Talk:Bibliography of King Arthur

Order?

How should books be ordered within their headings? Chronologically? Alpha by author?

I'd especially like to sort the 20th century English titles - it's hard to tell what's missing. - PKM (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the languages in each section should be arranged alphabetically, I believe. The current (or original) arrangement seems to be chronological. For modern works, the author is placed by date of first Arthurian work. However, many links have been placed out of order, and many don't have the publication date listed. Articles need to be created for the older works of note (such as "Arthour and Merlin"), dates need to be added when known, and the works need to be ordered correctly in chronological order. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 16:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

About?

How do we define about Arthur, I have a couple of novels that use Camelot or Arthur as the background (but in the case of one) much like the Green Knight only briefly feature Arthur, and the other just uses Arthur as the plot device (its also a very bad novel).Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Alert: lists of publications in Articles for deletion

Some lists of books have been added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. You can find the discussions here. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion in list

There were some recent additions and deletions from this list. The stated reason for the removals was that the books were red-linked. However there are large quantities of books on this list which are red-links. There is also no stated criteria for inclusion of books in this bibliography. In fact the single line lede at the top of the article implies that this list is intended as an all-inclusive bibliography of such works. Due to these facts deletions of the type recently done give the appearance of being arbitrary and based on personal choices as to what should be or should not be on this list.

In order to alleviate that impression and make it clear for everyone interacting with this list the criteria for inclusion should be determined and written down at least here on the talk page, but better would be to have that criteria in the article so that anyone reading it knows what this list is intended to include, and exclude. — Makyen (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I left books that were red links if the author had an article here on Wikipedia. An all-inclusive list is impossible. The list should be confined to works by notable authors, Wikipedia is not the place to advertise a new novel. Edward321 (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree, on all points. Please understand that I am not saying that your choices were arbitrary, or inappropriate. Just that to the reader unaware of Wikipedia policies, which is most of the people who will be reading this bibliography, there is nothing that provides even a glimmer of the criteria for inclusion/exclusion from the list. Even in the rare case of then going to the talk page there was nothing. If notability of the work, or the author, is the criteria that is going to be used – which would be consistent with WP policy for longer lists – then we just need to say something to that effect. Not a long description of WP policy, just something like:

"This is a Bibliography of works about King Arthur, his related world, family, friends or enemies. This bibliography includes works that are notable or are by notable authors."

That just sets the reader's, and potential editor's, expectations as to what will be found on the list rather than the unlimited list implied without some such statement. — Makyen (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Nicely worded, I support putting it at the top of the article. Edward321 (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.  Done — Makyen (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Editio princeps

Does anyone know the editio princeps date for the various medieval works? The only one I've been able to find out is Historia Regum Brittaniae (1508). --110.174.166.224 (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Link to French pages

I don't sure, but it seems they should be linked (i.e., it is the same one page, just in two different languages):

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_d'œuvres_concernant_le_cycle_arthurien

why?Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Odd that the French article has no links. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Arthurian cycle and King Arthur aren't strictly identical, but it's effectively the same thing, yes. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Turns out I can't, because they're on Wikidata under two separate entries. I'd have to propose a merge, and I don't know how. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Source for a lot of Old French works

A 270 page essay is available here, Romans en vers du cycle de la Table ronde, in Histoire littéraire de la France, tome 30, 1888, by Gaston Paris. Some of these are probably too little-known to merit a place here, but it is interesting we have La Vengeance Raguidel but not Meraugis de Portlesguez, by the same author (probably) and I'd've said better known. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Title

This title is not intuitive to me. I would expect a "bibliography of King Arthur" to be a list of secondary works about Arthurian literature. This is a list of Arthurian literature. Srnec (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)