Talk:Legends of Dune

League of Nobles redirects to Legends of Dune
In working on the Landsraad article I was reminded that the League of Nobles redirects here. I think this is the correct way to do it in a canon sense, as the Landsraad itself is a Frank Herbert creation and the League is a Brian Herbert/Kevin Anderson one. Obviously, the Legends books are canon but with all the "controversy" it's best to make the distinction. There is a section in the Landsraad article that references the League.

I wanted to put my "vote" in now in case anyone has the idea to change it later.TAnthony 01:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Either one works for me, but it seems more logical to redirect to Landsraad. I have no major issues with the way it is though so I'm not changing it. Konman72 09:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Herbert's notes
The article sez that the prequels draw from Herbert's notes left after his death and provides some references. However the references themselves explicitly say that the notes concerned Dune 7, and the House books, the Legend trilogy isn't anywhere mentioned. I am removing the phrase until a rationale is given. 85.74.93.43 (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Brian Herbert has said this several times, including in the prelude to one of the new Dune books (I forget which one). I personally doubt that much of the new books came from Frank Herbert though-they just don't feel like the original Dune books, more like Star Wars. Lexington1 (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP is pointing out that BH/KJA have been quoted saying that they used the Dune 7 notes and other Herbert writing scraps as ancillary material for the Prelude series (The "House" books), but we do not have any sources at this time in which they state they also used these materials for their Legends series. If you have a source in which they have, by all means point it out and I'd be happy to incorporate it. And yes, I think it's been made pretty clear that Herbert's Dune 7 outline was basic and relatively short and his other materials of varying scattered content, so neither BH or KJA has really asserted that "much" of their new books were straight from the mind/pen of Frank Herbert (which is why he isn't credited as an author).&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 00:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Here guys. I'll solved this for you right now. In the August 2006 first edition of Hunters of Dune, Brian and Kevin address 1) the oulines and notes regarding Chapterhouse as well as an undisclosed amount of side stories and they never directly state what is in those notes besides Chapterhouse. 2) They state that to copy Frank's style would be wrong that they specifically decided not to completely emulate Frank's style. They state that they use their own "spacing and syntax". As far as I can find, they have not made any statements that elaborate upon that. Hope that helps. MephYazata (talk) 05:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge
My bold merge/redirect of this article has been challenged by Lx 121, so let's start a discussion. Here is why it seems like a no-brainer to eliminate this stopover page:
 * 1) Each of the novels in this trilogy has its own article, and an entire page dedicated to the trilogy itself seems unnecessary considering that all that is here is a list of the books and a plot overview; HOWEVER for the sake of navigation and perhaps some understanding of how the trilogy fits into the greater body of work we have ...
 * 2) All the notable content on this page exists at Dune prequel series, including a plot overview of the trilogy, list of books, and additionally, some information (with references) regarding  the NYT bestseller lists. That section is basically this exact article, trimmed of cruft. Dune prequel series, an article covering all of the Herbert/Anderson series, is substantial, significantly referenced, and more defendable against AfDs etc. than a series of individual trilogy articles that are mostly plot.
 * 3) As a fan I know that now, 10 years later, there is not likely to be any more media coverage, analysis, or other material with which to expand this article at all. If in the future they make a miniseries or something then by all means we can discuss recreating an article, but for now this is all we're going to get.
 * 4) The only info not transferred from this article is:
 * a) a completely unreferenced "theme" section which amounts to editor POV; if and when some sourced analysis is found, it can easily be added to Dune prequel series.
 * b) lists of planets, as categorized by the in-universe plot of the series. The concept of Free vs. Synchronized planets is already covered in the Legends of Dune section of the Dune prequels article and the individual book articles as needed. I added the lists to this article myself in 2006 and I'm telling you, they're trivial in this context, especially since the listed names are only a small fraction of the 500 or so referemced in the plot. Lx 121 has pointed out in his revert that "this is wikipedia, NOT abridged-pedia" but I would point out that it's also not TRIVIApedia.

Lx 121, I believe that you may have, understandably, panicked upon coming back and seeing such a seemingly drastic change, but I'm hoping that once you take a look at this from a larger perspective you'll understand. Among other topics, I've significantly contributed to, expanded, or created just about every Dune-related article here, and in my many years editing I've seen all kinds of AfDs and challenges of articles based on fictional topics. I'm one of the biggest Dune nerds around but I've learned that we have to keep things tight, and balance real-world relevance against what "outsiders" would call trivia in order protect these articles.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 22:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)