Lore talk:Baar Dau

Protection

Due to a recent influx of spam targetting this talk page, it has been protected until October 22. If you're a new or anonymous user and can't post to this page, please post your question to the Community Portal instead. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 18:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Recent Revert

I reverted this recent edit as it made the opening to this article too difficult to read I feel, and it would be a bit difficult to just correct it as much of it would need to be rewritten (such as sections that were directly copied from sources). I'll try to rewrite it myself when I have a free moment. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 18:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The edits were made to comply with your transclusion of the monster children on Vivec's page. While I agree most of them should be transcluded, Baar Dau is an exception as it has a lot of information surrounding it outside of Vivec's mythology. Dcking can probably take care of it himself by splitting up the info he added into different sections. On Vivec's page, we can just write the relevant info as needed without transcluding anything. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m down to do it any number of ways, my only end goal is that if we rely on transclusions anywhere that we still are able to address all relevant info to Vivec on his page and as it stands now, this transclude is missing much of the nuance of how Baar Dau relates directly to Vivec. If you would be willing to do a rewrite that would be much appreciated as would any contributions to what will be a hefty project of giving Vivec a full blown, in depth page. Dcking20 (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

This page has now become a good example of how our current use of <noinclude> to determine what should be transcluded to other pages has become rather inane... --Enodoc (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Just to say, there is no reason to transclude the entire body of information on this article to Lore:Vivec. That is why we have separate articles. A short blurb with a link to the full article is entirely appropriate if transclusion is becoming an issue. What we do not want is duplication of prose and/or references. —⁠Legoless (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The body of the article was the blurb I specifically wrote for the Lore:Vivec page as every one of the stories of Baar Dau, directly relate to Vivec and why the moonlet came to his city. Since transclusion was seen as preferable, this was the course taken. Regardless, there is absolutely not going to be a satisfactory way to use transclusions in a way that fully satisfies the pages Baar Dau appears on in context to being a celestial body, a place, and one of Vivec's 8 monster children and I agree with Enodoc that there’s some major flaws in using this system blindly. Dcking20 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2023 (UTC)