Talk:Plane (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: The author of the Phlogiston section says that it is "not traditionally considered a plane" but it is actually not a plane at all and has no place in an article about the transitive planes. The Planescape Campaign Setting set down in cannon that the Phlogiston and wildspace are both part of the Prime Material Plane. Previously, the cosmology of D&D had spoken about Alternate Prime Material Planes, but Planescape switched this to a single Prime Material Plane.
This Prime Material Plane consists of an uncountable number of crystal spheres floating in the Phlogiston. The Phlogiston does have special properties (its highly flammable and blocks all interaction with other planes) but it is still part of the Material Plane.
I know a Planescape expert and I'll try to get the name of the book where this was set out.
I'm proposing that this section is removed from the article. It would be acceptable to include it in a section about the Prime Material Plane. However that might not please people looking for information on the older "multiple prime cosmology", so it should probably be in a section of that article dedicated to the Planescape/Spelljammer version of the Prime Material Plane. Big Mac 13:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's consistently described as part of the Prime Material Plane, the article should state that it's part of the Prime Material Plane. If a Spelljammer sourcebook states that it's a plane which connects multiple Prime Material Planes while a Planescape sourcebook describes it as part of the Prime Material Plane, the article should state that the Phlogiston's planar status varies. IIRC according to the 3e or 3.5 Manual of the Planes, each solar system is part of a separate material planes and the Phlogiston is presented as an optional transitive plane, however I may be misremembering. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The Phlogiston is not a transitive plane

message: with 4th edition it seems all things in D&D must change. with those changes it seems planes have become one large region for change. now either the entire article could be written over with each new edition change or errata, or since the article only continues to explain [Plane (metaphysics)] in D&D terms we could just add the planar material somewhere else and list how they have changed with editions. i do NOT think Planescape should be the end-all-be-all definition of planes of existence in D&D as it was just a small look into and not core to D&D planes as a seperate campaign setting. this is effort to reduce the amount of edition specific material in lgiht of potential new editions and help remove edition bias with the cosmology changes described with the 4th edition. if this subject does warant its own article then a major overhaul needs to be done on it. shadzar|Talk|contribs 18:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am strongly opposed to rewriting the article with a bias towards 4th edition, however I do agree that a revision is needed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion. 

message: There are a lot of inappropriate  tags throughout the article. Should these be removed, or replaced with tags for vagueness/original research (which I believe was the original intent), or am I misunderstanding something? —Managore (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced a few with ... they really don't seem to be appropriate for  though, I agree. – Zawersh 23:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Word Tags 

message: Someone has added a merge template to this page and the Manual of the Planes page, but hasn't given any explaination here. I think this article needs some clean up, but dumping part or all of a different article into this one doesn't seem like something that will help this one. So I'm going to pull the template off of both articles. If you want to add it back, please feel free to do so, but please add an explanation for your tagging in the discussion page - unexplained tags are confusing to a lot of us other wikipedians. 91.125.124.10 (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, there's now an explanation at Talk:Manual of the Planes#Merge raises its ugly head again, but this time with no explanation. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge raises its ugly head again, but this time with no explanation 

message: could weasel words be obscuring here? usu, the weasel tag goes on a page where
1. there are some sort of "high stakes" for the average information seeker who lands on the page to get quality information, right? as in, "if this info were bad, that would be bad for people who trust wikipedia's info, for wikipedia, etc. whereas, here- heck we want valid D&D info on 'pedia, but let's not take ourselves too seriously, no one's gonn get hurt. is there a actual political controversy here or what?
2. there is more than one set of "popular views" on the subject matter, hence an argument between persons interested in the content. these persons may even be outside of wikipedia, but surely some of them are here, fighting over something. otherwise why would one side be trying to coyly couch their POV in weaselyness, right?
I guess I'll leave it there for now. I prob will remove tag unless someone (ideally the tagger) says why there is a true controversy the kind of which warrants such a tag.
Fucking tag monkeys. BingoBob 16:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what the heck  

message: Why is the Great Wheel refered to on this page (and several other wikipedia articles about the planes of the Great Wheel) as the "standard cosmology"? What's "standard" about it when there were so many campaign settings that didn't use it? Web wonder (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that just means in 1st - 3rd edition, this was the standard version of the planes in official print sources. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:Abyss (Dungeons & Dragons)#Canon consistency 24.20.95.50 (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Keep in mind here, that you are replying to old posts that people made during the days of 4th edition... when we thought the Great Wheel wasn't coming back. 65.126.152.254 (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "standard" cosmology? 

message: Since Neth and this article have a huge overlap in content, and since Neth appeared in what, a section of a 3rd edition book. It, unlike Ravenloft which has an entire setting built around it, didn't seem important enough to warrant it's own article.Red Macgregor (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged with Neth

message: As of 5th Edition, a demiplane is created by the aptly-named spell Demiplane, which is 8th level arcane.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.30.176 (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Demiplanes section is incorrect