Talk:Bronso of Ix

Don't you think the re-direct should go the other way?

--Erasmus2 20:39, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Bronso Vernius (2008) is based on the character Bronso of Ix (1969) - I would think the original would take precedence, it's all inter-linked, and he's pretty minor, so it's not a biggie.

Prequels and Interquels are still sequels, they just happen to be set before or during the original work - as such I'd imagine that articles should surely be geared towards the publication order where possible/convenient? Also how many people have read PoD compared to DM?

DuneFish 23:26, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we can leave it at just "Bronso" instead of "of Ix" or "Vernius". Bronso so far has a major role in "Winds of Dune" as I am reading the novel. I am a major fan of Expanded Dune. ^Erasmus

No shit... do your nu-dune stuff if you must. As long as the Expanded isn't presented as Original (Like it was originally) that's sound.

"Good fences make good neighbors." DuneFish 00:23, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Since this is not Wikipedia but a fiction wiki and articles are in-universe, events are described with internal chronological, and not publishing, order. MoffRebusMy Talk 07:28, September 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely the function of a wiki - fictional or not, is to disseminate information. There are some articles (Like this one!... shall adjourn elsewhere?) where it's no biggie... but we are dealing with 2 separate canons here. Check your copy of Paul of Dune if you don't believe me. - End of the first section.
 * Many of the articles here are actually pretty good... they just don't respect either canon. And I've been finding myself here for months now thinking "eh? Who does that serve" Certainly not the readers. --DuneFish "Good fences make good neighbors." 14:27, September 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that I don't use the Expanded, Mixed, and Original headers accurately? Or that specific article content is flawed? "I am no one's side but my own." THE ERASMUS DIALOGUES --Erasmus2 17:16, September 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * This particular article is fine now - how it should be. What got me started was the first version - it was listed as "mixed" and yet contained no Original information.
 * The problem is with the general use of the "Mixed" header. Seeing as more often than not nu-dune undermines interesting points in the Original Dune. I can example you up if you want, but I don't think this is the place. If this is an Original and Expanded Wiki (looks like it) then surely both sides should be put forward. --DuneFish "Good fences make good neighbors." 17:34, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

'''Note: I took some liberty and fixed the indentations so that the dialogue is more readable. Please put the appropriate number of :'s according to which paragraph you are replying to.'''


 * Greetings DuneFish. This wiki never paid much attention to sourcing/referencing at least compared to the "big" wikis like Wookieepedia. A single "canon" tag and a BtS section usually sufficed for any article, although IMHO it was used clumsily. Since I started to contribute and expand this wiki, I decided that an article needs more than one tags, and I try to follow this as a principle in the articles I edit which I hope should resolve your confusion.
 * Please tell us some examples of the articles that don't respect canon and make you thinking "eh?"
 * Note that I am not an admin, I am a "new" user and Dune fan. I don't like how most of the articles had been written when I got here; most are too brief and too superficial and if I was more immersed and knowledgeable in Dune I would had them fixed.
 * For the best or worst I am an expanded Dune fan too, but over the months I have came up with several ways to reconcile all canons in the wiki. I hope you have seen the "Encyclopedia sub-wiki" as I call it, which I started, and that you like how some articles (at least those I have edited) are divided in sections that respect both internal chronology and canonicity. I also plan to request for adminship and if it is accepted, I will include a script that will make the expanded Dune paragraphs retractable (so what a "purist" fan sees first is "Original Dune" information only). Please leave some feedback. MoffRebusMy Talk 21:16, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers - those indents look much more better. Yeah, I've been admiring the DE sub-sections - good work! The Old vs. Nu is always going to be clumsy, seeing as the two are so (superficially at least) close. And now with the interquels jumping in-and-out of the middle, it's understandably tough to get a readable article with them both separated. I dunno - would colour-coding be a workable option? Black for the Originals/Dark blue for Expanded or something? --DuneFish "Good fences make good neighbors." 17:30, September 6, 2009 (UTC)