Talk:Layers of the Abyss

Reference
I'll just leave this here

Fiendish Codex I, Part 2 The Lost Annals 

Doonval ti bekk&#39;har (talk) 02:55, September 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * Is that 4th edition? How much, if any, of that is canon to the Forgotten Realms? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:47, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Its 3.5e. I would assume it is as canon as the rest of the fiendish codex as it is a web supplement by the original authors. The fiendish codex seems to be the main source on abyssal layers so i would argue that anything not contested by "official" Forgotten realms data is canon Doonval ti bekk&#39;har (talk) 04:20, September 15, 2013 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. They seem to have embraced a lot of stuff from the Book of Vile Darkness and the Book of Exalted Deeds, so why not the Fiendish Codex? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 04:47, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Layers
hey guys I was just browsing through and noticed this page is being worked on. The first edition module The Throne of Bloodstone adds a lot of information about some of the not so well known layers. – User:Snorogh


 * Nice find! Some of these layers are very obscure indeed. -- Sirwhiteout (talk) 02:13, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup report
Ok, so the easy part is done: the deeper layers (Azzagrat and below) have been cleaned up, and a bunch of information from different sources has been added (thanks, Moviesign, Daranios and Snorogh for pointing out additional ones). There is still a bit left for a few layers, which will be put on as I go through the sources one more time.

But before that, the real problem with this page: the upper layers. It turns out that whoever did this revision simply copy-pasted all the information about layers that had been posted on this forum, about 4 years earlier. So definitely plagiarism, but probably not of the source mentioned on the top of the page, although there is a lot of redundancy there as well. And even worse: all the original forum posts were made by an anonymous poster and are unsourced (obviously), mentioning layers that I have only seen there. So, except for the more famous layers, I am inclined to think that this is homebrewed content.

So here is what I am going to do going forward: on my next edit I will delete all the text that is identical to that forum in bulk, and repopulate it with data from the sources that I have been using so far. If someone finds if those posts are backed up by any published material, then it should be easy to add it back. -- Sirwhiteout (talk) 03:04, September 21, 2017 (UTC)

…And done! All unsourced/plagiarized information has been purged from the page and replaced only with referenced information exhaustively typed in. There is probably a lot more information out there, but now at least the page can be built upon like a normal article on the wiki. Moderators are now welcome to remove the plagiarism marker from the top of the page. :-) -- Sirwhiteout (talk) 22:39, September 21, 2017 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Sir Whiteout! — BadCatMan (talk) 13:08, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

Abysm
I just discovered that Stormwrack, a 3e sourcebook dedicated to ocean-adventuring, mentions oceans of the planes as well, and Abysm is given as the 88 layer of the Abyss. It also has this cool image:

I'm not sure how the information and/or image could be integrated here, but I'll leave that to someone else. (Abysm probably needs its own article.)

~ Lhynard (talk) 18:45, May 15, 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a cool picture! Abysm is in fact located in the 88 layer of the Abyss (Gaping Maw), but itn't the layer itself, as is noted in many sources that specifically mention it, such as Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss (p.140), Dungeon Master's Guide 5th edition (p.62), Out of the Abyss (p.236) etc. In fact, I'd even consider swapping this picture to represent the layer and the current illustration as the main image in a page dedicated to Abysm. Thoughts? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 19:12, May 15, 2018 (UTC)


 * Works for me; you are the expert on the Abyss. :) ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:17, May 15, 2018 (UTC)

Good Article status

 * Correct: yes
 * Referenced: yes
 * Formatted: yes
 * Clean: yes
 * Nearly complete: yes
 * Policy-adherent/Demonstrative: yes

TOC Suggestion
I think this page is thoroughly impressive, except that I am not a fan of the massively long table of contents. What do you all think about breaking it down into categories "Layers 1 Through 100", "Layers 101 through 200", etc.? ~ Lhynard (talk) 04:41, July 9, 2019 (UTC)