Talk:Dancing Dell

Location
Not really sure the proper etiquette for posting in Talk pages for wikis, but I didn't know where else to point out that there seems to be a source contradiction regarding the location of the Dancing Dell. Dragon #270 p.93 reads "...and the relatively recent Dancing Dell near the southern end of the wood." But, many maps (ex. Scourge of the Sword Coast p. 10) show it at the northern end of Ardeep forest. Has there been any discussion on why or how they might be reconciled? DotGetClass (talk)


 * First of all, this is the perfect place to bring up a discussion like this. Please feel free to end messages with " ~ " to add your personal signature. Typically we use in-text descriptions over images and maps, but also have a different "canon hierarchy" where Realms-specific sourcebooks take precedence over other sources like Dragon (magazine).


 * I would like to hear from some other editors, but I feel like the text description should be used, with a note that states the discrepancy in various maps. I do not have Dragon magazine 270 on hand, but can look into the source material sometime early tomorrow. Hope this helps as a start! Ruf (talk) 20:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I added the two most recent maps from v.3.5 and 5th edition. Both show the Dancing Dell on the north side of the center of the forest. As noted on the Ardeep Forest page, the "Ardeepforest" was once much larger and extended much farther north (and perhaps south). There was also a realm known as Ardeep that encompassed the modern forest and northward from it. So one explanation is that the Dancing Dell was located near the southern edge of this realm with the same name. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That makes perfect sense. And thanks for the tips! I will say I don't think that Volo was referring to the realm of Ardeep, given that the section specifically distinguishes the difference between the wood near Waterdeep and Ardeep of old, and it gets the rest of the locations correct. Maybe Volo was just *gasp* wrong. DotGetClass (talk)