Talk:Battle of Corrin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Novels / Science fiction       (Rated Start-Class) Literature Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Science fiction task force. (with unknown importance) Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Science Fiction     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Merge

Agree with the merge (Gnevin 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC))

Definitely merge it. Konman72 06:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article has a heavy "New Canon" bias, no? I propose a bit of a rewrite (nothing drastic, just adding the usual "in the prequels by BH & KJA" sort of thing), but would like to hear other opinions first. --SandChigger 06:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The prequels are legally canon, so I don't see how it can be bias. --Dionyseus 06:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't question the canonicity of the new works (doing so is rather pointless when the issue is reduced to one of "legal rights", no?), as should have been evident from my use of "New Canon". I do make a distinction, however, in what is written in the original books by Frank Herbert and "revealed" later in those by his son & Kevin Anderson. In the Terminology of the Imperium in Dune it is stated:

CORRIN, BATTLE OF: the space battle from which the Imperial House Corrino took its name. The battle fought near Sigma Draconis in the year 88 B.G. settled the ascendancy of the ruling House from Salusa Secundus.

There is no mention of this being an extension (or the final battle) of the Jihad. There is also the point that the battle is described as having occurred in space near a star, not over a planet orbiting that star. (There is, in fact, no mention of a planet named Corrin in the originals.) Mention of the ascendancy of the Corrinos makes it sound more like a battle between rivals for control of the Imperium.

I'm not advocating inclusion of any of the above paragraph in the article, only that there should be an initial paragraph stating that originals say only what is in the Terminology definition and that the remainder be prefixed with something like "In the Legends books by...". This is the practice followed in many other articles, so why not here as well? --SandChigger 09:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That only makes sense. Other science fiction series have similar issues, and the most amicable and 'elegant' (in a sense) solution is to simply divide them. For example, in Star Wars articles, the divide is drawn between G-canon (movie stuff) & C-canon (Expanded Universe material). This split also has the salutary benefits of hewing closer to Wikipedia's "out of universe" perspective - from an out of universe perspective, the differences between FH's original stuff and the terrible duo's stuff is quite significant!

Nothing to it but to do it, as the saying goes. --Gwern (contribs) 19:05 11 February 2007 (GMT)