Talk:List of dragons in popular culture

Merge

The title "Dragons in fiction and literature" is much better, since all dragons are fictional. We wouldn't have a "List of multicellular turtles" or a "List of people who have parents." On the other hand, the other article needs to be cleaned up. So merging the content into this format is a good idea, but use the other title. 128.227.68.119 13:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That title may be better, but fiction is something purposefully created. The original dragons were from legend, which is something different. Mythology believed to be true by the people who think it, fiction is known to be false by the people who spread it. Please don't confuse the terms. This article only talks about dragons in fiction, not in myth and legend. DreamGuy 06:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This should be merged into Dragons in literature and fiction, which is a better name anyway.--SkiDragon (talk) 13:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Useful for research, but better if the items were in publication-date order. Ianadamicr (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Confusing, and very long.

This article should possibly be considered to be split. As a list, it is not very helpful at all, and appears to be an indiscriminate list. If the article were expanded to add context to all these dragons, it would become exceedingly long, and no longer a list. Would it be a good idea to split it apart to allow for expansion, or should it remain as a list without detail? --Taelus (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of dragons

They substantially cover the same topic. However, which style of the list should be used is up for debate. Should it be (a) more substantial as in List of dragons or (b) more like List of dragons in popular culture and bulleted? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

No merger – The article List of dragons in popular culture has very limited citations and is an article with other issues including trivial information, I would like to see that specific article improved (or deleted) before any merger was even considered. List of dragons in mythology and folklore is not the same topic either, people actually believed in these stories and the popular culture version of the list is about fictional dragons. If you want to learn more about editing styles of WP, please review MOS:LIST. Jooojay (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

List of dragons in popular culture and List of dragons in fiction could be merged, I suppose. But really, most of the content on these pages are already listed in List of dragons in literature, List of dragons in film and television, and List of dragons in games. (It looks like the puppets section could be merged to the television list page.) So all of that content should be pruned/merged to those list pages. I also think there is enough info here for the split/creation of List of dragons in comics and animation, as well. And List of fictional dogs#Sporting and advertising mascots appears to show a way forward on how to handle sports team names. - jc37 19:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jc37: Hi, after series of edits, I think it is good time to merge them. I will try to merge them in the best way possible.EchoBlu (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@EchoBlu: Your efforts are most appreciated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge with List of dragons in mythology and folklore

See discussion at Talk:List_of_dragons_in_mythology_and_folklore. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Charizard could be a giant fire lizard with wings!

This is something I've kind of thought of for a while. Charizard is fire/flying and not fire/dragon and I cannot really think of any instances where it mentions it's a dragon (I think one of its mega evolutions gets part dragon though). So maybe it's literally just a lizard with wings. It's name literally derives from charcoal and lizard, it's Japanese name also is from lizard and the "-don" most likely refers to it actually being a dragon, and that it literally starts out as Charmander, known as the "Lizard Pokémon". I mean, there are dragons that are literally stated to be dragons besides being dragon-type, and dragons in literature generally fly (an example of a dragon Pokémon that doesn't fly is Goodra, who is pure dragon type, the Hisuian form being steel/dragon, although the regular is the "Dragon Pokémon" and the Hisuian the "Shell Bunker Pokémon" which obviously does not state it being a dragon) so most dragon Pokémon that represent dragons do indeed fly. Even if you are a flying dragon if you need an extra type then you won't need the flying type, like Flygon who is ground/dragon and flies (literally in the name) so if Charizard quite literally is a dragon then why isn't it a dragon type? Maybe the reason is that having your first partner become dragon type is a little too powerful or something (unless you get in a fight with an ice or fairy or another dragon type) but in my opinion it sounds fine. Swoorm, who is the final form of Wabug, the water-type first partner in Buggol (one of my fan-made works) is water/dragon. I think there might be some clashing with Buggol's first partners considering Puffipuff is grass/fairy and Starlezlem is fire/poison so Puffipuff would be good against Swoorm because both of its types beat Swoorm's types. Trust me this all makes sense. And also, Swoorm is a winged dragon that isn't part flying. And then you get dragon-types that aren't exactly dragons, take Altaria for example who is a bird, but is dragon/flying. So this all makes sense for the page. Charizard is and isn't a dragon at the same time, but dragons are literally giant lizards with wings, so why not be a dragon-type? And you can also be a dragon without being a dragon (cough cough) Horsea, as the entire line is the "Dragon Pokémon" but are sea horses but Kingdra does have the dragon type and you do need to use a dragon scale for Seadra to evolve.

Thanks for hearing me ramble.

Lucy LostWord (ILike Leavanny) 18:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)