Template talk:Dune universe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Creation

I've created this template as a navigation tool for Dune articles, complementing the existing Template: extended Dune series template for the novels. I intend to place it on the Dune universe page first to see how other editors react to it; perhaps then it will have a place on other pages as well.

To keep the nav box as condensed as possible, I've included the most important "people, places and things" and only items that have actual articles, not stubs. The "headings" (People, Elements/Concepts, etc) link to lengthier lists in each topic to make the box more comprehensive without being overstuffed with individual links. TAnthony 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Houses

Shouldn't House Richese be in front of House Vernius, since the rest of the template is in alphabetical order? --Deviattor (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split template?

After looking at how many Dune-related pages are linked from List of Dune characters and List of Dune Encyclopedia articles, I think adding them all might make the thing a little unwieldy. In any case, I'm not going to finish going through and adding them all now.

Also, I'm not sure the organization is completely logical now. Why are some groups/organizations (Bene Gesserit, Face Dancers) listed under "People", and others (CHOAM, Reverend Mothers) under "Elements/Concepts"? --DocumentN (talk) 06:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this template is supposed to be a helpful navigation tool for more or less major elements of the Dune universe, listing every single character and article is unnecessary (and links to List of Dune characters etc. exist in the template). It may be an objective choice, but the B.G. and Face Dancers are more "groups of people" — to me meaning "groups of characters" — whereas CHOAM is a company (made up of people, but not organically the same as the other groups). And to me the RMs are basically a classification within the B.G. and not really a "group" unto themselves, and their nature (and the way the article itself is presented) feels more like a concept. — TAnthonyTalk 04:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)