu8Tq/cBXfHGcBHhOuL7p/FzuWdH
> > 1sqZ4+UPlOBzWZCdw6K1LWYpMr7b7fohOgaswCMTSVooU7Pcr150LYfUKo6SxSQ=
> > =5Ann
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > _______________________________________________
> > crossfire mailing list
> > crossfire at metalforge.org
> > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mailman.metalforge.org/pipermail/crossfire/attachments/20140920/dbb1f25d/attachment.pgp>