Talk:Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, which collaborates on Dungeons & Dragons-related articles. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


[edit] Sources of Information

Recently user 205.188.117.67 moved several of the planes in this article to different levels, for example:

The problem is neither the original nor the new have any sources. What we need her are references, and in the lack of any other references I am about to move Orcus back as he is clearly referenced as 333 in module H4 The Throne of Bloodstone.

I am sure there is some condratictory info in different sources (this is fictional after all) So I propose the following precedence of sources as the primary entry (alternatived can be noted at the end of an entry)

  • Official Manuals/Accesories/Modules by TSR or Wizards of the Coast
  • Liscenced D&D Manuals/Accesories/Modules by other publishers
  • Dragon/Dungeon/RPGA magazine articles
  • Other Manuals/Accesories/Modules
  • Other Magazines

Within any level the order of precedence should be most recent highest. Referenced material (Product with date and page prefered) always takes precedence over non referenced.

- Waza 05:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

In the latest edition of Manual of the Planes (2001), Thanatos is listed as the 113th layer of the Abyss. If theres no objections I will update the list to reflect this and add a new reference too. Lewis 01:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If you have checked the reference and it is the most recent one update the article. I think even though this is a fiction cosmology we should in general be regarding the most recent info as correct. However leave the old references there also (as there is a note currently then the layer number is in dispute) to show different sources list different. - Waza 05:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done that, I've also noted that there are a number of references quoted in many of the edit summaries on the history page that have not been directly added to the article. When I have time I'll check these out and add them. Also just wondering if it is really necessary to have two references to the same source for just different sections of one book? - Lewis 12:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I certainly don't claim to be any sort of expert on referencing but I think the referencing is starting to look very good. I know this is the sort of article that needs to be well referenced for two very strong reasons. (1) There is probably contradictory info in different sources, as as this is fictional which is the "right" one so we need to let people know sources so they can have all the info. (2) This is exaclty the sort of article that those who want do delete everything fictional pick on. By making well referneced what we are definately writing here is not fictional but encyclopedic refereincing material about fiction. - Waza 05:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

One issue... some parts of this article are written as if they are real world events...should be changed a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.52.110 (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)