Talk:Camelot 3000

First or second?

I don't get this. Every website I go to credits Camelot 3000 as the first maxiseries. If this article says this is the second, then, what was the first? Any references? --Destron Commander 02:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Limited series entry also says this is the first maxi-series. That opening paragaph is poorly worded too. I'd suggest rewriting it to state its the first and cite a good solid reputable source to back it up. If anyone objects then they'd need to state a source. You could also track down the person who wrote it (if possible) and ask them. (Emperor 02:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC))

I too would like this clarified. If this is the 2nd maxi-series, what is the first.--RedKnight (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Be encyclopedical!!

I'm amazed by how poor knowledge of encyclopedia rules is (usually) shown in comics articles here. What's the reason to add a description to all episodes. Amazing Spider-Man or Detective Comics are far more important series, and do they have a description for each of their eposides? I think the general overview is enough. Ah, of course... not to speak about the lack of specifying nationality, as it's obvious that an English-title comic book is from USA. --Attilios 14:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sort of encyclopaedical...

I've had a look at the rules and don't see how the addition of a per-episode synopsis contravenes them. It may be the case that there are more important series, just as there are less-important series; that is not in dispute; we have to start somewhere. This article is part of WikiProject King Arthur, a comprehensive and detailed guide to King Arthur etc., and, as such, I felt it was appropriate to provide an in-depth synopsis for comparison with the original tale. I will revert the changes you made and await the outcome. Ah, of course... well perhaps I'll omit a closing remark. H-b-g (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with a synopsis, but I do think the current synopses of the first three issues are way, way too long and detailed. Just my opinion, but this level detail in plot synopsis ("Scene change to the Tor again as Tom runs deeper into the labyrinth ...") is commonly critisized in all sorts of articles about works of fiction. If you really, really want to cover the individual issues at this level of detail, you should probably start new articles for each of the issues. This sort of thing is done with episodes of the Simpsons. It would be out-of-balance to have long descriptions of many individual episodes in the main article, so the long descriptions are retained but broken off into their own articles. ike9898 (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

H-B-G (at work, so not logged in) says: I can live with that. I'll see what I can do. Thanks (9-jan-08 @ 1253)

Release date of 12 issues

Although initially scheduled as a monthly book, it took 2 1/2 years for the 12 issue series to reach it's conclusion. The actual release dates of each issue, because of their quite erratic scheduling defaults, seem relevant as any reader capable of simple math will question the indiscrepancy.

As a reader capable of simple English, I question "indiscrepancy"!  Mr JM  16:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Doctor Who story inspired

The Doctor Who story Battlefield seemed to be inspired by this. Could we have a mention of this on here? --Victory93 (talk) 07:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, they are both science fantasy reworks of the Arthurian legend, but beyond that, I don't see any link.--Michael C. Price ^talk 11:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)