Talk:Knights of the Round Table
i really don't think this page is necessary.
- I disagree. Gemma mentioned them in her video and its important to get straight why she mentioned them and how they they are different form the "knight". Of course we could just direct pple to Wikipedia but since it involved something that related to LG its better to have it here.--modelmotion 21:53, 26 November 2006 (CST)
To me it just seems like too much of a stretch to make an article about this just because Gemma said "they operate a bit like an order of knights". She wasn't referring to any current or historical order of knights. Especially since the Email exchange with the creators, I think it's been clarified that this would be a made-up order anyway which would have nothing to do with the knights of the round table. Perhaps a short description about the Knights of the Round Table could be put into the Watcher article or in the Notes section of the vid where Gemma talks about it in lieu of this article. OwenIsCool 15:17, 2 December 2006 (CST)
- I just dont see what harm the aritcle is going. She mentioned its not the Knighs of the Round table which raided the issue. A wiki works best with hyperlinked pages and that is what this is. We could just send users to Wikipedia all the time but then if we every want to generate revenue for the creators from google ads we would be sending away our traffic. Its a simple page. It state enought to explain who they are. It does exactly what needed, no more no less why why change it. --modelmotion 15:53, 2 December 2006 (CST)
- The article is not doing any harm; I just think it doesn't need to be a stand-alone article. Furthermore, there are no ads on the wiki, so I don't believe the creators make any money off the wiki, except through donations. We shouldn't sacrifice the organization of the wiki just to have more hyperlinks. I wasn't even suggesting that we link to Wikipedia, just that we move the content to another article of ours.OwenIsCool 16:08, 2 December 2006 (CST)
There are no ads YET. I am just trying to think ahead. I created this page because I thought it was better than sending people over to Wikipedia. It just gives us more options to explain why she said what she said. It also epooses people to other items on the index menu. As the knight situation becomes clearer there might be a better way to do all of this but for now it works fine. Why do addition pages create a problem. I put the work into adding them to the index, it provides the information thats needed. I just don't get why people are page averse? Can someone explain to me why it prevents the wiki from being organised?--modelmotion 16:20, 2 December 2006 (CST)
Do you know that the creators plan to put ads on the wiki? Although it could be done, it doesn't seem like their intention, and it's not a part of the Wikipedia structure either. When the knight situation becomes clearer, perhaps that will merit a Knights page, but we've yet to see even one more reference to knights in the series. In response to your comment, "I don't get why people are so page averse", I'll quote Twjaniak since he said it better than I can.
'"Fortunately, the LGpedia, like most MediaWiki's, doesn't appear to get cluttered with trivial articles because many of these are found only by a direct search or are connected to other equally off-topic pages. In this regard, we don't NEED to delete any pages because of fear of wasting space, but do so for the sake of remaining true the idea of being an LG15-centric store house of knowledge. We do it to for organizational purposes. Alternatively, we can keep the article but move its content."'
So you see, I'm not just being picky. There are good reasons to keep it pared down. Hope you'll consider it.
OwenIsCool 16:41, 2 December 2006 (CST)
- Well in my opion part of the function of LGpedia is to explain what terms used by characters mean. Because knighs is a central issues when discussing religion I felt it was better to clarify this term on LGpedia rather than just hyperlinking wikipedia. There are issues with the Holy Grail that tie in with both the Knights of the round Table and Kights Templar which complicate things a little. I realise that the Knights Gemma refers to is fictional but I think they way I set this up accomplishes what needed to be accomplished. We may agree on the approach, but its my preference to leave it the way it stands.--modelmotion 16:52, 2 December 2006 (CST)
Ok, i beefed it up a little. I think that really helps clarify what I was trying to say with this page.--modelmotion 17:02, 2 December 2006 (CST)
Yes, I agree the information is a bit more thorough now. However, I think the point of it could nevertheless be summarized with a sentence or two in the Notes section of that video. Similary, "wanker" is not its own article, even though there was a reference to the term in a Gemma video. At first there was an article for it, but eventually it was summarized to what was really important, and moved to the notes section of that blog. And that's for a comment that received 'much' more attention than the KotRT reference. If this is all the relevance that the subject has to the series, I don't see why we can't seriously consider that option. It doesn't even fit in well with the Religion template since there's really nothing religious about it. OwenIsCool 01:17, 5 December 2006 (CST)
The proposed addition to the Notes section in A Watcher in lieu of this article is:
- In Europe, knighthood is a symbolic title of honor, so it follows that the Watchers must have a high rank in The Order and probably are entrusted with important tasks and sensitive information. When Gemma says that they are not like the Knights of the Round Table, she must be trying to warn Bree that the Watchers are not chivalrous. Rather, they are likely quite mysterious and treacherous.
Naturally, it's not written in stone. It's just to give an idea of what I had in mind. OwenIsCool 01:25, 6 December 2006 (CST)
I agree with Owen (who happens to be cool.) This page, though created with good intentions, does not merit the space (however small) it takes up. It would be much easier (and, may I add, at the expense of no one) to just link, as per suggested, to a Wikipedia article. No one is page adverse, rather some are adverse to pages that have no information directly pertinent to the series. If anything, this is definitely one of those pages. Sorry Modelmotion, but adding pages for the sake of accumulating hyperlinks, so adds, that aren't there, can be viewed, does the wiki itself no good, and also takes up your time. --Demosthenesdown 22:07, 9 December 2006 (CST)