Talk:New Neverwinter


 * the only source of information on anything but neverwinter lore is a vidoe game that might be coming out to hint at this again this isn't cannon just more to add under a new video game tag. Pharuan Undearth 06:47, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Merge Reasoning
Having read the Neverwinter Campaign Setting, it struck me that New Neverwinter isn't so much a place as it is an idea thought up by Dagult Neverember. Neverwinter wasn't completely destroyed, and is in fact being rebuilt by Neverember's hired men; it's not a new city being built atop the old one, as the article suggests.

In fact, the table of contents has the New Neverwinter entry in the Factions and Foes section, with it being mentioned as a "movement". Here is a quote from the second paragraph: "The New Neverwinter concept is a propaganda tool the Lord Protector is using to stir up nationalistic emotions in the populace."

The information from this article should be moved from here to the Neverwinter article, with perhaps a small section on Neverember's faction. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 15:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Trust me, I have tried to update the article of Neverwinter to 'modern times', but Phaerun wants it to stay in the 'past'. Also, if this article was to be merged, it would not make sense for the merger to go into Neverwinter but rather various smaller articles. Therefore, it would be fit to vamp the article to the propoganda idea and its history, or change the article to one revolving on the basis of New Neverwinter, the Thayan-Netheril War. --Mr. Youtube 23:35, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Pharaun got confused because of the lack of references in the article, incorrectly assuming that the information is from a non-canon source. I'm sure once he's had a chance to take a gander at this talk page that he'll see reason. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:39, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Pharaun just wont listen to me, we should modernize the whole article of Neverwinter to 4e as well as all other articles, including 3e as info in a history or pre-spellplague section. That would benefit a merger of this article into Neverwinter and other articles. I have just updated a part of this article to the proposed city as being simply propaganda.


 * Well i see were all having fun here question though if your going to update Neverwinter then theres no need, as mentioned above a "merge", to have a New Neverwinter page now is there you can keep the old and have the Post spell-plauge, which btw f-ed up the entire world for staters, new neverwinter as the main article. There is no fracking way you split this into mini-articles and yes i did think this was some homebrew pos but i guess not. Ah how you have fallen my dear neverwinter. Pharuan Undearth 04:20, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with it staying in the New Neverwinter article is that it doesn't belong there. As stated above, New Neverwinter is a movement, not a place. Almost all of the information from that article actually belongs in the Neverwinter article. Cronje (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:23, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * It does not just belong in the Neverwinter article, if it were to merge, the major of the merge 30 % of the articles info would belong in the Neverwinter article but the rest would have to go somewhere else. Plus, I have not added information on the Sons of Alagonder, this information should make it for the article to appear to be the history of the movement and the factions involved not the history of a new city, which it appears it is promoted as. --Mr. Youtube 00:12, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm this is an interesting one. I would say that first, the Neverwinter article is already sizeable and likely to grow as there's plenty about Neverwinter not mentioned there, and second, there is a substantial amount on New Neverwinter that makes it suitable for its own article. I would be against a merge, but the New Neverwinter article does need accurate citations. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 11:46, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, I think the infobox should be removed, as it's not an actual location, just a concept. ;) Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 11:48, January 14, 2012 (UTC)