Talk:Westgate

Westgate Map in Cloak & Dagger
There is an amazing map of Westgate in Cloak & Dagger, if I were to scan this and enhance the contrast, colour tone and colour balance; without changing any of the fundamental features of the map. Would I be breaking any of the wiki rules?

Additionally, I just wanted to confirm that it is okay to upload a scanned map like this to the wiki? (I've seen other city maps scanned from books on the wiki, e.g. the Procampur map here: http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Procampur#Layout ) — Mallmus aka Adam Wintle (talk) 01:28, April 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * We have some guidelines, but they are not official policy yet. See here. You might also use small excerpts from the bigger map as sidebar images. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:26, April 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * My preference is that an image should remain recognisable as a copy of the original image. An unchanged quote, as it were. In the future, someone should be able to look at it and confirm it came from such-and-such a sourcebook, and isn't a fan-work or modification as some images and maps are. If enhanced, I'd prefer it be only as necessary for viewing on a webpage.


 * My rule of thumb is to reduce size and/or resolution enough that it's no longer as good as the original but is still readable useful as a basic reference. With maps, I feel any map labels (like numbers corresponding to a key) should be preserved, if possible. I work from PDFs, so there's already a bit of degradation. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:08, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * I've scanned in and uploaded the map here Westgate_1368_DR–1370_DR.jpeg I've also done some basic colour-correction and added some notes. I think this size is adequate, I could have scanned it at 300 dpi to make a large poster map, but at the current size (964 × 1,253 pixels) the user can zoom in to read the street names and location numbers, which is good enough.


 * There is also a very nice detailed Westgate Map Key (page 156), with 100 locations. I am happy to type this up, but I feel like it wouldn't be able to be paraphrased, since each location is exactly the title of the building without any additional "fluff" text in the key (however there are more descriptions for notable buildings in the rest of the sourcebook).


 * I was thinking I just add the Westgate Map Key as-is without any rewrite, but then rewrite the notable locations into our own words. Should the Map Key go into the image Summary, or its own sub-page and linked to the main Westgate page and image page?


 * If you guys feel this is too large I'm happy to scale it down and re-upload. — Mallmus aka Adam Wintle (talk) 03:20, April 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel that copying the map key verbatim is a copyright violation. I would leave it out and just describe notable locations as being in particular quadrants or wards of the city, as appropriate. Others might have different opinions. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:35, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * The locations in the key are all place names, e.g. Castle Thorsar, The Market, The Harbor Tower, City Watch Barracks, etc - some do have a few words in brackets (such as "includes rooms for rent"). I think it would make the map incomplete if the key was missing, and we have used other place names as they were originally presented (e.g. Waterdeep, Westgate, etc). So I'd say the place names would be fine to include on the wiki. — Mallmus aka Adam Wintle (talk) 03:41, April 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * The place names are fine, we have to be able to talk about them after all. It's the correlation with the numbers on the map that is the "value added" which I think we should not copy, because then no one needs to buy the map. Instead of saying #45 was the Old Beard tavern, say the Old Beard tavern was located at the west end of Eastgate Street on the north side. Saying it that way is more immersive and doesn't feel like we have infringed on the copyright. Instead, we are interpreting the map, which I think is Fair Use. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 04:46, April 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * I feel copying a map key is like quoting text: a small portion or very small map key is fair use, but the whole lot or a very large map key is not fair. For example, at File:FRA Procampur map.jpg, I quoted the 9-entry key, but that was important to the districts of Procampur (the city being defined by its districts). At File:FRA Calaunt.jpg, the five places were colored, so I just listed them. At File:Wheloon.jpg, I used the map as provided in the WotC Art Gallery, which has a key on it, except it's barely legible at that size. But I won't give the whole key for the older maps of Wheloon, nor the long key on maps of Tantras (which I haven't worked on the map for yet). So far, for Tantras, each location has a street name and directions. So, I feel a half-dozen-entry key is fair, a 100-entry key is much too much. — BadCatMan (talk) 07:47, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that all makes sense now; the "value added" and interpretation part is the real core of the issue here. And going with the more heavily descriptive approach seems better overall.


 * There is also another map of Westgate in Forgotten Realms Adventures on page 117, which is similar to the Procampur, Calaunt and Wheloon maps, with just a 6-location key and basic colour-coding. I think this can also be added to the Westgate page including the basic key; which should then be enough maps of the city. — Mallmus aka Adam Wintle (talk) 07:55, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

I stumbled across this image which is a passable image of the city but with the map key probably too small to read (which is good for this size list, right?). Anyway, you can use it to spruce up the article when you get to it. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:55, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
 * That'd be the Interactive Atlas version. Low-res maps from that software are cool. -hashtalk 11:17, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Detailed Westgate Timeline and Westgate Royal Dynasties
I've found an excellent Web Enhancement on the WotC archive site, which contains two expansions for the Cloak & Dagger sourcebook: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20010327d

These two documents are pages and pages long, containing a lot of interesting info about the history of Westgate (and I feel the info here should be preserved in the FR wiki in case WotC remove this from their archives). I suggest that the info here is paraphrased/rewritten and added to two separate pages 1) History of Westgate page (similar to the History of Cormyr (timeline) page, and 2) a Westgate Royal Dynasties page.

There is also other timeline and dynasty info from other sources, but this Web Enhancement seems like it encompases pretty much everything important.

Then on the main Westgate page, in the sidebar and main body text just highlight the key dates and events.

Is it standard on this wiki to highlight dates based around the FR editions; and the rest of the info becomes "general history"? e.g. 1367 DR for 2e, 1372 DR for 3e, 1479 DR
 * No, we don't highlight dates around editions unless not doing so would be overly confusing a la Neverwinter and the changes that occurred between 3rd & 4th editions (which made the city close to completely unrecognizable). Even then, we don't mention the edition itself, we make a subsection to delineate that particular time period from the rest of the history section, calling it, say, 'Post-Spellplague' to keep it in-universe.


 * We do have a citation template set up for the Westgate Timeline enhancement but we've generally been using the Grand History of the Realms for Westgate's royal dynasties so far. -hashtalk 02:09, April 1, 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. Yes there have been some big changes to Westgate post-Spellplague too, but I haven't fully got up to speed on all of that yet.


 * I noticed some articles also put "present-day", is this correct (e.g. http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_Waterdeep#Present_day ) or is it more correct to presume there's no current date of the realms timeline, and everything being written from the perspective of a far future?


 * You mentioned there's already a Westgate's royal dynasties template/page, but I couldn't find it, can you send me the link? — Mallmus aka Adam Wintle (talk) 02:35, April 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not correct to have a "present day" section. With few exceptions, everything should be written from the perspective of the far future.
 * He only mentioned the Timeline. I just created Template:Cite web/Westgate Dynasties. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:20, April 1, 2016 (UTC)


 * As there is an excess of history and ruler information for Westgate, subpages seem reasonable to me. I wonder if Westgate/History might be better?


 * As Hash and Movie said. We write from a past-tense, far-future perspective. But in essence, the surfeit of lore around the main play eras of 1356–1375 and 1479– mean that most articles still concentrate on those eras, and are written from those contexts. That is, the Government section will inevitable discuss the government in the mid–14th century, rather than the 10th century. Have a look at Wheloon for a tidier example of how I handled the pre-/post-Spellplague division in the depiction of a city. Bear in mind, a lot of older articles haven't been updated to our current policies, so mention of a present day still floats around, but is not desired. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:24, April 1, 2016 (UTC)