Talk:Dragon

Cleanup Discussion

Three things:
1.) Should this page include a table of dragon-age groups?
I.e. Wyrmling, Young, Adult, Anchient,Great Wyrm, etc.

2.) How best to organize the various sub-types of dragon and related creatures
True Dragons vs. Azi vs. Drakes etc?

3.) Iomedae help me, this page needs an image. —This unsigned post was made by Capt pantsless. Please sign all posts with ~~~~.

1) I don't think a table of age groups is necessary, but a mention of the names associated with a true dragon's life cycle certainly belongs in an ecology section.

2) I think subtypes should each get a brief paragraph within a level 1 header called , each with a {{Main}} link directing users to the main article on that type of dragon.

3) We have many images of dragons that haven't been used anywhere else on the wiki. Check out Special:UnusedImages to look for one, or reuse one that appears somewhere else. —yoda8myhead 22:01, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Upon further examination of the page, I think this: I think the generic information on dragons as presented in the Dragon, Color/Metal sections of the Bestiary should be in an article called True dragons, and should list all the types presented there, as well as other true dragons added to the world later (such as the umbral dragon. In fact, I think much of the information on this page should exist there, as tatzlwyrms and pseudodragons don't share more than a creature type with true dragons, and much of the flavor people look for when searching for "dragon" is for the history, culture, and specifics of true dragons. We may even want to redirect dragon to true dragon and leave a dismbiguation template at the top directing users to Category:Dragons for a listing of creatures of the dragon type.

Keep in mind as well that articles should focus on information unique to Golarion, such as draconic deities, history, etc. as outlined in Dragons Revisited or the dragons article in Sins of the Saviors. While general information on "baseline" Pathfinder is fine to provide context, it should be secondary to information from canon (as opposed to setting-neutral) sources.

In all, I think this is a complex subject with a lot of information to compile and organize and that what you've done thus far is a great start. When in doubt, bear in mind the be bold tenet of wiki editing, but don't hesitate to ask for second opinions on anything. —yoda8myhead 05:10, April 10, 2010 (UTC)