Talk:Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons

message: This is a valuable article, as tracking the sources for D&D is of great value to anyone tracking historical development of fantasy or role-playing games.  As such it deserves a better title.  It should more than just a simple list.  The corresponding section of Dungeons & Dragons would suggest "Sources and Influences on the Development of Dungeons & Dragons," but that's quite a mouthful.  Perhaps "Influences on the Development of Dungeons & Dragons," on the theory that sources are obviously influences? To minimize having a pile of redirects, I suggest we hash this out here before anyone boldly renames the article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After further consideration (and since apparently no one else cares), I'm going to rename this article to match the corresponding section of Dungeons & Dragons "soonish".  Currently that would be "Sources and Influences on the Development of Dungeons & Dragons."  Before I rename it, it seems prudent to do a quick check to confirm that that name is reasonably stable in that article.  See  that article's talk page if you're interested. — Alan De Smet | Talk 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs a new name 

message: I fear I'm facing a longstanding myth here... can somebody provide sources? Ioun stones are supposed to be borrowed from the works of Jack Vance. Given how much D&D borrowed from Vance, this looks reasonable, however, I have come to an apparent contradiction.
a) The AD&D magic item appears at least as early as the Dungeon Master's guide, in 1979. It may possibly even be from earlier editions of D&D which I have not checked.
b) The only mention of IOUN stones, or any object resembling them, I've ever seen in the works  of Jack Vance is in the story Fader's Waft, from the collection Rhialto the Marvellous, first published in 1984, so at least four years after they became an AD&D classic. By contrast, the story Morreion, which is the only one in that collection to have been published earlier (1973), does not mention them.
So what did I miss? --Svartalf (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what to tell you... a reliable sources said that they came from Vance so that's what the article said. It's certainly possible that the source was in error. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you call a Dragon article whose main import was to introduce even more Ioun Stone varieties in the games of those who had exhausted the charms of the classic kinds (since that's the only source quoted on the matter) a "reliable source" , I'll have to disagree. Plus I don't have that issue of Dragon handy... and the article isn't exactly available online either, which makes the source unverifiable, if it was not erroneous to start with. --Svartalf (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not being available online doesn't make a source unverifiable, just makes it a bit harder to get a look at.  If I'd ever get my act in gear and reload my Dragon Archives CD-Rom on my newly repaired computer, I could take a look at the article in question and see what it actually says. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: If I can keep myself awake long enough to get it reinstalled tonight, I'll be glad to share; no promises though. :) BOZ (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Happens to the best and the worst of us. ;) BOZ (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I think there isn't that much from Jack Vance's Dying Earth series that appears in D&D.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the Ioun stones really from Vance? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "D&Dfaq":
From Dungeon Master's Guide: 
From Dungeons & Dragons: Mead, Malcomson; Dungeons & Dragons FAQ
From Gary Gygax: (July 27, 1938 – March 4, 2008)
From TSR, Inc.: 
From Dave Arneson: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I fixed that. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Sources and influences on the development of Dungeons & Dragons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This entire page reads like a TVTropes page. It’s mostly unsourced, seems to pick random things as what to focus on while ignoring huge swathes of the games’ lore otherwise, appears to almost wholeheartedly accept Gygax’s lies that Tolkien was only a minor influence, and is in no way up to anything resembling Wikipedia’s standards.2601:1C2:5000:1472:8806:86F:2C7C:5D28 (talk) 10:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong wiki? 

message: This it is inevitable that an article like this lean heavily on Appendix N, which is itself the subject of aa fair amount of secondary coverage, would it make sense to rename this article to "Article N" and restructure it around that? Artw (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should limit it in that way, as any other sourceable information should be included regardless of whether it comes from Appendix N. BOZ (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename and restructure?