Talk:Dragon

Split Dragon (Yoshi Island) and Dragon (Species)

Ok, I don't know how to tell this, but I think that we messed this article with something official and not official in my opinion. I mean, we have Dragon seen in yoshi island, and I assume that is the official name for it, but I find that all the "dragons" seen in the Marioverse are called Dragons as well and now the article has been disorganized by adding this consideration. I propose to split the Dragon seen in the yoshi series and the dragons as a species (or a therm in general) seen in the Marioverse because I don't see if this name refers both those seen in the yoshi series and all in the mario world. Got it?

Proposer: Coincollector (talk)
Deadline: March 12 2010, 23:59

Split

1. Coincollector (talk)
2. BabyLuigiOnFire (talk) per Collectorcoin and the proposal.
3. FourPaperHeroes (talk) per Coincollector and the proposal.
4. Gamefreak75 (talk) Per CC.
5. Mr bones (talk) Per all.
6. KS3 (talk) per all.
7. Walkazo (talk) - Per Coincollector.

Comments

Can the Dragon (species) article still have a link to the Dragon (Yoshi Island) article? -FourPaperHeroes 00:58, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Of course.

¢oincoll€ctor

Maybe it would be better to leave the general dragon page here, as plain "Dragon", since "Dragon (Species)" is a misnomer: the various dragons seen in the Mario series are not members of any one species. - Walkazo 00:52, 27 February 2010 (EST)

OK, not exactly I try to refer dragons as species. As you can read the words in brackets, or have an article with the name "Dragon" as a general therm.

¢oincoll€ctor

Deletion?

Why is this being deleted? Mario JC

Can't you wait five minutes for me to say my reason? Anyhow, onto to my reason. This article squishes TONS of different dragons into one article, despite none of then having any relation other than being dragons. Heck, I doubt the Mario series ever called any of them dragons, so this is a speculative article. So, I say this should be deleted. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Well, as soon as I saw the deletion template, I just went straight to the talk page and asked why it's being deleted, that's all. And yes, the series never stated them as dragons, and (probably) soon everyone's going to make articles of all the birds or all the fish or whatever. Mario JC

Penguin, Elephant, Poop, Garlic, there are tons of articles like this one. Hello, I'm Time Turner.

Wow. Why aren't the Poop and Elephant articles pending deletion then (all insignificant, especially Poop)? Penguin is alright, it's conjectural. Mario JC

Makes no sense to be deleting this article, since dragons are just another type of species. Of course, an article of speculative nature doesn't work with the Mario Wiki. M&SG (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2010 (EDT)

Weird... I though I already left a comment on this talk page. Perhaps it was on one of the dozens of other articles that are like this one. Anyway, the deletion of this is quite justified. We don't need an article that lists every appearance of any dragons in the series, just like we don't need an article list of all dragons that ever existed. For these matters we have categories. Furthermore, just look at this article and its mix and match structure. Too many different subjects are mixed and pretendedly treated as one, when they have actually nothing to do with each other. There is a section that deals with the life-span of dragons. Even if we disregard that we don't even know if those dragons all have the same expected life span: The section features a picture of Bonetail. Nowhere in PM2 is even made a reference about Bonetail's age (plus, the name "Bonetail" suggests that it might have always looked like that, making the section pointless) , so drawing conclusions about a dragon's life span from this particular individual is impossible at best. This example shows the condition of the article pretty well. It is an article without structure, so we better do away with it. Or even better: Split the article and give the info to the specific dragons it actually belongs to. - Gabumon^(talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

So I assume this means articles like Elephant, Dog, Dinosaur, etc should also be deleted. (Other examples of what this would apply to: Frog, Polar Bear, Pig, Apple) --Marcelagus (T • C • E)

Rather than delete all these sorts of pages, I think they should simply be stripped of all the information that can go on actual species or character articles, leaving these namespaces for the actual "Real Life"-like beasties, like how Dog is currently formatted. In this article's case, everything would go but the section about the actual Chinese dragon from The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3, and maybe the as-yet unnamed Donkey Kong Jungle Beat dragon, for lack of a better location. - Walkazo 05:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize

I think we should just reorganize this article for a couple reasons.

1#. Many blue links that direct to this page would become red links.

2#. I do not think you could recover this article again if you delete it.

3#. If you deleted it and then recovered it the process of putting new links to and from this page would be hard and frustrating, as one letter can make the difference between a red link and a blue link.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joeyjumper94 (talk).

Keep, Delete, or Trim the Article

Template:SettledTPP Template:ProposalOutcome This has been discussed in detail up above, and more briefly over on the forums, so go read the other comments first. There are really three major stances that one could take here: Completely deleting the article from the wiki, stripping the article of all the info excluding the Chinese dragon from The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 and potentially the dragon from Donkey Kong Jungle Beat, as suggested by Walkazo, or just leaving the article as it is. I'm all for the option that Walkazo suggested, considering that while all the other dragons have articles that give much more information on their respective dragons, the TAoSMB3 and DKJB dragons don't actually have articles elsewhere, though due to the major visual difference between the two of them, the dragon from Jungle Beat could be split into its own article with a conjectural name.

Proposer: GreenDisaster (talk)
Deadline: October 23, 2012, 23:59 GMT

Trim Article

1. GreenDisaster (talk) Per Walkazo's statements.
2. Zero777 (talk) I believe this is the best way to go because mostly all the dragons have their own respectful article but I don't believe that means we should completely remove those sections in this article. We should leave the sections there and trim it down to leave minute information so guests are forced to go to the respectful, informed articles.
3. Coooool123 (talk) Per all. Besides, if we delete the article, we could be getting rid of some info that isn't anywhere else.
4. Walkazo (talk) - Per GreenDisaster (i.e. per myself, as well as the Generic Subject policy): leave the real world dragon from the cartoon, split the DKJB dragon, and remove everything else (except from the infobox, like how Dog lists the non-generic dog species and character, yet doesn't go into them in-depth in the body text).
5. Yoshi K (talk) Per all.
6. Bop1996 (talk) Per Walkazo.
7. Vommack (talk) Per Walkazo and Zero.
8. Mario4Ever (talk) Per Walkazo.

This article is rather pathetic in its current state

This talk page or section has a conflict or question that needs to be answered. Please try to help and resolve the issue by leaving a comment.

So is it really worth keeping? It has a few-second-long appearance from a cartoon and then a main article, and an infobox with a Wario's Woods character picture and some species and characters listed. I don't see much purpose, as the only generic appearance (which was actually the Great Wall of China) wasn't really enough to warrant its own article, it would appear. Doc von Schmeltwick (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2018 (EST)

Unlike the giraffe and elephant, the dragon has at least some significance to the story, but whether that level of significance still warrants its own article, I'm not sure myself. Mario JC 23:12, 11 June 2018 (EDT)

Adding category

Should I add a Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door category? File:NightWing.pngStarclimber the NightWing (message) 22:31, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

The dragons in the game (Hooktail, Bonetail and Gloomtail) already have categories, so that's not necessary. Mario JC 22:35, 16 June 2018 (EDT)

Banish this article to the fiery depths

This talk page section contains an unresolved talk page proposal. Please try to help and resolve the issue by voting or leaving a comment.

Current time: Saturday, November 30, 2024, 04:58 GMT

Just when I thought Chicken and Elephant were bad enough, I then realize that this pathetic excuse of an article is an even worse violation of the generic subjects policy.

Lord of the Rings joke aside, this page is a total mess. To start, we already have a relevant category for the article's subject (à la "category in article form"). Additionally, the way this article is structured makes no sense. The infobox picture is of Drago, who already has his own article. Furthermore, the only listed appearance in the article is in The Adventures of Super Mario Bros. 3 episode "7 Continents for 7 Koopas", where it is treated as more of a plot device than an actual character, and is better off mentioned in the article's plot summary (where it is already mentioned). And then there's trivia, which mentions some needless information about Super Dragon, and other than the inter-language section...that's about it, really.

Basically, I propose we delete this article, as well as its corresponding gallery, and then move Dragon (Yoshi's Story) over here. Yes, this really needs to go.

Proposer: Toadette the Achiever (talk)
Deadline: July 22, 2020, 23:59 GMT

Banish it to the nth dimension

1. Toadette the Achiever (talk) Let's rid ourselves of this ludicrous article that is a medieval holdout of its fallen comrades. Clearly unworthy of a victory of any kind.
2. Waluigi Time (talk) Yeah, this isn't worth having an article. The gallery especially shows how painfully generic this article is. I'm surprised it's still around to be honest.