@structural changes vis-a-vis 2.4:<br>IMHO there is no point of building a one-to one map between versions. No one is going to read multiple versions of any topic (in 2.3 ->2.4 ->2.5 ->2.6 sequence). <br><br>We should just focus on 2.6 (2.5 passed us by), and provide an archived copy of 2.4x because it is/was in wide use.<br>
<br>The 2.3 pages can be all redirected to just one page: the TOC page for
the current wiki (<a href="http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.5/Manual">http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.5/Manual</a>). There is no point in laboring to find matching pages between 2.3 and 2.4.<br><br>In fact, if you consider any professional book on programming/database/telecom/computer networking etc, you will find that successive editions often change in structure, despite the fact that the subject has not changed at all. The structure is changed for the sole purpose of improving the effectiveness of the book.<br>
<br>But in our case, Blender itself has changed drastically (say Cycles, Dynamic Paint, Dope sheet, etc.). Therefore the wiki structure NEEDS to change.<br><br>Jared had taken that initiative long ago, but those suggestions have remained in sandbox for a very very very long time now.<br>
<br>It is this inflexibility that led me to making the manual in pdf form, which is already making good progress. <br><br>Anyway the point is, the wiki structure should evolve with times.<br><br>***<br>P.S. I had earlier suggested that I would like to work on SEO (I purposely mentioned ONLY the "description" meta tag, because Google uses it to show the queried terms in bold. If we can decide the strategy about how to formulate it, I can work on those tags, either alone or as part of SEO team.)<br>
<br>According to Google SEO guidelines, having a site map helps SEO, which should be made/updated frequently to reflect the current state of the website. So running that map-maker script periodically would help our SEO.<br>
<br>Regards,<br>Narayan<br>