Talk:Waterdeep

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Population[edit]

What is the estimated population of Waterdeep??

Some books say that the city had aprox 100.000 inhabitants. This information is correct?

I have no idea→ JarlaxleArtemis 05:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Over a million I believe. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 12:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
According to a book in the CRPG Neverwinter Nights Waterdeep has over a million inhabitants.

According to the campaign setting, it's 1,347,840 people.. dunno why it's so detailed, but that's what it says.Poulsen 23:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just learned to read (writing hopefully follows) - it says the city-state of Waterdeep has 1,300,000 people, the city itself has 130,000 inhabitants! Poulsen 15:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, i've changed to page to actaully show that. Also, why does it say the government is an oligarchy in one place and a cryptocracy in the other? the second would fit better i think. --130.89.188.158 15:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wording on the population is still kind of confusing. I didn't get why there were two conflicting population estimates until I looked at this talk page. If I get around to it, I'm going to try to clear that up. Gitman00 14:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've updated the page. Hopefully it's a little more clear now.

I am curious about the population of the Skullport. is there any information in sources? 81.214.36.116 (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstaff's Status[edit]

Shouldn't the first part of the article be changed to reflect that Khelben has resigned his duties as a Lord of Waterdeep? 80.166.182.88 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up tags[edit]

I just got a very pissy comment on my talk for deleting the cleanup tags. So, why, precisely, are they necessary? For example, there is a tag saying that article needs non-fictional context, when "Fictional" is in the first paragraph! Zach82 (talk) 05:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, Zack, my comment to you was quite civil.
This article has serious issues. Notability; where's the critical commentary by reliable third parties? Someone who has taken the time to analyze it significantly and publish their opinion? — other than PR-Guff or some fan-site. The very first sentence may acknowledge that this is all fictional, but all of the verbose prose that follows speaks as if this were all real; this is called in-universe style and the {{in-universe}} tag offers links to better explain the issue and serves to encourage editors to address it. The {{nofootnotes}} tag is warranted because while the article does include some links, it is quite unclear how those links support what the article says; remediation is needed and your efforts would be better spent attending to this than summarily removing the clean-up tags. The {{context}} tag highlights the fact that the introduction to this article is trivial and does little to aid users unfamiliar with the subject.
I believe I've summarized the reasons for tagging sufficiently and will restore them if they are removed again without serious effort to address these issues. You should take my comment on your talk page about risking being blocked seriously; many, many, users who have engaged in removal campaigns have ended up blocked for vandalism. --Jack Merridew 10:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will start a list of books that reference Waterdeep to address these issues. In other news, perhaps I come from simple people, but where I come from it isn't considered civil or diplomatic to threaten to get people banned right out of the gate. Zach82 (talk) 16:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if I came-off as too harsh. You should know that, from perspectives other than yours, this in not right out of the gate — there has been a massive amount of vandalism to clean-up tags on D&D articles; and many have been blocked for it (not really the same thing as banned, by the way). As to sources, you should look for out-of-universe references. --Jack Merridew 04:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if the rationale for the cleanup tags were clearer and if there was a model or stylebook for how articles about fictional characters and locations should be written. As it is, many cleanup tags come across as vandalism. For instance, what is the import of insisting on "critical commentary by reliable third parties"? And for a fictional setting, how are we to distinguish between "someone who has taken the time to analyze it significantly" from "some fan-site"? AusJeb (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No real point in arguing with Jack Merridew anymore - he's argued himself out of interacting with the community, and he's well known as a hater of articles on topics about fiction. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References in literature[edit]

I know Waterdeep has been referred to a million times in dozens of books, but naturally I only know a couple. So let's get a list going, and when there is enough we can add a section to the article.

Waterdeep:The Avatar Series III by Troy Denning
City of Splendors: Waterdeep by Eric L. Boyd

Zach82 (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Since nobody has objected I'm removing the "notability" tag. I agree the article is not well written, but given the subject matter and references its notability is unquestionable. Let me know if there is any problem. Previous unsigned comment by User:70.119.91.132. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's this?[edit]

I can't seem to find how to remove the code {{#ifeq:Template:SUBJECTSPACE)). It seems to have been there since the infobox was added. Any ideas? -Drilnoth (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. It seems to have been some coding in the infobox template itself that wasn't working quite right. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate link farm, per WP:NOT[edit]

I'm removing the article link farm and copying it here for archival purposes, in line with the wikipedia policy at WP:LINKFARM:

Portals

Realmslore

Personalities

Specific prestige classes

External links

  • Music suite, describing important localities of Waterdeep ("Hymn to Waterdeep")

Hymn to Waterdeep

—RJH (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 10:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– I think the fictional city -- the most important city in the most popular D&D setting -- is far more likely to be the topic sought by readers under the name "Waterdeep" than a relatively obscure band. Google results are actually pretty well split, assisted by virtue of the band holding the waterdeep.com domain name, although a Google Books search unsurprisingly favors the city and a Google Scholar search shows little sign of either entity. (It's worth noting that the Waterdeep (band) article actually has no third-party sources listed and thus appears to violate our notability guidelines, though I'm certainly not proposing deletion.) Most importantly, though, since we have only two items on the disambiguation page, the disambiguation page is really superfluous and we can get rid of it entirely by designating one topic as primary, and I think that's a strong incentive to do so if at all possible. Powers T 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should retain a disambiguation page, since we also have an adventure and a novel with the same name. Otherwise your suggestion makes sense. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those two were recently added. But you are correct; WP:TWODABS no longer applies. Powers T 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Article page views shows that the city gets 2-3 times as much traffic as the band, which gets almost none. The band's article isn't even sourced, for that matter, and might be a candidate for deletion. —Torchiest talkedits 18:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Better pageview statistics, covering the last 90 days:

Waterdeep (city): 4303

Waterdeep (band): 2670

Pageviews for the fictional city are just 61% higher than for the real-life band. (Sure, there was a spike in January when the band article attracted attention because it was proposed for deletion. The result was "keep", and that was the end of it. In the last 30 days of pageviews the city article gets 124% more views than the band article – not "2–3 times as much". Neither article gets many hits at all anyway. Their combined views have been just 75 a day, over the last month. Why should the issue of "primary topic" arise at all, for these marginal topics in an encyclopedia?)
An ordinary Google search on Waterdeep gives these three hits at the top of the results page:

Waterdeep
waterdeep.com/
[The band's website]

Waterdeep (city) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterdeep_(city)/

Waterdeep (band) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterdeep_(band)/

Searching internally on Wikipedia, the reader gets prompts that include both Waterdeep_(city) and Waterdeep_(band), and the current DAB page Waterdeep. The reader can then go straight to the desired article, without further redirects or reliance on hatnotes at unwanted pages.
I maintain that this situation serves all readers ideally well. If anyone disagrees, let them explain how any alternative arrangement would serve them better.
With evidence and argument, please.
NoeticaTea? 23:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take exception to your claims re the page views. 2–3 times as much would be 100–200% more. 124% falls within that range. —Torchiest talkedits 14:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my responses elsewhere on this page; and read about scalar implicature. A misleading implicature can be corrected as fairly as strict falsity can be corrected. Happens in real language all the time. NoeticaTea? 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it's ambiguous enough that a disambig page is the right answer. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- much more used than any other, and more than all others combined. If anyone disagrees, let them build a new consensus at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. BTW, 124% more views than the band article is "2–3 times as much" (2.24 times as much - 1 + 1.24 = 2.24). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JHJ, please demonstrate how this is right: "... and more than all others combined". Please show how you account for pageviews involving "Waterdeep, a novel set in The Avatar Series" (see DAB page). Please then show how that is all relevant, when the total interest in such pages is so low and the topics are so unfamiliar to most enquirers.
As for "124%", it's about accuracy and straight communication. The implicature in the rougher statement was misleading. 124% more views is also "2–37 times as much", right? So that could have have been truly said also. Too much sloppy presentation of statistics in these RM discussions. NoeticaTea? 12:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement "In the last 30 days of pageviews the city article gets 124% more views than the band article – not "2–3 times as much"." was factually incorrect, hand-waving about implicature or not. If you meant something then about implicature, you should have said so rather than saying 2.24 is not between 2 and 3. Please, do use straight communication instead. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My correction was of the misleading scalar implicature, which had probably been used for rhetorical effect. Such a correction is perfectly well understood, in most conversations. If I had said "50% more is not 40%–1200% more", would you have objected? It would be extreme nitpicking to do so. Stop being irrelevant. Clearly I have increased the accuracy, and you carpingly object to my doing so. Indicative of a general attitude, I fear. For the fifth time, if you dislike more complete and less misleading evidence, raise a complaint at my talkpage. Not in RM discussions. NoeticaTea? 13:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your original statement said nothing about the misleading scalar implicature. I have not objected to your increased accuracy, and I never carpingly objected to anything. Assume good faith, be civil, and use the consensus guidelines and policies in your RM discussions or seek consensus for new guidelines and policies. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am certain that what I wrote would be understood, by any reasonable and unbiased assessor of the matter. On the other hand, "2–3 times as much" was inaccurate. Probably wilfully. You address the minutest hint of a flaw in what I write (with a little brevity, so that I can avoid excessive wordiness). But you ignore the looseness that I was correcting. You are clearly partisan in your objections. As an admin who closes some RMs, who presumably professes to be able to exercise impartial judgement, you ought to know better. Get back on track here, or be silent.
NoeticaTea? 14:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god, where did this nasty assumption of bad faith come from? I've never interacted with you before, and I have no idea why you would jump to such a conclusion. My rough estimate came from looking at the pages I originally linked, and doing quick day-to-day comparisons, where it appeared that some days the city page got about two times as many views, and other days it got about three times as many views. As for this: "My correction was of the misleading scalar implicature, which had probably been used for rhetorical effect. Such a correction is perfectly well understood, in most conversations. If I had said "50% more is not 40%–1200% more", would you have objected?" You comparison here is ridiculous. My range had an upper value that was only half again as big as the lower value, while yours is fully thirty times greater. Again, on individual days, the city page gets three times the views that the band page does. That was my entire point. And I really don't appreciate all the aspersions you cast on my motives. —Torchiest talkedits 15:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest, you are entitled to report inaccurately. I have no strong objection to that; but you had the opportunity to report accurately, and did not do so. That leaves you open to mild criticism and correction, which you got. No offence intended. I am to be condemned for wanting precision when it is available? I will respect that opinion. But my opinion is different. Live with it, as I live with yours. NoeticaTea? 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, there was nothing inaccurate about my information. It was merely not fine-tuned to the second decimal place, as you apparently demand from all discussions. And again, on a day-to-day comparison, the city article does get three times the page views as the band article. Don't ignore that point. I also don't believe saying I was willfully inaccurate counts as respecting my opinion. All in all, this is much ado about nothing. —Torchiest talkedits 13:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "willfully" comment was not for you, it was for Hunter. It's not the first time they have quarreled. Neotarf (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, there is no way to interpret "On the other hand, "2–3 times as much" was inaccurate. Probably wilfully." as being about me rather than about the editor who wrote "2-3 times as much". -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noetica, your "certainty" is wrong. And as an admin, I am accustomed to specious cries of "ought to know better" from editors who disagree with the current guidelines and policies that I follow (even the ones that I was not in the consensus on). Happily, you have no leg to stand on in your clearly partisan calls for on-tracking or silence. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How nice of you to point out that I am mistaken, JHJ, without a shred of evidence. Tar anyone who disagrees with you with the same brush, by all means. Your behaviour is under your control, not mine. For the rest, I find it too incoherent to answer. If you do find coherent points to make, bring them to my talkpage and we can see how well they hold up under sustained scrutiny. This is, I say again, not the place. NoeticaTea? 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The novel is named after the city, so its share of the pageviews could reasonably be attributed (at least in part) to the city anyway; 2) explain how "2-3 times as many pageviews" is miselading. Powers T 17:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for Pete's sake.

Stats for 201202 (to eliminate bias from RMs)
Waterdeep_(city) has been viewed 1328 times in 201202.
Waterdeep_(module) has been viewed 126 times in 201202.
Waterdeep_(band) has been viewed 834 times in 201202.


The_Avatar_Series has been viewed 1204 times in 201202.
1328 + 126 + 834 = 1204 = 3492 total views
............................................
[Check my math, not that anyone is hitting on all six cylinders in that department tonight. Put your answer on my talk page or not, as you feel inspired. Or uninspired.]
............................................
Half of 3492 is 1746; none of these topics gets even half of the pageviews.
............................................
I have put some tags on some of the pages for navigation.
I say it's not broke. Don't fix it.
  • Oppose Neotarf (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your analysis is missing a number for the hits on the Avatar series that got there by searching on Waterdeep. (The number is impossible to get now, but could be set up through the use of a redirect used only on the dab.) In the absence of that number, you're assuming that 100% of the readers there are coming through here, which is certainly an overestimate. OTOH, the supports are assuming that it's under 332 (about 27%), which IMO is reasonable for one book out of a series of five. For Pete's sake. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that the novel is in many ways a subtopic for the city article, and that it's unlikely anyone searching for the novel would be uninterested in reading about the city, since the two are so tightly linked. Powers T 23:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can count 100% of the books or you can count 0% of the books, that's why I separated the books from the rest. Be as creative as you like with the math; everyone else is. I still don't see a real primary topic. Neotarf (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can use common sense (that a percentage no greater than 20% would come from any particular title of a book in a series of 5). I realize that common sense that doesn't support one's argument is often dismissed as "creative". But I'm happy to agree to use 0%, which would leave the city as the primary topic still (more than the others combined). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are happy to use 0%. That suits your "argument" admirably! Why not be happy to use 20%? Obviously, because it would not suit your argument. But it is a more realistic figure, not lying at an extreme of the available range. NoeticaTea? 13:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You must have skipped the earlier messages in this thread. I'm happy to use 20% as well -- my assumption above was simply that it would have to be 27% or less (20% is less than 27%, barring some implicature problems), but Neotarf objected. 0%-27% still leaves a primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"common sense that doesn't support one's argument"? Is that supposed to be some sort of snark? I wasn't aware that I was making any sort of argument. The numbers are posted for all to see, along with full explanation of how I arrived at the numbers. Common sense is not that common. No it is not common sense to use 20% or any other number because there is no way to KNOW what the real number is. This is all horseshoes and hand grenades. But if it feels better to make up a number, go ahead and knock your socks off, it's no worse than the math that is already on this page. And it was not the math I objected to, it was the unsportsmanlike conduct. Neotarf (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was to be precisely as snarky as "be as creative as you like with the math". You're right about common sense not being common however. Yes, it is common sense to say that an article about a series of five books would have no more than 1/5 of its traffic coming from the title of any one of those books. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Challenging someone's math is not the same as challenging their motivations. The misperceptions created by the way the math was presented needed to be pointed out, as they have bearing on the task at hand. But I see no reason for your ad hominem remarks. It's not the first time your discussion has gotten personal towards me either; I did note it on the "and yet it moves" thread, although at the time I let it pass in order to concentrate on the matter at hand. Let me remind you that I am not WP:delicious, far from it, and that personal remarks add to the atmosphere of uncongeniality that is already the legacy of too much that has gone on recently in the conversation surrounding titles. Since you have already gone to the effort of trying to dig up dirt on me and discovered that I participated in discussions on Baden and French Quarter, you might also recollect that, unlike Noetica, I did see primary topics in both of those subjects. I stand ready to listen. Instead of going for the throat, wouldn't it be more productive to explain your own position? But enough of this; it does belong on our respective talk pages where it will not detract from discussion of titling. Neotarf (talk) 20:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that means you're going to refrain assuming bad faith in the creativity of opposing editors, or pretending that they are making ad hominem remarks, getting personal, or going for the throat when they correct those assumptions, I'm on board. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Xoloz (talk) 02:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– It has been almost two years since the last move request, and I think more recent numbers are bearing out the fact that the city page is clearly the primary topic. For the last 90 days (at the time of this post), the city (4701 views) has more than three times as many page views as the band (1560). The earlier comparison was marred by a spike in page views for the band because it had been proposed for deletion a month or two before the move request. For further comparison, Waterdeep (module) has 373 views, and Waterdeep (novel) has 147 views. Those are both about the fictional city. The current primary page, Waterdeep itself, only has 330 views. —Torchiest talkedits 13:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - seems reasonable to me. BOZ (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this isn't moved as requested, then it should be moved to Waterdeep (fictional city), since this is a fictional location, not a real one, as implied by the current disambiguatory term. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Still should be the primary topic, per the arguments in the last RM and the additional info here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Red Slash 16:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fully justified by the numbers. Karatorian (talk) 03:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Waterdeep&oldid=1213572122"