Talk:Knights of the Round Table

message: 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)
thread_title: Fictional?

message: For example, Prince Valiant, Sir Robin from Monty Python, and the villain from Quest For Camelot. Uthanc 05:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Is a section about (new) Knights of the Round Table in modern fiction merited?

message: 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)
thread_title: Adding to the list

message: 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)
thread_title: Unsourced list

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent find pinpointing location of original Round Table 

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

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

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

message: With references if possible, but that's for everything of course. --5.173.97.15 (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The listing of "generally more or less obscure" from Malory might be improved with more short notes about some of them 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Little paragraphs for knights