Talk:Matter of Britain

message: Matter of Britain -> Arthurian legend —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sonjaaa (talk • contribs) 14:43, 22 Jun 2005. has apparently requested that this page be moved.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move to [[Arthurian legend]] 

message: There's a minor, good-humoured edit war going on about the use of British or American English in the article.  For example: I'm just about to change 'focused' in the intro to 'focussed', the British English form (ironically, the word was introduced in an attempt to avoid the contention of the centred / centered debate!).  There's a clear wikipedia guideline on this: Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country. Countersubject 08:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's funny. I'm British and I thought British spelling for this word was "focused". Andrew Dalby 09:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The online dictionaries seem to be divided. Cambridge Online simply gives the two forms as alternatives. Merriam-Webster  Online the same.  Longman gives focused as American and focussed as British.  Does anyone have the OED to hand? Countersubject 11:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree strongly that the "Matter of Britain" is a specifically British topic. The very phrase itself comes from French. We wouldn't change the Tarzan article to British spelling just because the character is supposed to be British. At any rate, it's probably best to use neutral spellings. In this example, "focused" is the only form used in American English, and seems to be prominent in British English as well, perhaps even more prominent than "focussed". If this is going to be a problem, perhaps we should find a different word.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In my view, for topics relating to periods before US independence, there can be very little reason to choose one spelling over another. Just that it looks more professional if each article is internally consistent. Andrew Dalby 09:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, I disagree strongly with that. I think it should be the author's choice, and I don't think we should alter the original spelling if it used one or the other. That said, it's probably best to choose neutral wording and be done with it. In this specific case, I think "focused" is the best option, because it is one of the spellings used in Britain, and the only one used in America. If there are no objections, I'd like to change it.--Cúchullain t/c 15:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of Wikipedia guidelines like this is to provide consistency, encourage courtesy and avoid conflict.  That implies self-imposed limitation of choice for the good Wikipedian.  In the case of this article, that means avoidance of non-British English.  If you don't agree with the guideline, that's a matter for discussion elsewhere.  Your suggestion for focussed / focused is a good implementation of the guideline. Best wishes, and sorry if that sounded like a lecture! Countersubject 17:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  English of Article 

message: This is the main article on Arthurian legend.. and its called this?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!! I think some folk are a bit obsessed with one obscure phrase and are IGNORANT of the common and most widespread academic name for the subject. Silly and as bad as DDR article slotted under East Germany. --maxrspct ping me  21:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: I think there is a mistunderstanding by Anglo-Saxons with the translation of old french which are "Matière de France" and "Matière de Bretagne". Matière de France refers to carolingians stories and Matière de Bretagne refers to brythonics stories. The Brythonics were the inhabitants of Britannia. Welsh and Cornish have stayed in England. All others have gone massively to Armorica which became Brittany, with the the picts, scots nd anglo-Saxons (german) invaders. So it's not the legendary history of Great Britain but the legendary history of brythonics people. Some parts of stories are situated in Britanny.
gallic (latin form) = celtic (greek form)
wales (german form by anglo-saxons) = gales (latin form) = gaul
Revision as of 11:10, September 19, 2009 by 88.172.141.127
:: I've added Brittany to the introduction. If we decide to exclude Brittany (Little Britain) from the Matter of Britain to focus only on Great Britain, then we also have to reconsider the position of some of the key writings mentioned (the writings of Marie de France, for example, certainly include Brittany in the territory they cover). 105.226.104.5 (talk) 12:48, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Carolingian stories are just one part of the Matter of France, as for the Matter of Bretagne, it refers to Celtic tradition, Lancelot as an example, wasn't a Briton but a Gaul. --86.220.189.89 (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Matter of France or Britain

message: I am just astonished how every single legend and story pertaining to the pre-Roman period is described as "fancifull" or "mythological" almost as if the author has the fancifull idea that no history or heroes existed in Britain prior to the coming of the Romans and that they were so backward they didnt bother trying to remember them. I suggest the author reads a bit and actually opens his mind more before contributing to wikipedia and simply regurgitating outdated Victorian ideas about pre-roman Britain. 94.31.12.194 (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You are new here. There are maybe 100 people who have edited the page and could be considered authors. If you have reliable sources - see WP:RS and WP:VERIFY to see that that means here - then by all means add something to the article based on those sources (with citations of course per WP:CITE. I'd be fascinated to see what sources you come up with from say the last few decades that back your viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Staggering Bias of the author of this page

message: Maximilianklein (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: WorldCat Genres

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Matter of Britain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727195712/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nennius-full.html to http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nennius-full.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030210115554/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-old?id=LayBruC&tag=public&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Flv1%2FArchive%2Fmideng-parsed&part=0 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-old?id=LayBruC&tag=public&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Flv1%2FArchive%2Fmideng-parsed&part=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: And does anyone want to work with me on it. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 06:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, so how should I rewrite this article? Or rather, make a proper one 

message: This section has no introduction and is a mixed bag of authors who may have written fiction based on the Matter of Britain or translated parts. In its current state, without an introduction, it provides limited value. I propose either removal or some introduction along the lines of "numerous modern authors have attempted translations or fiction inspired by the Matter of Britain, such as..." and include actual examples of publications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhalamh (talk • contribs) 17:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This list is unfocused and meaningless. Any list which includes names as diverse as Deepak Chopra, William Shakespeare, Eric Idle and John Steinbeck with no qualifying explanation is valueless. As it currently stands, Adolf Hitler, J.K. Rowling and Walt Disney could easily be added, to no overall gain or detriment.--Stevouk (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Agree, and did it. Dhalamh (talk) 09:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed removal or reworking of the Noteworthy Authors - Modern section