Template talk:Bard Base buff spells

I do not understand the advantage of this transclusion page... just seems to artificially inflate page counts, make pages overly distributed for editing and maintenance, with no real benefits when subpages aren't used anywhere other than the parent document. HJELTE (talk) 11:33, 17 February 2015 (CST)

The point is to be able to easily include suggested buff spells on the individual beginner professional pages as per Scribe's suggestion on the officials. This idea was bounced around on the Talk:Buff spells for maybe the last week and I just tested this with the beginning bard page now to see how the idea looks in practice and check what needs tweaked. -cheers SARAH3 (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2015 (CST)

I agree with Whirlin, I suggested on the minor spiritual one that they be changed to templates. Awaiting DAID's response over there. VANKRASN39 (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2015 (CST)

If it's going to be done on the spell circle level, I think it should be a comprehensive overview of that circle, like the information found in Bard Base, not any other way of slicing and dicing. HJELTE (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2015 (CST)

That's not useful for tossing into beginner's guides, and rather against the entire point of the buff spell pages. Bullet pointed lists are easy to toss into one place in a succinct manner. If you want a full description of a spell circle...that's what spell circle pages are for. DAID (talk) 12:41, 17 February 2015 (CST)

Sorry Vanessa...you explicitly replied to a Discussion which directed you to discuss here and not where you replied so no one was monitoring that. Frankly, I'm not overly familiar with transclusions or how to set up templates, which was what I originally posted on the main buff spells talk page at the outset. As far as I can see, the difference of a template and a transclusion is mostly in nomenclature or some minor points. I don't think anyone really cares about page counts (nor had I worried about such a triviality). In any case, I think we're all in agreement Whirlin, which only echoes the spirit of my initial concept. The idea is to have the editing at only one place while allowing the information to be easily syndicated to many pages. If a transclusion is edited, so is the page that includes it. I think we're mostly splitting hairs on semantics here. I got the concept of transclusions from googling similar tricks for mediawiki systems. If anyone could be kind enough to make a Template out of Minor_Spiritual_buff_spells and show me a sample offering, I'll definitely see what the differences might be between a transclution and a template. We've definitely been holding off on pushing this approach to the entire buff spell system, so I'm glad we're finally discussing it, even if at an unexpected location. As I said on my initial post for discussion 'halp halp'. Thanks. DAID (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2015 (CST)

Rather than keep being dismissed and have other people say, "hey shouldn't it be like this?" I will show you. Page bloat is an issue when it comes to maintenance and organization. VANKRASN39 (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2015 (CST)

I don't think anyone was trying to be dismissive. I think DAID and I were both looking on the talk page on the main buff spell page for suggestions instead of looking at the other one. I honestly did not know about your template suggestion until this came up here because I was not looking for it on the MnS page. At any rate, thank you for sorting that out. SARAH3 (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2015 (CST)

It was also on the buff spells page. VANKRASN39 (talk) 08:39, 18 February 2015 (CST)

Ah, then probably I misunderstood what you meant by templates there. tbh, I'm not sure I still fully understand the difference between templates and pages in this case, but since there's a difference and a standard way to do things, then I'm perfectly fine going along with that way. I definitely did not mean to make you feel like your suggestion was being ignored. cheers, SARAH3 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2015 (CST)

Sorry if asking for an explanation and example sounds dismissive. Frankly, the results via template and via transclusion seems nearly identical except for some very minor differences (this was why I couldn't follow the template request on the buff spell talk page). By saying a page is a page (in regard to bloat), surely Templates are also pages. They might be tallied differently in a way that's relevant, though. Anyway, I think the template version works fine and accomplishes the goal we were after. We are happy to adopt that standard. Thanks for showing us how to go about it! Cheers. DAID (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2015 (CST)

1017

I removed the reference to 1017 because it is not a buff spell as we have been defining them since it does not directly provide the bard with a boost to AS, CS, DS or TD. While I can see that this spell can be useful while hunting, that is not the same as being a buff spell. -cheers, SARAH3 (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2015 (CST)