Jump to content

Talk:Outer Plane: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
4th edition: new section
no...
Line 1: Line 1:
{{D&D|class=b|importance=high}}
{{D&D|class=c|importance=high}}


Only use <nowiki>[[Planename (plane)]] if there is already another article called [[Planename]].</nowiki> [[User:Gracefool|··gracefool]] |[[User talk:gracefool|&#9786;]] 11:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Only use <nowiki>[[Planename (plane)]] if there is already another article called [[Planename]].</nowiki> [[User:Gracefool|··gracefool]] |[[User talk:gracefool|&#9786;]] 11:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:19, 7 January 2009

WikiProject iconDungeons & Dragons C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
D&D to-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Only use [[Planename (plane)]] if there is already another article called [[Planename]]. ··gracefool | 11:37, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mechanus had this problem. I'm also going to finish off the Outer Planes pages so that we can maybe make one of those cool boxes like in History of the United States. — Shoecream 06:35, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Template proposal

Outer Planes
Mount Celestia Bytopia Elysium The Beastlands Arborea
Arcadia The Outlands
&
The Spire
Ysgard
Mechanus Limbo
Acheron Pandemonium
Baator Gehenna The Gray Waste Carceri The Abyss

What do you think? I suggest we put one of these into every article about the outer planes and one to the main article. IMO it is more organized than the table with descriptions... Anthough the descriptions are useful, too. --Koveras 21:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

font size a bit small; fixed -shoecream 05:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great; however it needs to use wikisyntax instead of HTML. Add it to the bottom of all outer planes articles (keep the current table in this article). ··gracefool | 02:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The only reason I used HTML syntax was that it was easier for me this way. --Koveras 12:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article only talks about the outer planes of the standard d&d cosmology not the FR cosmology or any others, so you can only really use that template for articles on outer planes from the standard cosmology. Not for example in the Barrens of Doom and Despair article. The problem is that this article details only the outer planes of the standard 'great wheel' cosmology. Other cosmologies with outer planes exist. Maybe this article should be renamed to 'standard dnd cosmology' or 'great wheel' or something. The article titled 'outer plane' should be a more general description of what an outer plane is. -Lewis 23:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the font-size attribute from pt (which is a big no-no for accessibility reasons) to %. ··gracefool | 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of this artcile

Following on from what I was saying above, I think we should make this article more about outer planes in general than the specific ones of the standard cosmology. It would be useful to retain whats here already under a section, then add sections detailing the outer planes of other cosmologies (Forgotten realms, eberron etc.)

Additionally, I'm not so sure that the huge table of planes is necessary, since the information is contained within the separate articles themselves (or should be).

What are peoples feelings on this? If there are no objections I will start to make some of the described changes. --Lewis 13:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hold it, that table of plains is not "huge", it takes up barely 1/3 of the screen width, and since it goes at the bottom of articles anyway I don't see how that's an issue. Also, I think this page should stay as the standard cosmology since I don't think anyone else really uses anything else. Feel free to start a page at Non-standard cosmologies in the Planescape campaign setting or words to that effect. -shoecream 21:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorry dude, i wasnt talking about the template, which i think is pretty good, but the table with plane/names/inhabitants that dominates most of the article. Also the statement that you dont think anyone else uses other cosmologies is just opinion, and i think for completeness it is worth mentioning the outer planes from other cosmologies. I dont think a separate article as you suggest would be appropriate; the kind of thing i was thinking of doing is drafted on my talk page, if you'd like to have a quick look, your opinion would be appreciated. -- Lewis 22:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th edition

due to the changes in cosmology with 4th eidtion does something need to be done to this article to update it to include the new cosmology as well the old? shadzar-talk 15:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]