Talk:List of dragons

Wondering
I don't know about you all but i think lists like this should be backed by a page reference instead of just random dragons or whatever from wherever they are from. Not saying i don't believe you just something to verify the "finds".Pharuan Undearth 22:54, June 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * We cite all sources of our information on the Dragons of Faerûn. Citations are required to be at the bottom of the page in list format and there are numbers that correspond to the pertinent areas of text. We don't "make it up" and as such, don't need some lengthy useless page of sources when we have them on the actual article. ^_^


 * Jonathan Cardin 17:58, June 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem with that is that not all of the dragons are the list are all from Dragons of Faerûn. While it's a very long list, it's not all-inclusive. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there have certainly been dragons created since the publication of that sourcebook.


 * In my opinion, the page shouldn't exist. It's pretty much a huge list of scant information that would be more properly - and more inclusive - in Category:Dragons. Each link on the page should lead to an article that gets added to that category. Cronje (talk - contribs) 18:17, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

But will the Category:Dragons be updated with the names, or will the names be dropped?

Jonathan Cardin 06:01, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

AFIK, the only way to have all the dragons show up in a "dragon" category is if each dragon has its own page. If the list is deleted, then all the dragons without a page will disappear from the Wiki.

It would be nice to see citations for all the dragons; with a list this long there are almost certainly some non-canonical dragons in the list. I can add sources to the ten or so dragons I added if necessary but if a substantial number of dragons are referenced, the footnote section will be as long as the list itself. If references are the direction everyone wants to go, I suggest marking the page with the "unreferenced" template and "pages in need of attention" template.

Boo Too - "Go for the eyes!" 02:57, June 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * See this is what i was talking about, If you "find" a dragon and add it to the page than make it a page with a in-text citation of its description and what not. not only will it "prove" that its an "actual" dragon, got not use quote marks, and not some homebrew name. Plus it would adress Jon's concern as well. :-) slightly happier since i brought this up. Just something that would help all those wanting to view the dragon realm. Pharuan Undearth 03:39, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Status
Whether or not this page should exist... I feel the "status" column should be removed based on Forgotten Realms Wiki:Remove wiki from timeline. Thoughts? -Darkwynters (talk) 17:25, August 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * "In my opinion, the page shouldn't exist. It's pretty much a huge list of scant information that would be more properly - and more inclusive - in Category:Dragons. Each link on the page should lead to an article that gets added to that category. Cronje (talk - contribs) 18:17, June 16, 2011 (UTC)"
 * That was said by Cronje in 2011. I think we have categories for pages like these. But for sure, the status should either be deleted or changed to something saying their time of death or trasnformation (to dragonliches and etc)(if we keep the page. In the occasion of deleting the page, we can make a page with the stub template for each of the referenced dragons without a page and put them into the proper categories) and slowly work on those pages too. Jandor  (talk ⋅ contribs ) 18:01, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need this page either. All it does it reprint the table from the back of Dragons of Faerûn and the web enhancement to the same. Some other dragons have been added, but some others haven't. It doesn't automatically update like the dragon categories, making it not particularly useful.

Regardless, the status column is fine by the timeline rule as its pinned to a date. But again, that makes it less useful for 4th edition dragons. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:39, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * +1 to removing this page and stubbing as needed. Mpj (talk) 17:22, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think you might have jumped the gun a bit on the deletion. "It's just a list from Dragons of Faerun" is not the case as it's a list from all canon sources. "There's a category page for this" is not valid because the category page only provides names, not a sortable list of other information. Would be interested in other reasons why it shouldn't exist, but for me, neither of the ones given are convincing enough! Fw190a8 (talk &middot; contr) 12:08, April 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * As requested by High admin FW (Good to hear from you again, BTW)... I am restoring the page based on further debate :) - Darkwynters (talk) 22:34, April 7, 2014 (UTC)

Lesser dragons
Do we want to include individual lesser dragons here? (I just realized that a sea wyrm is presumably a lesser dragon.) The page is already very long by its purpose, but I guess there are not that many named lesser dragons, so I would rather include them. Daranios (talk) 16:44, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

Non-1374 DR sources
How should we deal with dragons from sources with other dates than Dragons of Faerûn with regard to the "Age in 1374 DR" and "Status in 1374 DR"?

When dealing with 1st/2nd edition source material, dating around 1357 DR to 1367 DR, I have usually used the given age information (these categories don't change fast after all), but omitted the status in the sourcebook. Should we do it like that (which omits nice information), should we make an educated guess as to the status (i.e. alive in 1357 DR probably means still alive in 1374 DR), should we make one footnote, should we make footnotes for each sourcebook-year, or...? Daranios (talk) 17:00, June 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, my opinion is that this page is not really needed. It started out as essentially plagiarism of a table already published in Dragons of Faerûn. Yes, it has been expanded, but I feel that the same information is already covered by our category system. I know that not everyone agrees with my view on this, but your question exposes yet another reason such a table is not that helpful outside a book linked to a certain year.


 * I'm not sure how to deal with the problem.


 * ~ Lhynard (talk) 19:25, June 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * As long as we keep the list, we could make it a littel bit less derivative by putting "Age category" and "Status" next to each other without the 1374 DR and add a column "As of" next to it. The "As of" would be a bit arbitraryly chosen by the author, but will of course usually be the (latest) sourcebook date. Daranios (talk) 09:18, June 30, 2016 (UTC)