Talk:Waterdeep (city)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Population
What is the estimated population of Waterdeep??
Some books say that the city had aprox 100.000 inhabitants. This information is correct?
- I have no idea→ JarlaxleArtemis 05:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- According to a book in the CRPG Neverwinter Nights Waterdeep has over a million inhabitants.
-
According to the campaign setting, it's 1,347,840 people.. dunno why it's so detailed, but that's what it says.Poulsen 23:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've just learned to read (writing hopefully follows) - it says the city-state of Waterdeep has 1,300,000 people, the city itself has 130,000 inhabitants! Poulsen 15:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Allright, i've changed to page to actaully show that. Also, why does it say the government is an oligarchy in one place and a cryptocracy in the other? the second would fit better i think. --130.89.188.158 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The wording on the population is still kind of confusing. I didn't get why there were two conflicting population estimates until I looked at this talk page. If I get around to it, I'm going to try to clear that up. Gitman00 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I've updated the page. Hopefully it's a little more clear now.
I am curious about the population of the Skullport. is there any information in sources? 81.214.36.116 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Blackstaff's Status
Shouldn't the first part of the article be changed to reflect that Khelben has resigned his duties as a Lord of Waterdeep? 80.166.182.88 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean-up tags
I just got a very pissy comment on my talk for deleting the cleanup tags. So, why, precisely, are they necessary? For example, there is a tag saying that article needs non-fictional context, when "Fictional" is in the first paragraph! Zach82 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Really, Zack, my comment to you was quite civil.
- This article has serious issues. Notability; where's the critical commentary by reliable third parties? Someone who has taken the time to analyze it significantly and publish their opinion? — other than PR-Guff or some fan-site. The very first sentence may acknowledge that this is all fictional, but all of the verbose prose that follows speaks as if this were all real; this is called in-universe style and the {{in-universe}} tag offers links to better explain the issue and serves to encourage editors to address it. The {{nofootnotes}} tag is warranted because while the article does include some links, it is quite unclear how those links support what the article says; remediation is needed and your efforts would be better spent attending to this than summarily removing the clean-up tags. The {{context}} tag highlights the fact that the introduction to this article is trivial and does little to aid users unfamiliar with the subject.
- I believe I've summarized the reasons for tagging sufficiently and will restore them if they are removed again without serious effort to address these issues. You should take my comment on your talk page about risking being blocked seriously; many, many, users who have engaged in removal campaigns have ended up blocked for vandalism. --Jack Merridew 10:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I am sorry if I came-off as too harsh. You should know that, from perspectives other than yours, this in not right out of the gate — there has been a massive amount of vandalism to clean-up tags on D&D articles; and many have been blocked for it (not really the same thing as banned, by the way). As to sources, you should look for out-of-universe references. --Jack Merridew 04:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] References in literature
I know Waterdeep has been referred to a million times in dozens of books, but naturally I only know a couple. So let's get a list going, and when there is enough we can add a section to the article.
-
- Waterdeep:The Avatar Series III by Troy Denning
- City of Splendors: Waterdeep by Eric L. Boyd
Zach82 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Notability
Since nobody has objected I'm removing the "notability" tag. I agree the article is not well written, but given the subject matter and references its notability is unquestionable. Let me know if there is any problem.