Is there any point to write new TDN articles?

#21 Quick comment on this:

Quote:be nice if the official documentation

Keep in mind that the concept of official is different now. Torque 2D is now an open source project, which covers the engine source, scripts, and documentation. Keeping tutorials and docs up to date are as important as maintaining the source, but that is not entirely up to GarageGames. This is now a full-blown community effort. So I would not use the term "official documentation" any more than I would use "official source code".

#22 So you're saying if someone wanted to put up something like a wiki on their own site/server and promote it over here to try to build community then GG wouldn't have a problem with it?

...because I could do that easily. :)

#23 No objection from us. Just remember we own the copyright of Torque 2D, but the engine is open source. If you are going to build a site, check out our logo section for some premise graphics you can use.

#24 Would it be ok to use the words Torque 2D MIT in the domain/site name? I'm thinking alongside a word like learn or tutorial or info or something in the domain name.

#25 I'm actually looking to merge the "old" Torque2D TDN into the structure of MIT documentation.

Even if MIT is the new stuff to use, I think there will still be people using the old Torque2D for a while.

As I showed in my example earlier one single script command would have information for both TGB, MIT and C++.

#26 @Chase - I'll have to check with Eric about that. It might be confusing if you use Torque 2D in your domain name. I'll have him chime in.

@Max - I'm all for people contributing docs to any of the engines, but I absolutely do not want to pull over any old docs for the new T2D MIT. Not without serious vetting. Anything that goes up on the GitHub wiki needs to be carefully reviewed if it is being ported from the legacy engines.

#27 I just want to clarify some things.

I started this thread with the intention to add more info to TGB in TDN. It seemed like the future for TDN and TGB forums where unclear and we where willing to save what there is to save.

As I understood, @Frank and @Ronny where willing to put up a Wiki for this purpose and see if GG could be kind enough to export the current TDN for us. We would try to reorganize the articles and add more examples and useful information to it. As I said, I think the old TGB will continue to live in the community before everyone has familiarised them self with the new MIT.

My understanding was that GG will host the MIT documentation on their servers, so there is no need for us (the community) to worry about that.

#28 Ah, ok. That clears it up a bit Max. Thanks.

Quote:see if GG could be kind enough to export the current TDN for us.

I don't think I'll be able to swing this one. Regardless, trust me when I say it will be easier if you just hand copy articles over.

#29 I *could* make room for an independent port of the old stuff, but I would also want it completely separated from the MIT'd engines. The new and shiny site needs to stay clean of old cruft. It shouldn't even acknowledge the existence of the old engines. The MIT wiki should only have new material, but it could be based on old articles.

Is a wiki all we need? I'd say it probably is. Some want more ('community sites', whatever that is), but splitting a relatively small site is never a good idea. Use GG's forums, and worry about fancy user-run community sites only if necessary. Splitters sod off with their forks and are never heard from again.

#30 For me a Wiki is just fine, as long we can "force" ppl to use a template to get the same documentation style.

I would like to see a reference template similar to MSDN library with a Description and code examples for each function.

Example:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms725984(v=vs.85).aspx

...and a section with pure articles and tutorials with working examples.

#31

Quote:as long we can "force" ppl to use a template to get the same documentation style.

You won't be able to. That's why you need someone who will put time into fixing other people's articles.

#32 If you want a particular layout and style you also need to make the CSS. Personally I only care about correctness and readability. And like Mich said, there is a need for overseers to keep the articles uniform.

Dokuwiki is pretty helpful in enforcing *some* sort of standard. As long as people use headings and subheadings it creates a nice index for each page. It also only allows basic wiki markup and whichever tags there are plugins for. No mixing in HTML if there isn't an addon installed. That turned out an awful mess on TDN.

#33 So the last question should be, are we enough with enthusiasts to start and maintain a TGB Wiki?

If we are a just a few, we could easily manage the formatting as long we have agreed on a documentation standard. Maybe we should start a read only Wiki for unregistered users and give ourself write access and then add users when there is a genuine interest.

New articles will await moderation by one of us "members" before publication.

...or if someone else has a better idea :)

#34 So, I'm not much of a programer yet, and I've mostly been a lurker around here for the past year, but I do have a lot of experience running a community fansite for Runic Games, and I have an underused server where I could easily host a wiki or other CMS. I MIGHT have a friend who might even be willing to help build a custom cms and/or maintain it. If some of you would pitch your experience in I will get a domain registered and start testing some potential wiki candidates within the week. Any thoughts?

#35 Making a CMS isn't a quick and easy thing to do (especially regarding security). We don't need a full CMS to get going either, just a wiki. And I have tested candidates :)

I've got a system ready to go. All it needs is a subdomain pointed at it (I get the impression GG don't really want their trademarks used in domains they don't own), core editors registered and given permissions, then start organising content. The system is running and has plenty of resources dedicated to it ( not some rented VPS with little control ;), and extra services can be added as needed. Editors get file upload access (which has been a huge problem on TDN), and merely registering gives no special access.

#36 Well, in that case, I guess I'll follow your lead and help where I can? Let me know what I can do. :)

#37 Get on IRC sometime later in the day (European time) :)

#38 I'm in Japan, so it's night here and I work tomorrow, but I'll pop in for a few minutes to see if anyone is around.

#39 @Ronny it seems like you are ready to go. I can create any sub domain you wish under mkdevelopment.se

How about tgb.mkdevelopment.se or tgbwiki.mkdevelopment.se?
My DNS records are on external servers with UPS and backup.

I guess you have a static IP to your server.

#40 I have an excellent domain: in.structive.net

It needs people with knowledge and people with no knowledge to verify that the people with knowledge actually are doing things people can understand. And a few more groups to stick people into.

I'm thinking of dividing namespaces into T2D and T3D, and making editors for each tree with approved writers creating and editing articles. Just registering gives no permissions to other parts than the testing namespace (which goes away after initial testing to see things work). So, people with a clue sign up and let me know what you can do, and permissions will be sorted accordingly :)

Regular users who just need to read don't need to sign up. In fact, they shouldn't. Regular user permissions are exactly the same as guest permissions. The only accounts needed are for people writing tutorials, HOWTOs, references for 3rd party stuff etc.

(And about IP addresses: I have a small block.)