Talk:List of technology in the Dune universe

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Novels: Sci-fi Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Science fiction task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Zambrano, J. R. (March 3, 2024). "Dune's Guild Heighliner: The Best Ship for Shipping Ships that Themselves Ship Ships". Bell of Lost Souls.
Grauso, Alisha (September 1, 2024). "How the Stillsuits Actually Work in Dune". Screen Rant. Retrieved September 17, 2024.

Archives

Archive 1

No ships - hidden from sight?

The entry indicates that the no-ships are hidden from sight, but isn't it just from prescient sight, not vision? I just finished re-reading Heretics, and FH makes this point a couple of times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.2.214 (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading Chapterhouse again at the moment and I believe the entry is correct. Of course, when Duncan's no-ship prison is parked, it's idling so it's visible to the naked eye but still invisible to prescience. I have text files of both books, I'll try to pull some quotes over the next few days to see what I find.— TAnthony^Talk 03:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Herbert had the No-ships in the "Houses" series be invisible to the naked eye. However, everyone working on that project died. Perhaps the no-ships that were around in the time of the scattering were attempts to re-create the originals, but they couldn't get them completely invisible leaving invisibility to prescience good enough for their uses. Of course this is just conjecture, me trying to make sense of it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.196.136.249 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Holtzman effect

See proposal at Talk:Holtzman_effect#Merge_with_Technology_of_Dune. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done— TAnthony^Talk 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"fictional scientific phenomenon"

I have no beef with fictional, of course, but "scientific phenomenon" is bad English. A phenomenon is just a phenomenon, whatever science has to say about it; e.g. if you jump out of your window, you will fall and get hurt, regardless of the state of the science of gravity. The scientific here attaches to the made-up name, suggesting that scientists of the fictional universe have elaborated a theory to describe, explain and control the phenomenon. If this seems a pedantic digression, just reflect on all the nonsense regarding "believing in evolution" - evolution is just the phenomenon, the debate concerns subscribing to the theory of natural selection. Or gravitation once again, where quite a few folks baulk at the idea that it is "just" spacetime curvature. Our understanding of a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself are quite distinct things. So it is about the science-y sounding term Herbert made up for a fictional phenomenon. 92.140.73.141 (talk) 07:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link in quotes - Kindjal

TAnthony - MOS:LINKQUOTE says "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author", not that "Links should be avoided in quotations". Even if the link were just to knife or dagger, that would still explain to a casual reader what a "kindjal" actually is. The link to Khanjali is the exact type of dagger, so is completely appropriate. Given that "kindjal" is an esoteric word, linking to Khanjali exactly meets the criteria of "correspond[ing] to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author". Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in that it is editor POV/interpretation/original research to determine that kindjal and khanjali are the same thing. Yes, they obviously are to us, but I don't think it quite meets the criteria. That said, if you feel strongly about it I won't revert you again, maybe I'm nitpicking. Thanks for the message!— TAnthony^Talk 14:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindjal redirects to Khanjali, so it's a reasonable supposition. Unless you think that Frank Herbert meant something else when referring to "kindjal", which in the context is highly unlikely in itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to science and technology in the Dune universe?

Given the existence of the book The Science of Dune, this topic may be notable, but it would likely be better covered in a less list-like format. Thoughts? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:11, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the name change, but are you also suggesting some kind of reorganization of the content? This list is the redirect destination for most of the listed topics, and was created as both a consolidation of smaller articles and a more detailed explanation of certain topics beyond what could be adequately covered in Dune (franchise) or Glossary of Dune (franchise) terminology. The elements listed here are pretty key to the franchise and can be complex to understand.— TAnthony^Talk 18:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]