Talk:History of Waterdeep

Format
Hi, Fw190a8. I did think about formating the artical the way you reformated it. I would normally do it that way but in this case I was not sure. I'm about to do a campaign in Waterdeep and have collected all the source documents I could. When I started looking at some of the earlier publications, there is a lot of information in certain years. I thought it might be better to be able to History of Waterdeep (city) (timeline) to a certain year when refering to a particular event or series of events. I keep it going in this "standard" way but I think it may not work. Unless you know how to link to a definition list. Hurtzbad 06:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but if you have dozens of headings, the table of contents will look huge. I know that it is possible to turn off the table of contents, but it shouldn't really be necessary. Perhaps you can split the years into groups, and give each group a heading? It would then be possible to link to the nearest heading. Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll keep it in it's current "standard" format and see what it looks like when it's finished. I had planned on turning off the table of contents, but we'll keep it this way for now. What is interesting is to see what has been added over time. For example the first three references books that discuss Waterdeep have no mention of Halaster Blackcloak or Undermountain. Also the 3.5 D&D edition of Waterdeep rewrites some of the history changed in 2.0 D&D edition back to what was written in 1.0 D&D edition. I'll make sure any conflict in canon is documented. Hurtzbad 07:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)