Talk:Sandworm (Dune)

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 July 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Science Fiction Mid‑importance 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 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). Film This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Archives

Archive 1

@Kurzon: I previously objected via edit summary to your addition of this section, but allow me to start a discussion and explain my reasoning. First of all, the notable facts/observations you mention under each novel are pretty much already in the article, in sections discussing those aspects of the fictional creature. But I will check and make sure this is the case. So rehashing info serves no purpose; a sandworm is not an actual character whose plotlines need to be summarized in a linear fashion in their own section to give understanding. Also, I've checked the text and melange is not italicized (as a "foreign" word might be). Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but when your edits to a longstanding article are challenged, you are obliged to explain yourself. As I said, I'm not seeing the value/appropriateness of the novels section (and btw seaworms are covered in the Prequels and sequels section), and I'm even more dubious about what you would add to your Depiction section. Hopefully it would be sourced observations about the adaptations, and not your own assessment? Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 17:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TAnthony: I'd hate to delete a good-faith edit that you just made, but this paragraph you added to the lede feels very superfluous.:

The sandworms have been called "iconic", "synonymous with the Dune series", and "essential to the narrative of the story", having appeared in nearly every novel, on several book covers, and in all of the television, film, and video game adaptations. 

Kurzon (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the article do we reference the importance/impact of the sandworms to the franchise, so it was important to add something to the body of the article (with sources). Then the lead is supposed to summarize the entire contents of the article, which it does not do at all as yet. In fact there is limited real-world perspective in the article, but we have exhaustive in-universe descriptions of the minutae of the plot and aspects of these fictional elements.— TAnthony^Talk 17:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW thanks for starting this discussion, and I appreciate your recent edits. This article has been flawed for many years but even though it's overloaded with in-universe stuff I've been hesitant to trim it down. But as a topic we definitely need more impact and analysis here.— TAnthony^Talk 17:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reader should be able to draw that conclusion just from reading the article's description of the sandworms' role in the books. Your line is kind of like saying "Hobbits are important in the Lord of the Rings novels".

Also, I hate the word "iconic". That's just my taste. I personally try to avoid it. Kurzon (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Iconic" is pulled from multiple sources, and really if there is an icon/talisman/symbol of Dune it's a sandworm. And Hobbits are only one of an ensemble of key races in LOTR, and arguably don't have an equivalent significance in that franchise. Honestly without asserting the notability/importance of the sandworm in the series, this article has no reason to exist. It's basically an endlessly detailed in-universe article about a non-speaking, fictional worm. You say "the article's description of the sandworms' role in the books" is enough to assert their importance, but essentially we have relatively brief mentions of their appearances in multiple novels, and exhaustive descriptions of their behavior, appearance and physiology, life cycle, and connections to Fremen and the spice. The casual reader can easily see how interesting we think the sandworm is, but I don't think the article currently conveys its significance in the franchise. We need critics asserting that this fictional element is "essential to the narrative" etc. or we might as well have huge articles for ornithopters and crysknives because we think they're cool.— TAnthony^Talk 19:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, Jabba the Hutt is an actual Featured Article, albeit for a character and not an "element". Cultural impact is included, and summarized in the lead. We can wordsmith the descriptions of a sandworm all we want but it does nothing to actually improve the article.— TAnthony^Talk 20:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody unfamiliar with the Dune universe, it is not clear if Little Makers, sandtrout and water stealers are the same thing:

• After introducing the Little Makers, the section says that their remains have "been ascribed to a fictional 'sandtrout' in Fremen folk stories" - but then speaks of sandtrout as a real thing. Are they fictional or real? And if they are real, are they the same thing as Little Makers, or the next stage in their life cycle?
• After explaining how melange is produced, the article says that previously not mentioned "water stealers" are killed in spice blows, and that the survivors evolve into sandworms. What are those water stealers? Sandtrout? The stage after sandtrout? Or another species? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zogg from Betelgeuse (talk • contribs) 22:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lede image of a sandworm should be an image that Frank Herbert approved of. That novel was published when he was still alive. Kurzon (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I usually ascribe to that opinion, but there's no actual rule. Comic character articles generally use a recent image in the infobox. The infobox image is supposed to best represent the topic of the article, and the Heretics cover is just sort of bad. With the Dune character articles I believe that the first representation is the generally the definitive one, but in this case the Heretics image doesn't even really match the text. No visible teeth, and I believe the "three-pronged" mouth is the invention of the artist. In any case, I appreciate your keeping the Dune 2021 image in the article either way, and would be fine with that outcome if we can get some consensus more than the two of us LOL.— TAnthony^Talk 17:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what about the Schoenherr image from 1965? That's the oldest illustration of a sandworm and Herbert liked it. Kurzon (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]