When is a wiki not a wiki? When it's the Wesnoth Manual

Skippy · Post by **Skippy** » February 17th, 2006, 4:03 am

As a relatively new player I found some things confusing. So I tried to read the manual and found it about as illuminating as mud. So I muddled through and eventually worked out how things worked.

Then I thought, well, I have enjoyed this game for free, perhaps I will try to contribute.

Why not edit the manual? After all, as a new player I am acutely aware of its shortcomings in a way that experienced players will not be.

Here on the site I find the manual in nice wiki form and proceed to work on making some of the exposition clearer. OOps! Big mistake. I find that edits to the manual are not desired at all. It's only in wiki form, it would seem, because whoever maintains it likes to edit it that way (or at least that is what the talk page claims).

I would like to contribute but it seems the only way I can do this in this instance is to state the following:

The Manual is not very useful as a manual and has a number of sections that could be improved.

romnajin · Post by **romnajin** » February 17th, 2006, 4:58 am

"If you are new to Battle for Wesnoth you might want to read the GettingStarted guide first."
Right on there ;)

Skippy · Post by **Skippy** » February 17th, 2006, 10:49 am

OK?

And your point would be?

Are you suggesting that the Getting Started guide explains everything in the Manual - only better? Sure, that's my problem, I can't read. Silly me.

Post by **Kestenvarn** » February 17th, 2006, 12:41 pm

Yes, he is. Folks around here can be rather smug.

I found the wiki confusing as well... used the in game help section learn how to play, although that was frustrating since it only gave you bits and pieces as you played through the campaigns, never the whole thing.