Talk:House Ordos

message: What exactly is this "Emperor: Alliances" that is referred to in this article?  Googling it and looking through lists of published games returned no results (I'm assuming it's a game since it has House Ordos in it).
(Now that I've finally finished the Dune series I had to look this page up to see where Westwood got House Ordos from)
Thank you -CrimsonKaiser 00:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick question about Emperor: Alliances 

message: This page is way too long, and I'm excising it. Why oh why is this page bigger than House Atreides, House Harkonnen, and House Corrino? And the game units? They're going out. They can be reinstated at a page about the game. --Staecker 13:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killing this bloat 

message: as someone who just stumbled upon this, I have to say this is one of the most ridiculous things I have read on this site to date. I especially loved the completely superfluous words inserted into the headings "Infamous ... Insidious ..", and the way at some point the article just drifts off into some sort of a bizarre poetic analysis of the symbolism of freezing to death on some ice world no-one has ever seen, just briefly mentioned in some videogame no-one has ever played. It's like a fantastic fractal of irrelevance within more irrelevance. If this ever gets deleted someone should preserve it for posterity just because it is such an awesomely silly thing to read.
: - Shok Teenik  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.57.173 (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The games are certainly not unknown things "no-one has ever played", they are some of the most important RTS games ever made, since they shaped the genre for at least the first 10 years. But I do agree there is a lot of non-encyclopedic stuff in this article, almost nothing is sourced and the dramatic description of the home planet would fit better in a novel than in an encyclopedia. I think the House of Ordos is very notable, since they were created outside of the "official" dune universe, but still feature a lot of background history and such. But any such things mentioned in the article needs references to sources, preferably the game manuals or in-game cinematics. A lot described in the current article 'feels' like original research, obviously written by someone who likes the house of Ordos, and too much based on what the writer thinks of the race than what is actually known about them, and too much written in some kind of "in-universe" perspective rather than descriptions of a fictional group.
Ordos are notable and the article should absolutely NOT be deleted, but it does require a lot of cleaning up and checking against sources.
213.89.251.44 (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  this is a fantastic article 

message: The article currently:
:The House is listed in the non-canon Dune Encyclopedia (1984) by Willis E. McNelly[1] but has never been mentioned in any of the novels.
If you read the article about the encyclopaedia it says:
:The Dune Encyclopedia is written in the form of an encyclopedia within the fictional Dune universe, often citing non-existent fictional written works. No reference is made to which information is taken directly from the works of Frank Herbert himself, and which has been invented.
Taken together, this suggests it may have been invented in the encyclopaedia. I see some earlier discussion suggesting this. However if true, IMO the article it self doesn't make this sufficiently clear. For starters, it could have first appeared outside the novels and encyclopaedia (e.g. TV or other places) which our article fails to mention (this may not have existed, but we can't expect our readers to be aware of this). Also, even if the encyclopaedia is non-canon, the normal assumption would be it intends to represent stuff that has already appeared elsewhere rather then making stuff up itself and the reader is unlikely to know it did this without checking out the article. (At least we give the date so readers don't think it first appeared in the game which caused it to appear in the encyclopaedia.) In other words, if it can be reliably sourced we should clearly say it was invented or first appeared in the encyclopaedia, rather then forcing the reader to guess. Nil Einne (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented in the encyclopaedia?