[Bf-docboard] 2.5 Wiki Changes
Bastien Montagne
montagne29 at wanadoo.fr
Mon Nov 7 21:57:25 CET 2011
Hi Jared.
Today, it seems you tried to clear a bit the 2.5 mess.
*PLEASE STOP*
I don’t want to be rude, but adding pages like
Doc:2.5/Manual/Animation/Techs/Object/Constraint to replace
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.5/Manual/Animation/Constraints
is *not* the way to go! That kind of thing must be done by *moving* the
page from its old name (path) to its new one, which you can’t do.
This added extra work for us (having to manually redirect the old page
to the new name!).
Further more, we are in the process of reviewing 2.5 manual these days,
it’s an ugly work to do, and wild changes made during it make it even
worse… :(
You’ve done a hard work so far, but unfortunately anarchically. Thus,
we’d just like you to wait a few days, not touching the 2.5 manual.
Then, we will publish on this list our report over 2.5 state, and from
there we’ll define what to do. You’ll obviously be very welcome in the
fixing&writing team! :)
Regards,
Bastien Montagne
Le 07/11/2011 19:54, Jared Reisweber a écrit :
> Ok, lets all take a deep breath. I only ever intended to help, and
> never to take over. There was misunderstanding on my part and I
> apologize. I realize the error of my ways, and will have no problem
> complying with the wiki guidelines from this point on, of which I now
> better understand. I saw a role to fill as a wiki contributor, but I
> got ahead of myself.
>
> , along with
> > other significant changes that are needed, in my public spreadsheet:
> > Blender Wiki Content
> >
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgUiaPsPYcKpdElpc2V3S1JIb21kUTNMT0YzTTJ2X3c&hl=en_US&pli=1#gid=0
> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgUiaPsPYcKpdElpc2V3S1JIb21kUTNMT0YzTTJ2X3c&hl=en_US&pli=1#gid=0>>.
>
> this is not the workflow stated in the guidelines.
>
>
> I understand this. I was keeping track of all the edits and changes I
> made, on my personal computer. When I realized that this might be
> helpful for admins to view, I made it public. Again, I was not trying
> to ignore rules, I simply misinterpreted them. I've kept a list of all
> the 2.5 pages I filled in, and can post it where appropriate. For the
> most part, I was under the impression that I didn't need to do sandbox
> pages, since I was simply reusing content from the 2.4 pages, and
> conforming them to 2.5. I would agree that I should have prepared
> sandbox pages for bigger changes, like the modeling section, and for
> content that is new in 2.5.
>
> > Out of the 454 or so wiki
> > pages, i've only changed page links for about 70 of them (see
> the second
> > sheet in my Google doc), so I don't know what you mean about not
> > following the 2.4 structure "at all."
>
> 70!
>
>
> I've fixed 43 of these pages in my sandbox page, by copying the page
> contents over to the old pages. There's really only about 46 pages in
> the 2.4 manual that do not yet have direct corresponding pages in 2.5,
> which are primarily the modeling and animation pages. I really don't
> think fixing the cross linking issue is that big of a deal. Most the
> content either exists, and simply needs to be split up again, or is
> not there at all, so the links can be changed without issue.
>
> Again, I want to stress that I had no intentions of anarchy. I am not
> blaming anyone for my failure to comply with the guidelines. I respect
> the input of others and agree that there needs to be collaboration in
> order to complete this project. Please let me know if there is
> anything I can do to help resolve this problem.
>
>
> Regards,
> Jared
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 7:54 AM, mindrones <mindrones at gmail.com
> <mailto:mindrones at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Narayan,
>
> On 11/07/2011 04:43 PM, Raindrops From Sky wrote:
> > I decided to work on my own pdf because of the "sandbox" idea, which
> > IMHO is not supported by this team well
>
> by reading the past mails here you will see that it is quite the
> opposite. Also, the major wiki contributors agree using it, and same
> goes in #blenderwiki channel.
> We all use it as a safety net.
>
> It is up to you to accept the sandbox for big changes, or not.
>
>
> The 2.5 manual has been quite a playground for 2 years, and infact
> it is
> now causing some headache rewiewing it, but once it'll be reviewed it
> will have to follow the same sandbox mechanism.
>
>
> Regards,
> Luca
>
>
>
> > The SEO area seems to be without any sandboxes; so I decided to
> > contribute there.
>
> SEO is about
>
> >
> > On 11/7/11, mindrones <mindrones at gmail.com
> <mailto:mindrones at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >> Hi Narayan,
> >>
> >> I'd prefer that decisions regarding blender's wiki are made by
> people
> >> that have done significant work (meaning with a good amount of
> >> contributions in the wiki itself) and following the rules we have.
> >>
> >> Rules can be discussed of course, but IMHO by people that have
> already
> >> followed the current ones for a while, and have a significant
> experience
> >> and history in this wiki.
> >>
> >> I don't really want to be harsh, but I don't see many edits in
> your user
> >> page :/
> >>
> >> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Special:Contributions/Raindrops
> >>
> >> I think it is understandable that there is a difference among
> people
> >> doing real work and people having opinions, no offense.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 11/07/2011 06:06 AM, Raindrops From Sky wrote:
> >>
> >>> But in our case, Blender itself has changed drastically (say
> Cycles,
> >>> Dynamic Paint, Dope sheet, etc.). Therefore the wiki
> structure NEEDS to
> >>> change.
> >>
> >> New topics aren't a change (Cycles, Dynamic Paint).
> >> Dopesheet represent a change, but that's just a small part of
> the whole
> >> manual.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Jared had taken that initiative long ago, but those
> suggestions have
> >>> remained in sandbox for a very very very long time now.
> >>
> >> Bastien has waited several months before someone had the time
> to review,
> >> it's normal, because this is a volunteering project.
> >>
> >>
> >>> It is this inflexibility that led me to making the manual in
> pdf form,
> >>> which is already making good progress.
> >>
> >> Stating that you work on your own manual and pretending to make
> >> decisions here is a bit weird IMHO.
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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.)
> >>
> >> There is a thread about SEO now, please reply there, thanks :)
> >>
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> As stated, this is in the todo.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Luca
> >>
> >> _____________________________
> >>
> >> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Mindrones
> >> http://www.mindrones.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Bf-docboard mailing list
> >> Bf-docboard at blender.org <mailto:Bf-docboard at blender.org>
> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Bf-docboard mailing list
> > Bf-docboard at blender.org <mailto:Bf-docboard at blender.org>
> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
> Luca
>
> _____________________________
>
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Mindrones
> http://www.mindrones.com
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at blender.org <mailto:Bf-docboard at blender.org>
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-docboard mailing list
> Bf-docboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/attachments/20111107/da1b4a9e/attachment.htm
More information about the Bf-docboard
mailing list