Talk:Mentat/Archive 1

message: You're pushing us into edit war territory here with your continued efforts to post that link to the Mentat Wiki.  If you don't engage us on this talk page to discuss it, I'll report this page as an edit war and ask for a lock until you go away. JJ 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After the third addition/reversion, I've requested that this page be protected. JJ 21:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention 68.18.7.125 

message: I've removed these again.  The mentat wiki itself is inappropriate since it has nothing more in common with Herbert's mentats than the term itself; the second link is nothing but a blog post linking to the first.
The first link is arguable, and if you disagree, please comment below.  I'm not dead-set against it, I just think it really doesn't belong.  However, the second link is just an indirect repeat of the first, and definitely has no place in this article. JJ 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely, this is selfhelp and just using a term from the books does not make it relevant. Keep it out (I will). But I would love to hear from whoever is adding them... Lundse 08:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The owner of the mentat wiki has responded to me on his wiki that he's not the one placing the link (which in my mind is further reason to delete the link).  JJ 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of Mentat Wiki links 

message: The new additions form the Encycopedia are mixed in with those from the prequils which makes the article confusing. Notes should be made to distinguish the different sources.
:I agree, and the overview should be Frank Herbert first, then mention of what it Dune Enc. and what is B&K inventions. The rest of the article should be structured the same way - whoever added all the new stuff should fit it into these sections. I think the article has taken a turn for the worse lately, I would like to redo it (especially the structure), unless there are any objections? Lundse 21:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted additions that were clearly palgerized from "The Dune Encyclopedia".  --Eldarone 20:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More spefically,  sepficically the article of Mentat Organization, subsection Mentat Ranks, and Mentat Dysfuction. from pages 520 -524.  It's a violation of Wikipedia policiy. --Eldarone 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering about that. It was quite a surprise when I looked Mentats up in the Encyclopedia and saw entire paragraphs from here staring back at me. It's so much better written than anything else in this article, though. Would it be possible to just summarize it? Also, it might be worth including what details Frank did himself provide. For instance, I don't believe I see any mention of the Mentat trance, which figured much more heavily in the books than Sapho did.Black Carrot 03:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sumarizing the mentat articles wouldn't be a problem, as long as it it's not a copy of the orginal work, and is identified as from the Dune Encyclopeidia.   I also agree with adding stuff from the books would be greatly worthwhile.--Eldarone 03:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to work pretty well as it is now. We have Frank's info about mentats and then give B&K's expanded information. I actually think B&K's info should go first since it goes that way chronologically, but others would disagree and it isn't that important so I let it go. Konman72 01:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the way it is now it currently states that Gilbert Albans "coined" the phrase "mentat", which while that may have been true at the time of the encyclopedia has now been retconned to being a phrase coined by Erasmus himself which contradicts both the encyclopedia and this whole "mentis" definition. It should either mean the complete removal of any reference to those which are out of date or since retconned or specific mention of what it was and what it is now. Enigmatical 02:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Dune Encyclopedia is not canon, Frank himself said so.  Brian's work however is canon and therefore the canon version should be what is used.  Dionyseus 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Additions