User talk:ATOE

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Legends of Dune and the notes[edit]

Hey there, I just reverted you on the novels regarding the notes, but then I realized that it's up to interpretation and I'm no more right than you are. I think you are correct that these particular sources do not explicitly mention the Legends series, so feel free to restore your edits if you still wish to (with a descriptive edit summary) and I will leave it alone and see if anyone else has any comments or input. Thanks. — TAnthonyTalk 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, not sure how discussions like this work on WP, should I leave you a message here or respond to your post on my own talk page? I agree this is open to some interpretation, however my take is this: they've never said that anything in the Legends series was based on the FH notes, and they have stated that Omnius and Erasmus were their own creations. That the notes may have said that the enemy of many faces was thinking machines doesn't imply that anything in those notes is related to the Legends series beyond the fact that thinking machines were in the Jihad, which is info already present in the original novels - unless there is a published statement from them claiming otherwise it doesn't fit into WP's sourcing rules in my opinion, it's not encyclopedic to make assumptions this broad. I'm going to revert to my edits for now so we can see what other people say about this, but I do see where you're coming from. ATOE (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TAnthony")
There was a quote from one of them somewhere about how they "set up" some of the plot points in Hunters and Sandworms by peppering little clues and bits in the prequels (of course I can't find it at the moment LOL), but as you note there is nothing to say what is or isn't their work vs. the contents of Frank's outline. So I'm fine with your edits. And by the way, my tying the Herbert notes to certain BH/KJA works is just my attempt to be accurate, I'm not trying to assert importance/canonocity or, conversely, detract from the works. — TAnthonyTalk 18:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry, I know you're just going for accuracy, I have no interest in seeing anything missrepresented either.ATOE (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)