Talk:Knights of the Round Table

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)


 * 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)

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)

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)

I think notable appearances should be made. (I'm thinking things like FF7's ultimate summon (Knights of the Round) here.... but it is quite clearly a reference.) 62.252.178.158 (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding to the list
An IP address user recently added King Seper to the list. I can't claim to be an expert on the knights of the round table, but some cursory fact-checking doesn't seem to support this addition. Can anyone (hopefully the person who made the edit) provide evidence or support for the addition of King Seper? I'm undoing the edit until then. Skiguy330 (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced list
The list is currently missing any references. The article on Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary formerly said that it contained a list. Can someone with the dictionary at hand check on this? --Blainster (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent find pinpointing location of original Round Table
I reverted the deletion so the archaeological finding is included. The emphasis is not on the newspaper article, but on the discovery. Where or how it fits into the Knights of the Round Table article is secondary. But it's an important fact, reported by a reliable source and as such should have a foothold in the article. grifterlake (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not an "important fact", it's speculation being reported as fact in a single newspaper article, not a scholarly source. This kind of thing happens with the Arthur legend all the time. It should stay out at least until it gets some more traction, so that we can judge if it's important enough to the subject to include.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I'm not trying to knock Gidlow or his claim. But as it is I don't think it's established that the material is important enough to the subject to warrant it being injected into every article on Arthur.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Any of the knights can be split back into an own article if gets written more
And of course writing more is encouraged in any case, especially if this means referenced content. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Breunor's story needs to be summarized
More or less. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The listing of "generally more or less obscure" from Malory might be improved with more short notes about some of them
With references if possible, but that's for everything of course. --5.173.97.15 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it might, but there's hardly anything known about them. If you wish, you could expand those notes, but I don't think there'll 1.) be any information at all 2.) be much if there is information 3.) be, like the knights in question, obscure and hard to sniff out.PNSMurthy (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Little paragraphs for knights
Are those paragraphs really needed? They just make this article look half-backed and unprofessional (here, I am not referring to the paragraphs, but to the knights who do not possess any). Can't we just deleted that section?PNSMurthy (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite issues (solved)
As I wrote,

I'm doing the editing right now (and will continue in the days to follow), and you're reverting to things that FACTUALLY WRONG, just incorrect, including some that you made wrong, and revert 2 entire sections to nothing but "expand section" - go to the article talk page and explain your problems with it, now it's work on progress and let me work.

I tried to use your simple corrections actually. Now you can explain what else do you see wrong. --5.173.40.99 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how this works. You should hash out what it is that you want to do here, on this page, when your edits are in dispute, before attempting to make them. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What I'm doing on this page:

- reverted to the last good version (things like alternate names are actually extremely important because they're just different in different texts - the "simple" names are usually NOT used), while incorporating some corrections of style

- made countless other corrections of all kinds through the article (including factual corrections)

- added 2 entire new sections where there were have been "expand sections" tags since last year

- I'm continuing to actively work on the article (even tagged as under construction), while being disrupted repeatedly by Moon.

--5.173.40.99 (talk) 16:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * There were issues throughout the entire article related to tone and style; again, see WP:NPOV and WP:EPSTYLE. Unnecessary and non-neutral descriptors such as "brave" "valiant" "beautiful" etc. are not at home in a Wikipedia article. Neither is needlessly complicated phrasing or old English terms that could be replaced with widely used vernacular.
 * The alternate names, however, I am less sure of. They took up a lot of space and made the article less easy to read; in my opinion, they're not important enough to warrant that (keeping in mind this is a Wikipedia article and doesn't go completely in-depth anyway). I'd honestly prefer a list of alternate names or something similar, other than throwing them into body paragraphs.
 * If there's information that is factually incorrect, then correct it instead of reverting large edits in their entirety. You don't just get to claim an article as your personal work in progress.  LunarisTFM   (💬 • 📝) 17:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The descriptors are the characterizations. This is how they're described by the authors of the texts, it's not anyone's modern opinion. Sometimes they're handsome, sometimes they're ugly, sometimes they're valiantz sometimes they're treasonous. That's their characterizations.

The alternate names are just extremely important. To the degree that if one goes to Google Books or Google Scholar to read about something in more detail (or even to check if what is on Wikipedia is even true), they might not find anything about a particular text in relation to the character using the Wikipedia chosen form of name, or at least they find only a portion of such books/articles.

You deleted most of Hector's section and then added "expansion needed" for someone to write again just what you just deleted. This is just silly.

You never actually explained what you're deleting and why.

You never discussed with anyone making any of your drastic changes.

I'll write about my own edits later. --5.173.40.99 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, my own edits (another issue):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knights_of_the_Round_Table&type=revision&diff=1079788206&oldid=1078623986

Summary:

- actually incorporated many of your actual copyediting (not uniloteral deletions)

- added 2 entire new entire sections (Brandelis and Dodinel) in place of empty "expansion needed" sections

- removed 1 empty "expansion needed" (Segurant), moved his coat of arms down to ths Old Table where he belongs (he was actually 160 years old when Arthur became the king)

- standardized the alternate names (as mostly using italics etc.)

- all sorts of factual corrections and style fixes that you can see (including the very first sentence of the entire article, wrongly charactrizing the Matter of Britain).

--5.173.40.99 (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The majority of what my "deletions" were rephrasing and copyediting. Most information in the article remained intact, and most of what I did remove was done because I saw it to be largely irrelevant to the purpose of the article. That purpose being, the knights themselves. This article doesn't need very detailed descriptions of Arthurian legends, or of characters who aren't members of the Round Table. A Wikipedia article doesn't need to have every possible bit of information, but it does need to be concise and readable.
 * The descriptors need to be clearly presented as characterization. "Depicted as," "Written/said to be," and other such phrases are very useful. That being said, their presence doesn't add much to the article anyway and would only serve to clutter it further if they were added back.
 * As for blanking Hector... That's one thing I'm actually at fault for. I was dissatisfied with any attempt to rewrite it and threw it away. I should have put a copyedit template on that section instead, and then left it.
 * I wouldn't be opposed to adding the alternate names back. And of course I'm not opposed to adding new sections, or making actual corrections. But the vast majority of my edits had purpose, so I ask that you work with me here and build on top of them, instead of reverting them.  LunarisTFM   (💬 • 📝) 18:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

As in the case of knights themselves, the alternate names of the characters that don't have their own arricles are also extremely important. They may be just totally different in different works or even just different variants of the same work.

It's not Simple Wiki, the purpose of Wikipedia is presenting scholarly material. People can read the simple (and often very inaccurate) descriptions in the websites such as the Early British Kingdom included in the external links on the bottom.

You weren't adding "depicted as" etc. And you were deleting stuff, a lot of itz often seemingly randomly as you like. Never explaining your reasons in the edit summaries, never asking here on the talk page My proposals:

1. Restore the article to the consensus version (from before your edits) and start discussing each and every of all of your drastic changes for the new consensus.

2. Restore the article to my own most recent versions, and let me keep on working on it (I have time for this just today I got employed again and start working tommorow) and start discussing each and every of all of your drastic changes.

I obviously prefer #2. I planned to make a section about King Nentres (and other names, as usual) - the husband of one of Arthur's sisters (Elaine and other names) today, in addition to Brandelis and Dodinel that I added over the weekend. I seriously only have time right now, for the foreseeable future as I'm going to work 12 hours shifts.

Let me also add that you would discuss for the new consensus with other people than just me. Or even not me at all if I really won't have any time for it. --5.173.40.99 (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither of those proposals will work for me. No prior version should be restored, the article should be built on from where it is now, with the proper tone and style for a Wikipedia article. I keep repeating "clean and concise" but I'm not sure the relative importance of those things is actually getting across.
 * I've already added several of your sections back into the article, and I do encourage you to keep working on it; however, I will not bend on the majority of things I changed. It might be easiest to request a third opinion to resolve this.  LunarisTFM   (💬 • 📝) 19:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's only your personal opinion, you didn't reach consensus about it with anyone. Your "will not bend" is about the version before your edits was the consensus versions, the consensus of all the editors over the years, and you didn't even ask anyone here. Not "third opinion", you didn't ask about anyone's opinion before making your drastic changes, which you never explained in your edits removing multiple kylobytes of content each time writing only "Copyediting".

For example, Bleoberis - you removed most of his names and most of the appearances of Bloeberis, while seemingly randomly leaving somem. Never explained, not to mention never discussed. It's an example I'll elaborate on in a moment (wasting my time, thered not going be Nentres after all). --5.173.40.99 (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

So, the example of Bleoberis. You talk of a correct "style" and yet you for example made his manner of death a single paragraph sentence (there should be no single paragraph sentences). And why would you remove most of his name's and appearances? What even is any more important than the appearances?

You may compare to my own copyedit in the link above. I standardized the alternate names, moved the Bleheris connection to the bottom in a separate paragraph.

And yes, for example his killing in Tristrant is indeed brutal and bloody - it's discussed in the scholarly literature, as it's just barbaric literally (Tristan even beats his horse to death with a crude club and is covered with blood and brains, very unknightly and extremely opposed to his usual characterization as a courtly harpist kind and even to most deaths in romances in general). The kind of things you might have asked about. And it's just an example. You should have asked. Discussed first. And you just didn't. --5.173.40.99 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And to continue the example-in-example, just put simple 'Tristan' and 'Pleherin' into Google Books. In the very top results you will see discussions of the club that Tristan used to "murder" Pleherin, how he "brutally assualted" him, with "Pleherin with his brains coming forth". That's just the top search results. Because this is important.

What you did with all that? Removed even any mention of 'Pleherin'. He's not killing 'Bleoberis'. People won't find about it as you just did, by searching for itm do you understand? --5.173.40.99 (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And to beat (his) dead horse futher, here's for example from the entry of Bleoberis in the 2019 KOTR coat of arms encyclopedia "Les Armoires des Chevaliers de la Table Ronde" (in French), and how you screwed up this article and apparently didn't even realize it.

1. For starters, you removed the popular form "Blioberis" entirely. The entry there actually uses "Blioberis de la Deserte" as his main name, with "Bleoberis" as just of the listed alts (along with Bliberris, Blioerris, Blioherri, Blios, Blihobleeris, Bliobeheri, etal).

2. "Brother of Blanor" - you removed all the alts of Blamor, leaving only "Blamoure" (truth be told, the form "Blanor" wasn't even originally listed, and actually should be added).

3. "Father of Nestor de la Fontaine" - you entirely removed just any mention of Nestor whatsoever (who was written in the article as only "Nestor de Gaunes" without any of his alts).

Can you see it now? Do you understand? You need to revert just all of your removals. Then discuss all the changes you want to make.

And for that matter, Blamoure isn't even listed there at all in the entry for "Blanor de Gaunes", with the alts of Blaanor, Blannor and Blainor, along with Blamor. Blamour[e] might be just Malory's and it's about the original French romances and their herladry. --5.173.40.99 (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I see your only response to this is just doubling down on that, still not discussing as always: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knights_of_the_Round_Table&type=revision&diff=1079816440&oldid=1079809724 --5.173.40.99 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Until someone repairs all the damage done here, I'll just keep working on it on my own talk page. --5.173.40.99 (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I want to come to an agreement here, but I just can't get behind restoring the article as it was, with all of its problems. Because like it or not, it definitely had problems.
 * By far the most notable thing here is the alternate names, so let's start with that. You seem more knowledgeable on this subject than me, so I'll take your word and assume they're important and my removal was ignorant. There's already a table in the article with a section for alternate names and a section for appearances; so why don't we use that, and only mention alternate names in the rest of the article when they're relevant? The names, like in Bleoberis' section, took up a lot of space and cluttered the main paragraphs. They're less intrusive in others, but still.
 * Though if you really want all of them in the knight's individual paragraphs, I'm not opposed to going along with that either.  LunarisTFM   (💬 • 📝) 14:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I actually apprepriate you're being more reasonable now. I just came here only out of curiosity while excepting to see you instead arguing with some other people already. If you restored the article to my latest version (about which I meanwhile noticed there was a misplaced "the" in the very first sentence, a "teh" elsewhere, and probably some more basic errors that can be obviously corrected with no objections), I might discuss your proposals one by one by one. And anyone else may join such discussion too.

The table is for those who have their own separate articles. Sometimes it lists few alternate names, but they're rather listed in their articles like let's say at Gawain's. And at least some section entries here could be turned into articles too, but that would need a whole lot of various work to be made properly. They're NOT ready as they are. Meanwhile I didn't get to write anything at all about Nentres as I'm now being busy with life, just as predicted.

It's also not just the names but also the works. But the appearances alone would be an useless if didn't provide the exact names within the text to search for if someone was to research further or even just if to verify these appearances. So the names and the works, but names even more so because you can find the works using the names, are the most basic and most important facts possible for any seriously encyclopedic purposes. That's just the fundamentals. Then their biographies and/or characterizations (what you called main paragraphs) can be diamaterally different, and while Malory is an English "canon" he usually writes very little to nothing about the great most compared to the various French and other authors before him (some of these texts are much longer than his entire complication). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.40.99 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you're happy with the article as it is now.  LunarisTFM   (💬 • 📝) 16:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I totally concur with LunarisTFM. It does not appear like TheFallenMoon is acting very much like a team player at all.

These kinds of articles, especially one's written about Arthurian literature must be done with cooperation in mind. No single person wrote all of Arthuriana. Therefore, no single person should dictate what goes on in one article.

Obviously, the article should be written with neutrality with an easy sense of readability in mind. There is no reason to remove any of the alts. If that is how they were spelled, then they just be kept that way. Language was not always standardized.

Neither was Arthurian Literature ever "G-Rated". Keep the violent details in place, so that proper google scholar searches can take place without confusion.

If someone needs to expand two different sections still, then there is no reason to add anything else until they are finished. I'm sure everyone saw it. It was there for a year. Why contribute to disorganization like that?

The idea should always be to make things simpler. This involves working together and dealing with what is right in front of us. Cosmopolite369 (talk) 02:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Lunaris is actually the same person as Moon... I suppose it's now better than it was but I'll need to look into it. Honestly I already feel so very tired before I even started. Didn't get anything written about Nentres, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.105.64 (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)