Talk:Waterdeep

Western Heartlands
Hmm, I'm not sure why the article states that Waterdeep is considered part of the Western Heartlands?

Virtually all the published sources on the City of Splendors (City of Splendors, The North, The Savage Frontier, Volo's Guide to Waterdeep and Waterdeep: City of Splendors) all pretty much call Waterdeep a city of the North. Even Candlekeep discussions with Ed Greenwood and Steven Schend show the designers also think of it this way, sooo.... BlackAce 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it seems there is a lot of confusion of where Northwest Faerûn ends and the West Faerûn begins... if states everything below Waterdeep is West... and everything above Waterdeep is Northwest... but what about Waterdeep herself??? Any thought... especially before I try to fix the categories. Plus, is Waterdeep part of the Sword Coast or Western Heartlands, which I believe both are West… Any thoughts? Darkwynters (talk) 18:20, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I figured it out… Waterdeep is in the Northwest Faerûn region, and is part of the lower Sword Coast… everything above Waterdeep is still Northwest Faerûn, but is also the Sword Coast North… then below Waterdeep is West Faerûn and the regular Sword Coast… and of course the Western Heartlands… so that is my guess and if no one disagrees I will fix the cats to keep this geography set up :) Darkwynters (talk) 19:01, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Wait... the map on page 29 of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition shows the Western Heartlands as below Waterdeep, not the Sword Coast... in fact, the Sword Coast North is the only techincal region with the Sword Coast name... hmmm it's not a problem... I just want to make sure which map we are using... I know 4th edition has messed up this, but as a standard for regions, this map is the best... ideas? Darkwynters (talk) 22:40, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Been awhile since I asked this question and it is still bothering me... Waterdeep... it is in northwest Faerûn and is also part of the Sword Coast North... technically, the Sword Coast is placed in west Faerûn... so it should go... Waterdeep, Sword Coast North, and northwest Faerûn... does that sound good? - Darkwynters (talk) 04:29, January 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * See page 100 of the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 3rd edition. This is a political map, but it does show that Waterdeep has wide influence between Sword Coast North and the Sword Coast. Geographically, on page 176, it says "the Sword Coast North is dominated by Waterdeep at its southernmost end". It goes on to say (on page 225) that it is the cliffs along the shore that define the sword coast and that Waterdeep and Baldur's Gate bracket the cliffs as the only safe places to build a harbor. From these references, I'm okay with putting Waterdeep in Sword Coast North, which makes it also in northwest Faerûn. My 2 copper. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 05:14, January 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Both make sense to me. — BadCatMan (talk) 05:30, January 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Sword Coast North So let it be written, so let it be done - Darkwynters (talk) 05:55, January 25, 2015 (UTC)


 * +1 for the quote (Metallica I hope?) Mpj (talk) 07:14, January 25, 2015 (UTC)

Move
I think that this article should be simply at Waterdeep as there is no de facto Waterdhavian state, one of the opening paragraphs from the City of Splendors: Waterdeep reads "Although the City of Splendors does not formally claim any territory outside its walls, the Lords of Waterdeep have always kept a close watch over the region stretching from the Mere of Dead Men to the mouth of the River Delimbiyr, and from the Sea of Swords to the Dessarin Vale. The lands surrounding the City of Splendors make up the Waterdeep region discussed in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting and the Player's Guide to Faerûn. In addition to the human-dominated city, this region includes dwarfholds in the Forlorn Hills and the Swords Mountains, the moon elven lands in and around Ardeep Forest, and the lower Delimbiyr and Dessarin valleys."

So there is no real Waterdhavian state, and I doubt we'll ever have any meaningful article for it, that couldn't be included in Waterdeeps article anyway. My 2 cents anyway. Zerak talk 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Bump! :) Any thoughts? Zerak talk 21:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

fourth edition destroys waterdeep?
I heard that the fourth edition destroys Waterdeep, and a bunch of golems come up from Undermountain or something. Does WoC really expect gamers to follow along as they ruin the setting. . . or change it into Eberron or something? Does this mean the article here is going to be updated? The Time of Troubles was stupid enough, IMHO. I run a 2nd E campaign with specialty priests and a very old-school realms, so I might just be a dinosaur (I'm only 30), but who's calling the shots here, the players or Hasbro? 76.115.59.36 16:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The city still stands after the Spellplague, even has a new novel series (Ed Greenwood Presents: Waterdeep of four books). A little insight into what happens to the city can be found here: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drfe/20080111a . Otherwise, refer to the new 4th ED FR guides. Zeraktalk 22:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Old Wikipedia data

 * Because it would too much work for me alone;
 * Because I worked so much on the Wikipedia entries;
 * Because I believe my intense researches are still of use (especially the labourously collected external links);
 * Because I do not know enough of the forgottenrealms Wikia lore to dare or wish to intervene directly anymore,

I just paste in the permalink of what I believe to be most exhaustive Wikipedia entry on the topic:

Most complete permalink for Waterdeep

(starting point: Geographical index of Toril on 18th of March 2007)

Could some kind soul take care of extracting the data somewhere it would not be deleted again because of “lack of notability”? Note that a lot of content may be duplicate and also has to be rewritten. Some link shouls also be checked, Wizards of the Coast not being that serious with permanency of data.

David Latapie (✒ | @) 01:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Article status

 * Correct : yes
 * Referenced : no (missing a lot of citations)
 * Formatted : yes
 * Clean : yes
 * Nearly complete : yes
 * Policy-adherent/Demonstrative : yes