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)