Talk:Knights of the Round Table: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:08, 13 December 2007

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics 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.King ArthurWikipedia:WikiProject King ArthurTemplate:WikiProject King ArthurKing Arthur articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fictional?

Does this really belong in the "fictional" category? Granted, many were invented, but those like Bedivere, Tristan, and a few others were real. Kuralyov 01:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) There was also some time in history that 12 knights of the round table stood out of the 25 knights that were their.

Even though a few may have been real, the Round Table and their association with it was fictional.--Cuchullain 05:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Striped knight

Hey. I remember from my childhood reading about a knight, who had origins in North-Africa and was part of the stories of the round table. His skin was striped, black and white (because his parents were black and white ;). I was trying to find his name now, here and in google, but couldn't. Help appreciated. Ben ^T/_C 06:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

That would be Wolfram von Eschenbachs Parzival epic. Briefly: Parzival and Feirefiz are half brothers engaged in an epic struggle. Feirefiz is the striped one, on account of a Saracen mother.

Also another potential member might be Sir Aglovales Moorish son Sir Morien, although he is not striped :). LamontCranston 23:42, June 7, 2006

You see, King Arthur wasn't fake. Many of the legends surrounding him were, but he himself was real.

I thing that this book sucked becuse it was very hard to read and BRACE YOUR SELF

Is a section about (new) Knights of the Round Table in modern fiction merited?

For example, Prince Valiant, Sir Robin from Monty Python, and the villain from Quest For Camelot. Uthanc 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. To tell you the truth, I'm not a fan of long lists as appear in this article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I do not think it would be out of place to mention some of them. It would be similar to mentioning modern fictional samurai in a list of famous Samurai. Carillonatreides

I think you could make a good argument for it. Arthurian legend has evolved a lot over the years, being adapted and changed by many different authors, so I don't see the modern characters being any less valid than the more traditional ones. Of course, you'll have someone splitting hairs and saying Monty Python's Holy Grail isn't REALLY a valid Arthurian work, etc., etc. Maybe the list can be broken up by work or importance or something? I'm not always a fan of these huge lists either, but if you come here EXPECTING a comprehensive list of knights, it probably should include everyone. Ştefan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.120.38 (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just found the article List of Arthurian Characters. Y'all ever think about merging them? Seems like they ought to be, but it'll make that list huge with the table format they've got going over there. Ştefan 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 I mean, I do not think it would be out of place to mention some of them.  It would be similar to mentioning modern fictional samurai in a list of famous Samurai.  [[User:Carillonatreides|Carillonatreides]]
-I think you could make a good argument for it. Arthurian legend has evolved a lot over the years, being adapted and changed by many different authors, so I don't see the modern characters being any less valid than the more traditional ones. Of course, you'll have someone splitting hairs and saying Monty Python's Holy Grail isn't REALLY a valid Arthurian work, etc., etc. Maybe the list can be broken up by work or importance or something? I'm not always a fan of these huge lists either, but if you come here EXPECTING a comprehensive list of knights, it probably should include everyone. [[User:Themill|Themill]]  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.208.120.38|76.208.120.38]] ([[User talk:76.208.120.38|talk]]) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+I think you could make a good argument for it. Arthurian legend has evolved a lot over the years, being adapted and changed by many different authors, so I don't see the modern characters being any less valid than the more traditional ones. Of course, you'll have someone splitting hairs and saying Monty Python's Holy Grail isn't REALLY a valid Arthurian work, etc., etc. Maybe the list can be broken up by work or importance or something? I'm not always a fan of these huge lists either, but if you come here EXPECTING a comprehensive list of knights, it probably should include everyone. [[User:Themill|Ştefan]]  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.208.120.38|76.208.120.38]] ([[User talk:76.208.120.38|talk]]) 23:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 Hey, just found the article [[List of Arthurian Characters]]. Y'all ever think about merging them? Seems like they ought to be, but it'll make that list huge with the table format they've got going over there. [[User:Themill|Ştefan]] 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)