Talk:Dragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is not a forum for general discussion of Dragons.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mythology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology .

This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

As with all Talk pages, please add new discussions to the end and use a header with "==" "==". This will cause it to automatically appear in the table of contents.

Talk:Dragon/Archive 1 - Archive of talk from creation - end of 2006.

Talk:Dragon/Archive 2 - Archive from end of 2006 - mid 2007

Contents

[edit] Merging this article with European dragon

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What do you think about merging this article? I myself think that both refer to Dragons; just different types of folklore, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article. Danny Sepley 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree in 100% --200.126.153.25 18:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • STRONGLY disagree: European and East-Asian dragons are different enough to deserve their own articles, and a page concerning dragons as a whole (rather than a disambiguation page) is necessary due to commonalities and the fact that Europe and East-Asia are not the only areas with dragons in their mythology. Dragons are so enormous, diverse, and ubiquitous a part of mythology that merging can only result in (1) a page so generalized in its information as to be completely useless, (2) a page that would take a prohibitively long time to read in order to give any usefully detailed information, or (3) a list. This is a bad, bad, bad idea. --Þorstejnn 13:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • As the person who added the tag, a merge is definitely in order. The #1 meaning of dragons is what is currently showing at European dragons, and there's a lot of wasted overlap between the two articles. It's arguable if the other dragons ever ARE dragons, as they are largely unrelated beasts given the dragon name by westerners, but even if they should be considered dragons they are by far the lesser topic and should be handled in more depth on their own article, as they already have. 16:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - but disagree strongly with the injudicious phrase "they are by far the lesser topic"; dragons have a very major role in a lot of world cultures and are by no means a lesser topic. --Orange Mike 16:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Do Not Merge — Agree with Þorstejnn above: if there's too much overlap between the pages, move the European-specific content to that page. —Ryan McDaniel (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the dragon title should be used to represent all types of dragons, not just the Chinese dragons, but all. There should be different articles with different titles to tell about the other types of dragons, for example, a page called something like Chinese Dragons. However, I just checked that title, and found it existed, a whole article about Chinese dragons when there was already another one. I think one of them has to go, and I would choose the Dragon page, or I would change it to something that discusses all types of dragons as there are more stuff to that topic other than Chinese dragons. So I say merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slayerteez (talk • contribs) 23:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • i agree 100% that european dragons should be merged to the chinese dragon page because i often refer to both types and find that it would be much easier to find the information on both types. so i say merge!!

Reasons NOT to merge Above, Danny Sepley writes, "I myself think that both refer to Dragons; just different types of folklore, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article."

This is not good enough a reason to merge. It's like saying that both the mythology page and Greek mythology page refer to mythology, just different types, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article, or that both the page on cuisine and Italian cuisine refer to food, just different types, so it would be easier to find out about both if they were just in one article. That's assinine. Is the argument here that we don't need a page on European dragons because they are indistinct from other dragons? Clearly, European dragons are just as distinguished as their own cultural variety as Eastern dragons are. Is it that the generalized dragon article covers mainly European dragons? If that's the case, then much of the information here should be moved to the European dragon page; the need for a page about dragons in general should be obvious (just as is the need for a page about mythology in general, or cuisine in general). If this page over-emphasizes European dragons and both this page and the European dragon page contain much of the same information and frequently overlap, the situation need be fixed the same way we would go about fixing a page about mythology that over-emphasizes, say, Norse mythology, or a situation in which both the mythology page and the Norse mythology page were to contain frequently overlapping material, or the manner in which we'd go about fixing a page about cuisine that over-emphasizes American cuisine or a situation in which both the article on cuisine and the article on American cuisine were to contain frequently overlapping material. Both European and Eastern dragons are distinct; they both deserve their own articles apart from the general article.

A merging is NOT the answer, but a restructuring is definitely in order. The general rule here on Wikipedia is "improve, don't delete" whenever possible. I doubt anyone would seriously contest the position that the need for a separate page on European dragons is obvious, just as is the need for a page dealing with dragons in general. The problem seems to be content. Either this page is too Euro-centric, or the European dragon page is too general. These are content problems which can, and as apparently is necessary, need be fixed. But deleting one page or the other would imply that there is no need for a page dealing with that page's subject matter; either that there is no need to address the subject of European dragons in its own article, or no need to address the subject of dragons in general in its own article, and that simply can't be justified.

This is how the page on Lovecraftianism got deleted: someone filled the page with information on Lovecraftian horror, so much so that it became the main focus of the page, and the Lovecraftianism page got merged into the Lovecraftian horror page, even though Lovecraftianism and Lovecraftian horror are two completely different subjects. Now Wikipedia lacks a page dealing with Lovecraftianism (the subculture and spiritualism), and it would be a damned shame to see that happen again, here.

Additionally, many pages here on Wikipedia cover similar subjects and overlap to an even greater degree than dragons and European dragons. Consider Norse mythology and Germanic mythology, for example, or American English and British English. The need to contrast European dragons with Oriental dragons is just as great, leaving only the option to delete the page on dragons in general by merging it into the European dragon page. But that would be like getting rid of the page on mythology, or the page on English, to extend the comparison.

I say again: These are subjects that deserve individual treatment. Dragons as a whole is one subject, and European dragons is another, more specific subject. If the content of the two pages is so similar that a merge has been proposed, then answer is to rewrite the articles so that this is no longer the case. In other words, "improve, don't delete"! --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 19:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. Sorry for the extensive redundancies, but given the reasons I'm seeing for the merge and the fact that it was even suggested to begin with, as well as the apparent education and comprehension level of some of the contributors I see posting on the talk page, I felt the need to explain this using as many different wordings as possible.)

  • Merge - The problem with leaving the page as it is (other than it being a huge mess of OR garble) is that East Asian "dragons" aren't really dragons, but lóng. They're generally referred to as "dragons" due to both creatures being large, fantastic serpents, but otherwise, aside from some latter-day psychological theorizing, their mythologies are completely unrelated. It's like having one page for "Unicorns" and another for "Western Unicorns", with the first discussing unicorns, qilin, and any other unrelated magical horned, ungulate-like beasts that have at one time or another had the "unicorn" label stuck on them. At the very least this article should become a disambiguation page with a short explanation of how the overgrown reptile motif is found in a variety of cultures, and links to all the various legendary snake or lizard creatures that have been called "dragons" at some point or another, and whatever article discusses generalized "dragons" in modern fantasy fiction. Kotengu 小天狗 06:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC) (--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)i agree but chinese/japenese dragons are more or less serpents that are reltives to th dragon if any thing the word dragon should be hyperlinked to the europen dragon if not merged because when the word dragon what pops into your head does a little dragon/serpent thing pop up? or a huge euro dragon like Merlin's dragon Drake? Europe dragon should be the main species and all other dragon things should be sub-species.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC))but they should at least be merged and cleand up so only what you can call a dragonshould remain
I'd mostly agree, except that this is the English language version of Wikipedia, and in the English language, the term "dragon" refers not just to Drakes (the stereotypical four-legged, two-winged fire-belchers), but to other western creatures like the Wyvern
yea example of sub-species --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
and the Tarasque, as well as to lóng
--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)see above sentencr by me for my thought--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
and many other supernatural reptilian creatures all over the globe. We could choose to disregard this fact and decide that this usage isn't respectful enough to the post-millennial multicultural mindset, but that would be pushing a flavor-of-the-month POV -- a particularly nasty form of POV-pushing that rages almost completely unchecked here on Wikipedia (people have a tendency not to want to admit that a flavor-of-the-month POV is even a POV at all, because it is, after all, the flavor of the month). We can't just redefine the English language to suite our sensibilities. --Þórrstejn [ˡθoɝ.staɪʲn]: Hammer of Thor talk 13:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Partially for the reasons stated by Kotengu but also just for simple neatness. Where I differ is that I think it is the Dragon article, not the European Dragon article, that could be merged. Given the weight of dragons and dragon-like creatures in mythologies, I think Dragon itself could be a disambiguation page leading to more in-depth articles about the specific varieties. Onikage725 13:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)he has a point it sure aint neat--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC))
  • Disagree. Individual dragon types are pretty distinct, it only serves to reason that we would have subarticles on 'european dragon', american 'feathered serpent' or 'asian dragon'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC) that is good idea but the article should start with a common trait between all dragons then have chapters on different species and their sybolism.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve. Strongly agree with Thorstejnn. The debate on whether the Chinese long and other dragon-like creatures should be technically considered dragon isn't meaningful. The fact is that they are refered to as dragon, even if not completely appropriately. In this sense, dragon is really a broad category akin to, using Thorstejnn's examples, "cuisine" or "mythology". As such, it should have more emphasis on an overview and cut down on the details of the culture-specific stuff, but the separate articles should definitely be kept. o 23:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge just because there is plenty of room to expand both this article and European dragon that they are better off being two articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC) (two articles make it harder to find because not every kid knows evry type of dragon.--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC))

Dragons are some of the most talked about mythical creatures and there are a lot to talk about them. I think both articles should be separated (or, if you're merging European Dragon with this article, you should merge Eastern Dragon too).--Midasminus 16:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that there should at least be something about the european dragon on this page even if you don't merge the two pages. After all, dragons have appeared in almost every culture around the world so there must be some kind of connection between all of them. As for merging the pages, I vote yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drizzt3737 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy merge All a euro is is another species of dragon. This entire discussion is stupid. Euros should have been in here in the first place.--Gp75motorsports 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (right on motor--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Strongly Oppose merge European dragons are distinct enough to justify their existence generally from dragons. The person who suggested this ignorantly assumes that the word dragon in english generally refers to european dragons. While that may be true, scholars have noted the difference generally between eastern in western dragons. In the east, dragons can often be considered gods, wheras in western mythology they are monsters of some sort. (not all dragons are evil. but it needs to merge evil or not--ANOMALY-117 (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)) I think it is a terrible academic travesty to merge these articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.252.213 (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Do not merge

There are clear differences between western and eastern cultural perceptions of dragons. While they are both called dragon, the European view of them is one of evil, fearful creatures with far different appearances than that of the Asian perception. Asian dragons are symbolically lucky, beneficial creatures by nature. To merge the two would be akin to merging Anchor and Anchor (climbing). The two are homonyms, and not one and the same. Danakin (talk) 03:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Oppose merge: There's enough info here that it would be detrimental to the main dragon article (by cluttering it) or you'd have to remove and compress a lot of the info contained in this article. Keep them separate. --BHC (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as is and Oppose merge: As per BHC may I remind you that wikipedia is not paper and there is enough topical information in this article to keep it as a separate entity. Is it that hard to just provide well placed links to this article? Even the Chinese, Korean and Japanese dragons have their own page. It would be both inconsistent and counterproductive to do otherwise. --Stux (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not merge*: as per Danakin, and ANOMALY-117. All those types are differing enough to diserve their own article. However, there should be a couple of lines in this article explaining them, and then they can link to the Euro Dragon or Chinese Dragon or whatever. Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 13:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


      • DO NOT MERGE***

Both articles are completely different and people should post only things about european dragons on the european dragon sight.

I do however think that the article "Chinese Dragons" should be changed to Asian dragons to dscuss that area as a whole.

Connor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.131.176 (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another Page for chinese lóng?

If we maintain one page for western dragons in order not to clutter the main Dragon page with all the Western Dragon info, then perhaps we should make another page for Chinese lóng. Since these are very different from not only, say Welsh dragons, but most dragons from Poland to Thailand, it is the lóng which probably needs a page of its own at least as much. The arguments on both sides here are reasonable and deserve a good think, so please keep ones tone apt, not smart-ass.

IceDragon64 13:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Chinese dragon. Kuru talk 23:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's one- could we merge the Japanese dragon and Korean dragon articles with the Chinese Dragon article under a broader heading? They are all similar in concept, and different from those discussed in the European dragon article. Onikage725 00:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Korean_dragon. Anyway, the Japanese dragon especially, but all three dragons (Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese), have enough information about them to warrant separate articles. If you're going to request merging them, then you should also be requesting merges for Slavic dragons, Chuvash dragons, and Dragons in Greek mythology into European dragon as well. It's not fair to only distinguish between the different European dragons and not the different Asian dragons. 24.14.198.8 03:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Chris G.


Irrespective of the subject, the intention of the wiki needs to be kept in mind that its purpose is encyclopaedic rather than a treatise on the subject. The development of Western and Eastern dragons share enough similarities for the layperson to search for Dragons without understanding the variables that set aside the two. For the facility of the user, the single page would be best. To those who discuss the matter with an inticate knowledge on the matter, a Wiki article is probably of little use to their existing knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.225.54 (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, that's fine, but it's Lung, not Lóng. I read that in Dragonology. --Pumagirl7 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that if you were to get a different page for all the different types of dragons we would crash the internet. If we compromise and put all the different types on one page, listing general differences, and letting them do a manual search for the different dragons, it would be a litle more effeicient. For example-

Dragons of Asia- Asian dragons are called lungs, and resemble snakes with four legs. although the number of toes vary among them, they all have the same temperment and...

I think this would work. -Andromoidus

[edit] Why the deletion?

Why has the list of world dragon myths been shortened? The Taniwha is at least as much a "dragon" as the Feathered Serpent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NakedCelt (talk • contribs) 07:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean amphitheare? Sorry to be such a smart alec, but i like dragons too much. Also, if it is just a single dragon,(for example Niddhog) It might be mistaken for a name, not a species. I've yet to hear of the Taniwha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.125.250 (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Watersprout Connection

Irememeber i read somewhere that legends of oriental dragons might come from watersprouts too. Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.102.115 (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The greek meaning?

Is it worth mentioning, do you think, that the Greek word Drakon or Drakonta meant to guard or to watch. As it was these words that inspired the Latin word Draco or Draconis which in turn inspired our word Dragon i felt it was rather apt to explain the initial meaning of the word.

This also tells us a lot about the greek dragons characteristics or at least in part how the dragon was viewed and that perhaps they were thought of as guardians in europe, at least for a time. Much of this is speculation but the words meanings are fact.

Just a thought.

[edit] Dinosaur connection

No discussion of connections to Asians thinking dinosaur bones were dragons and thus our dragons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.22.104 (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I believe dragons were dinosaurs, living with men. Many indications from history shows men have always known about Dinosaurs. The word "dinosaur" wasn't created until the 1700s so what else would they call them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.191.141 (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ground-up rewrite?

This article suffers, at its core, from the bogus assumption that the word "dragon" has a central meaning in the way that "color" or "frog" does. All of the sections talk about "dragons" as if there were some ur-Dragon, some common draconality at the heart of the discussion. In fact, of course, the English language lumps creatures from all sorts of mythic traditions together under this term, with some editors more aggressive than others in dragging other culture's big-reptile myths under the umbrella. We need to think about a total re-write of this article, beginning to end, reflecting this latter reality. --Orange Mike 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just went to your talkpage to follow up on SCA (and Poul Andersen) and saw there was a conversation about dragons going on. Couldn't resist. After several minutes of "thinking out loud" I've cut most of what I wrote and posted it here. I've set up a sandbox at User:Paularblaster/Here_be_dragons to try out some radical editing and rewriting that won't be too disruptive. Haven't actually started yet. Feel free to join in everyone. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Creation "science"?

i'm altering the phrase "creation scientists" in the section on christianity. to call themselves scientists becaus ethey have a science-related degree is one thing, but to call them "creation scientists" suggests that what they do is, in fact, scientific, when it most assuredly is not. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

cut out the very last sent in the pgh, too. if they want to read more of this garbage, they can follow the citation. - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at The "Kent Hovind" article. His website is www.drdino.com, another good one is www.evolution-facts.org.

heard it, seen it, watched the movie. this denialism isn't new; grew up young-earth creationist, and the garbage is constantly recycled. get over it. - Metanoid (talk, email) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at your rude comments. And Wikipedia claims to be unbiased. *Rolls eyes*--72.80.32.187 (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Hi guys

I was wondering on what your opinions about the lack of sources refferred to and likewise, the lack of links. The dragons page on Wikipedia is pretty phenominal but it cannot cover everything. There are many aspects of the dragon mythology missing. Mainly that of different viewpoints. Because mythology often boreders the unknown there is much speculation surrounding the areas where there are no facts. Therefore i think it might be worth putting in links to valid websites which deal with dragons in a responsible way.

Now i have to admit that i have a not so hidden agenda here. I feel there are a few websites which deserve mentioning here.

The 1st and foremost i would like to put forward is the Dragon Stone by Polenth. A superb resource with a fair bit of infomation about dragons. Much of it is fact, much of it is speculation. But it does generally state which is which

I would also like to put my site forward as a link. Dragons Touch. I of course would vouch for its validity but i dont think i count due to being biased. However it is similar to Dragon stone in that it does state when reading is speculation or fact.

Just my opinion, but i feel sites like these would be a welcome addition to the Dragon wiki,

What are your opinions? Perhaps i am very mistaken?

(Dariune (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but neither of these sites meet our standards for reliable sources, nor our guidelines for external links. They are dragon fansites: venues for speculation and guesswork, with no scholarly content not better found directly elsewhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I had a feeling you might reply like that and if i can i would like to ask one more question. Could you elaborate? In what respect do you mean scholarly? Are we looking for university educated researchers? In which case i currently have a paleontology professer who teaches at a university in England (i cant mention which one yet) researching a theory for the dragons anatomy with me. How is it they break the standards? I can assure you there is no guesswork on either site. Though there is much speculation, there always is with hostory or mythology.
I am not trying to be argumentative nor do i actually have any real hope of getting either site onto the page. I am partly just creating conversation and mostly genuinly interested in where the Wikipedia boys are coming from.
Thanks (Dariune (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC))
Well, some of our best boys are girls, of course. More seriously: by scholarly, I mean the kind of thing that would pass peer review in a paleontological or archeological journal, as opposed to fun speculation and intellectual gameplaying of the sort that makes a good science fiction fanzine article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course i meant girls as well ;) Orange thankyou for your answer. That short reply managed to answer all of my questions. I finally understand what it is you are looking for. I dont think Dragons Touch has potential to appear on here. Especially given the projects in circulation at DT at the moment. However, you are right, Dragons Touch is not ready to appear here as it stands now. I dont know what the Dragon Stone is currently working on, but i do know much of their infomation is recipricated. Therefore is also not ready to be here.

You may well hear from me again with the same question in the future. But not until i have subjected my own work for a Peer Review. And my own work will not be complete for a short while yet. (Dariune (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

The thing you have to decide for your site is what your goal is. If it's to be recognised as an academic resource of the sort that could be in a journal, you'd have to cut most of your site. It isn't just a case of making sure the mythology sections are researched well... you'd need to cut anything speculative from the whole site. It isn't worth doing that for the sake of a link from Wikipedia. Nor would most people suggest it. Your site doesn't have to match Wikipedia's goals to be a good site. Goals like fun and encouraging speculation/debate are perfectly valid goals for a site. Polenth (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh i couldnt agree more. hello Polenth :) No, what i will suggesting be put as a link will be the work im currently doing. But that will be for another conversation. I personally feel you cannot hav a site deciated to any style of mythology with out educated speculation or even guesswork. There are some things we just dont know, especially about a creature that doesnt exist. We are infact delving into the physche of the human mind during various periods of history. That being the case you cannot claim fact %100 of the time. The only facts are the pieces of physical evidence found and even then we can but assume on their purpose. So i do not propose to change my site to get a link from Wiki nor do i feel the need to make getting a link my goal. I was merely interested in Wiki's answer.(Dariune (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC))
I had the same problem with Wiki, being deleted and links deleted because of make believe dragon agenda here. Then I wrote Occult Dragon, and atheist from here eventually stalked me and deleted and attacked me again. With a editor, mentor wannabe in tow they deleted me and ran away. lmvao To the point "make believe dragon agenda", Well yesterday Marines' Sea Dragon helicopter crashed at Corpus Cristie, Texas killing 3.Wuotan (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Occult dragon was deleted for CSD G1 - patent nonsense. Wikipedia is not many things, and for fictional topics that border on cultural phenomenon, it's pretty difficult to write a strong article - lots of popular support, little academic attention. I'd guess that all of the cryptozoology articles are like this. WLU (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's a thought though, there is a DMOZ on dragons:
Dragon at the Open Directory Project
Any thoughts on including it? It does include a lot of the fan sites and it means we don't have to link to a thousand of them. WLU (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
again a god damned idiot has the string on the back of his neck pulled and he insults me. Occult dragon is the truth and censorship against legitmate understanding is why it isn't here.Wuotan (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too many images

This article is getting crowded with images; we already link to the Commons gallery at the bottom (and could, if needed, add our own gallery). Any thoughts on which to remove? I'll wait a reasonable period for comments. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've removed a likely non-free image which was recently added, and may well end up deleted. There's an argument for removing Image:Ouroboros 1.jpg on the basis that it doesn't illustrate the text near which it is placed, and can be seen at the article Ouroboros which is linked in a different paragraph. There's no mention in the entire article of the dragon waterspout at Ulm Cathedral, so I'm unsure as to why Image:Germany Ulm Dragon.jpg is being used. --Sturm 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hadn't noticed this talk section before removing the Ouroboros and Ulm pictures, for exactly the same reason. The Naga could also go, under the same reasoning, and I'm not sure what the Peruvian artifact is illustrating, when the article makes no mention of Peru. --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you (guys working here) have done a nice image research. Congratulations.--20-dude (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discovery Channel crap

Lately there have been several (or one that they rerun a lot) specials about dragons in which they talk about reptilian creatures that produced fire with their breath. I'm plenty aware Discovery Channel if not that good as a source of scientific cites, and I have not seen them myself (the special[s], of course :P), but several of my friends were left under the impression they were talking about creatures that really existed.

I'm not implying that we should go along with the Discovery's publication at all, stating that there might have been such creature. But it could be nice to talk about what the special mentioned and research where does its idea of such creatures came from. Something like Discovery Channel has said "this" about possibly real dragons, comming from "X" source, but "Y" top scientific/academic institution has "Z" position." You know what I mean?--20-dude (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've closed the poll on the article merge

I've closed the poll on the article merge. It was opened all the way back in July of 2007 and there's been no clear consensus. Start a new poll if anybody wants to, I have no objection to a new poll. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons breathe Ice

In the Spyro games, Spyro The Dragon can breathe Ice, he also can breathe lightning, so there are sources for this. The Winged Yoshi —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Winged Yoshi (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very non-notable as related to the archetype on the whole; while yes, dragons traditionally breathed fire (and poison, incidentally, a trope which came back in D&D) I think it was D&D which really brought the "dragons breathing everything" to the forefront, and while perhaps slightly notable, I don't know that it is very important. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

Because of this edit:

Most experts on mythology and folklore argue that legends of dragons are based upon ordinary snakes and similar creatures coupled with common psychological fears amongst disparate groups of humans.

I've added the weasel words tag. X Marks The Spot (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two of the same picture

The carving in the Hopperstad church appears twice in the same section with slightly different captions. If someone has a good replacement image for one of these, that would be excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thee darcy (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naga

Since when are Nagas dragons? The word Naga is more associated with serpents & giant serpents. (Because under the definition of this article, than a anaconda would be a "dragon") In fact the word is used, generically, to refer to serpents. Furthered by the fact that Nagas have human attributes, something dragons lack. Xuchilbara (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dragon Toes

It says on this page that Chinese Dragons have 4 claws on each foot, but it says on the Chinese Dragon page that it has 5 claws on each foot. Would somebody please find the right information and correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.224.134 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)