From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Apep as a dragon[edit]

The section "Historical African dragons" currently only links to the ancient Egyptian deity Apep. The linked article doesn't describe Apep as a dragon at all, and a quick Google search doesn't provide reliable sources considering Apep to be a dragon. As it stands, the "Historical African dragons" should be changed to explain how Apep could be considered a dragon, or not be included at all. If no one has anything to add to this, I will remove the section. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The distinction between a "big snake" snake and a "dragon" is often muddled. Most so-called "dragons" from ancient literature are actually giant serpents. The word Greek word δράκων itself, from which our word dragon is derived, originally meant "giant serpent." --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No mention of Fafnir or the Nibelungenlied?[edit]

Fafnir guards the gold hoard in this illustration by Arthur Rackham to Richard Wagner's Siegfried.

Draconic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A62:1174:1701:E5B5:6581:D20A:A99C (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2017[edit]

Dirtbike00121 (talk) 23:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


The image of the dragon has nothing to do with reptiles. It comes from the story of the Nibelungenlied with Siegfried and Fafnir .

They symbolism was that of the Roman army spread long and thin in the Tutoburg Forrest. 2601:806:4301:C100:19B5:657E:F4:ADF2 (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Quetzalcoatl/ Feathered Serpent / Kukulkan in Mesoamerica[edit]

What about including Quetzalcoatl (Feathered Serpent or Kukulkan) as a subsection? It meets the classic definition of a dragon, and it even flies. Stone depictions resemble a stereotypical dragon as well. It technically does not have 4 legs (in one rendition his human-like form he has 2), but again the classical definition of a dragon is based on serpents. Legs don't necessarily define a dragon (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think fits the description of a dragon, all that matters is what reliable sources label as dragons. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Well I believe that for the sake of information, it would be worth mentioning that a (asian type looking) dragon-like creature such as (Quetzalcoatl) or Kukulcan are part of a well documented mythology in mesoamerica. Raonipaes (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Opening a Can of Wyrms[edit]

As with similar subjects from the folklore record, we need to be very careful to avoid projecting modern concepts of dragons (a flying tyrannosaurus, as in Game of Thrones) unto the historical record. For example, historically speaking, the ancient Germanic image of a dragon appears to have most commonly been that of a monstrous serpent. This creature was generally called some reflex of Proto-Germanic *wurmiz, predecessor of modern English's "worm". At various twists and turns, this noun encompassed a semantic field ranging from earthworms to snakes to generally serpentine things, such as maggots. An example of the semantic ambiguity of this term can be found in the Nine Herbs Charm, where the Old English extension of the god Odin is invoked to assist one who has been evidently poisoned by a wyrm (Wyrm com snican, toslat he man; a genam Woden VIIII wuldortanas).

This raises an important issue: article scope. Currently, the article runs the risk of absorbing anything that writers deem to be 'dragon-like', whatever exactly that may mean. Vague parameters make for incoherence. So where's the limit to this article's scope? Shouldn't it just include creatures quite explicitly referred to as a dragon in the historical record and then build from there? :bloodofox: (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The word "dragon" comes from the Latin word draco, which comes from the Greek word δράκων. Both of these words refer to a monstrous serpent very much along the same lines of what you are describing. (See the images in the "Ancient Greece and Rome" section, which clearly show dragons as essentially giant serpents.) The word drakon could also sometimes be applied to ordinary snakes, although the usual word for such creatures is ophis. The words wyrm and dragon are effectively synonyms. The modern concept of a "dragon" with wings and legs is mostly a development of the High and Late Middle Ages that resulted from the conflation of the serpentine dragons in classical and Germanic mythology with references to Near Eastern "dragons" preserved in the Bible and the less snakelike creatures of European folk tradition. The "dragons" of Near Eastern tradition, the Graeco-Roman drakon, and the Germanic wyrm are all integral aspects of the development of the concept of a dragon. In any case, all these creatures are referred to in scholarly sources as "dragons." (For the "Ancient Near East" section, I actually imposed the distinction of "dragon-like" myself to avoid confusion with the "flying tyrannosaurus" you mention above; whereas my sources - written by specialists on Near Eastern art, symbolism, and religion - simply call them "dragons.") --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I haven't looked at the article's history, so I don't know where your work here begins and what was here before ends, so none of the comments are aimed at you.
Regarding scholarship, it looks like you're encountering an issue that I've also often encountered in dealing with what are supposed to be first-rate sources: lack of concision and clarity. I don't know how many times I've encountered a scholar casually throwing in the semantically ambiguous words such as "witch", "giant", or "demon" into a study without any context or reasoning, as if it's supposed to be crystal-clear as to what they mean. (The best examples of the problem occur when these terms are dropped into lengthy studies discussing the complexities surrounding some other entity from the folklore record!) Lack of concision in secondary sources definitely makes articles like this one tougher to write than one might expect, and requires a highly critical approach.
Anyway, I'm sure you're well aware of this at that point. We could probably clear up a lot of these issues by explicitly stating that a scholar refers to these entities as "dragons" or "dragon-like" or what have you and fleshing out the etymology section. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Redirect European dragon?[edit]

Should we just redirect European dragon to this article? As far as I can tell, it's redundant and its scope is artificially limited. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I have thought about that possibility. I think I would prefer to finish working on this article before I make I decision on whether I want to do that, though, because I am still trying to decide whether it may be a good idea to have a sub-article about European dragons in particular. It is worth noting that this article, in a much earlier phase in its development, was actually nothing more than a disambiguation page between the two articles European dragon and Chinese dragon. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Intending to review this. Further comments pending. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article. I really appreciate it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
First pass review

1a: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct[edit]

  • Much of the article breaks down dragons into geographic categories, which is very likely the only sane way to do this. But that makes the "Ancient world" section awkward. Are animal inspirations for dragons only applicable to the "Ancient world"? Clearly not, as the section even suggests that California's alligator lizards could serve as inspiration for dragons (more on this later).
It is necessary to have at least some grouping by time period, because it is the dragons discussed in the "Ancient world" section that ultimately developed into the later dragons of European folklore. I cannot describe the origins of the traditional western "dragon" unless I have already covered the ancient dragons that gave rise to it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Likewise, I have to follow "Ancient world" -> "Indo-European mythologies" -> "Ancient Greece and Rome" in order to find content about the dragon in the Book of Revelations (in a paragraph that starts by talking about Herodotus. That's probably not how a reader would expect that content to be presented. What's the cutoff for the "Ancient world"? You can see the problem in the section on the ouroboros which jumps from Ancient Egypt to medieval alchemy.
The traditional cutoff date for the "Ancient world" is usually given as 476 AD, with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor of the West Roman Empire, by the Germanic warlord Odoacer. That is, of course, a completely artificial date and there really is no exact date that we can definitely say marks the end of the "Ancient world" and beginning of the "Middle Ages." The date of what constitutes as "ancient" are often pushed much later for northern Europe, since it was not Christianized until much later.
The Book of Revelation was written during the late first century AD (probably during the reign of the emperor Domitian or thereabouts) on the Greek island of Patmos. That puts it very much within the confines of "Antiquity." Furthermore, although the author of the Book of Revelation is obviously a Jewish Christian, the work is best situated within its Greco-Roman historical context, especially since the "dragon" described in it is most closely in line with the Greco-Roman drakon or draco. (By the way, the correct title of the book is "Revelation," which is singular, not plural, since the whole book is one long revelation. It really irks me when people say "Revelations," because that is not the correct title.)
The chronological leap in the passage about the ouroboros is a necessary evil, in my view, unless you would prefer that I write about the ouroboros twice in two completely different sections, which I think would just be even more confusing. If you would like me to do that, though, I can move the last part about the ouroboros in medieval alchemy to the "Western Europe" subsection. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the structure problems are again apparently when we deal with dragons outside of Europe. Persian mythology, Bhutanese tradition, and Chinese / Japanese / Korean content are all bundled under "Orient", but the only section dealing with Indian folklore and myth is in the "Ancient world" -> "Indo-European mythologies" -> "Vedic India and Avestan Iran" subsection. The resulting problems in emphasis very nearly rise to being a neutrality problem rather than just a quibble with section headings.
How is this a neutrality problem? The Vedic myths clearly need to be under the "Indo-European mythologies" subheading, because that groups them with related mythologies. Vedic mythology is one of the earliest and best attested Indo-European mythologies and a major source for comparative mythology; that is why it is currently the first section under that subheading. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have now reorganized the article. The Indo-European mythology section has now been disbanded and I have moved part about India to the "Southwest Asia" section under "Orient." --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Specific grammar / wording concerns:
* "is linguistically cognate to" is awkward. "is ... a cognate of" is the more common construction.
All fixed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The latter half of the section about the Great Red Dragon of Revelations is... awkward, using "Dragon" as if it were a proper name (and in one case "Dragon the Great").
The source cited uses "Dragon" as a proper name and I have to follow what it says in the source. The translation of the passage from the Book of Revelation used in this paragraph uses the word as a proper name as well, and I cannot change how the author of the source chose to translate the passage. Using dragon as a common noun in this context would be original research, unless I were to find a different source that provides a different translation and does not use the word dragon as a proper name. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

3a: it addresses the main aspects of the topic[edit]

  • So, the big question for me, first and foremost, is the demarcation problem. The article presents the history of dragon folklore in (generally speaking) the Middle East in terms of a variety of vaguely serpentine mythological creatures: mušḫuššu, Python, Ladon, etc. What distinguishes these serpentine "prototypical dragons" from other sundry mythological snakes? Basically, how did you determine when something was dragon enough to be a dragon for inclusion here? In particular, the article seems to have determined that the various amphisbaenoid creatures of world myth aren't dragons, as none of them are included here, although there are certainly sources willing to call them dragons (see, for example: Carlson, John B. (1982). "The Double-Headed Dragon and the Sky: A Pervasive Cosmological Symbol". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 385 (1): 135–163.).
The word dragon has become widely and commonly applied to any mythological creature with serpentine qualities, in both popular and academic writings. All of the "sundry mythological snakes" you refer to would qualify as dragons as long as they have some kind of supernatural qualities. Python, Ladon, and the other dragons in the "Ancient Greece and Rome" section are explicitly referred to in Greek texts using the word drakon, which is the root of the modern English word dragon. They also provided much of the material for later European dragon myths. Even if this article were only about the traditional European dragon, I would definitely have to include information about the dragons in Greek mythology, due to their vital role in the development of the myth. For one thing, our idea about dragons guarding things comes, to a large extent, from the classical drakons. The mušḫuššu is widely referred to as a "dragon" in academic writings on the ancient Near East.
I personally would have liked to have taken a much stricter definition of the word dragon than it has in common parlance and written this article solely about the "dragons" of European mythology, since the word dragon, after all is a European word that has only latterly and rather spuriously come to be applied to mythical creatures elsewhere. Unfortunately, that approach is barred to us completely, since the word has been so extensively used to refer to any serpent-like mythological creature, regardless of how closely that creature actually resembles a traditional "dragon" or where in the world stories of that creature come from. If we did not at least talk about the East Asian long in this article, I am certain people would start a revolt on the talk page, since the word "dragon" has come to be applied to them so frequently and extensively. Of course, long are so utterly different from the traditional European definition of a "dragon" that, if we discuss them, we also have to include every other kind of mythological serpent.
I do not know which "amphisbaenoid creatures of world myth" you are referring to, but I would prefer not to expand our definition of the word "dragon" to include mythical creatures with features belonging to animals that are not snakes but resemble snakes. I think that the definition is already too broad as it is. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Are there no dragons, by any definition, outside of Europe, the Ancient Near East, India, and and East Asia? Depending in part on how you approach the demarcation problem above, that might mean the Congo's Mokele-mbembe (described as "half-dragon" to Hagnebeck), the Sisiutl of the Pacific Northwest, any of several entities from Mayan culture (such as Xiucoatl), and some native Peruvian forms.
There is nothing in the definition of a "dragon" that means that it necessarily has to come from Europe or Asia. Obviously, the word originates from Europe, but, as I have explained above, it has developed a ridiculously broad meaning. My knowledge mostly pertains to the mythologies of Europe and the Middle East, but, as far as I am aware, while the word "dragon" is sometimes applied to creatures from outside Europe and Asia, this application does not generally seem to be quite as common. I also could not find very many sources about "dragons" from other continents, least of all scholarly ones. I therefore saw fit to omit them. If you really think they need to be covered, I might be able to dig more and see what I can find. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there more to say about etymology (and nomenclature, in general)? Dragon itself, via French, is indeed a comparatively recent addition to English, but drake (with the same Latinate origin) dates back to the Old English of Beowulf. As does "worm" as a dragon-synonym (and the origin of the modern fantasy "wyrm" which is, ironically enough, the Old English spelling). Indeed, in Beowulf those even coexist: "Hwäðre him gesælde, þät þät swurd þurhwôd wrätlîcne wyrm, þät hit on wealle ätstôd, dryhtlîc îren; draca morðre swealt." (emphasis mine).

* Heraldry? This article is even in Category:Heraldic beasts, but I see no significant discussion of the dragon as a heraldic charge. Currently, the heraldry navigation template even points at this article, so there's an especial disconnect there. * Astronomy? Ptolemy put a dragon in the sky in the 2nd century, and I'm fairly sure that there are dragons in the stars of other cultures as well.

I will see what I can find about these three topics. I will be very busy for the next two weeks, though, so I do not know how much time I will have to look for information. I was not expecting this review to be picked up so swiftly and I thought I was going to have to wait at least a few months before someone finally came along to review it. I guess either the subject of the article attracts decent attention or the rate of GA reviews is finally starting to grow less backlogged. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have added paragraphs about dragons in medieval heraldry and in ancient Greek astronomy. I am still looking for sources about the etymologies of alternative words for "dragon." In the meantime, are you still there? I left extensive replies to your comments here five days ago, but you still have not responded to any of them. I understand that you are busy and have other things to do, but it is extremely difficult for me to know exactly what changes you want me to make when you do not respond for days on end. --Katolophyromai (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

* I'm concerned about your placement of the "Modern depictions" section, because it suggests that the only modern depictions of dragons are drawn from the European tradition. But that's certainly not the case.

I have moved it, per your request. The "Modern depictions" section was originally at the end of the article, but I moved it under the "Occident" heading because all the examples discussed in it are of western dragons. I do not know of other kinds of "dragons" making major cultural appearances, but I imagine that is probably because they are appearing in their countries of origin and, well, I live in the United States, so I do not see the movies they are making or read the books they are writing in China or wherever. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

4: Neutral[edit]

  • I'm a little concerned about the reliance on Bane for determining what counts as a dragon. Or, indeed, for much of anything. The article's approach to this topic is primarily a folkloric and mythological one, which is probably the correct way to go about things. But Bane doesn't have any credentials in those fields. She's a fiction author, fantasy roleplaying supplement author, and self-described "vampirologist". Indeed, in the work cited, she admits that browsing Google Books for 19th century or earlier sources was one of her primary means of research!
Google Books, which, incidentally, happens to be my main way of finding sources as well, is almost completely spammed with children's books about dragons, so I could hardly find any scholarly sources on the subject. I took the best sources I could find. I tried Google Scholar, but that turned up mostly children's books as well. I have been able to find a few decent, scholarly works for this article, but they only support certain parts of the article and fail to comprehensively cover the whole scope of it. This has repeatedly frustrated me and I have had to leave out some dragon stories that I otherwise really wanted to include, such as the story of the Lambton Worm, but, alas, while I could find tons of children's picture books, I was unable to find a single scholarly source about it. Even our article on the subject was of no help. I suppose I can just remove all of the information cited to Bane if you would like me to. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

6: Illustrated, if possible[edit]

There are a lot of images here. I haven't yet undertaken an image review. It's possible that there are too many images; I'm not entirely sure how compliant the big inter-sectional rows of images are with regard to WP:GALLERY.

Given the vast number of radically different ways in which dragons have been portrayed and the vast number of different stories, I think that all the images are necessary for illustrative purposes. Nonetheless, if you insist that I need to remove them, I will remove them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


This review is still in progress. I haven't completed a thorough prose sweep, or an image review, or a final check for other problems. But there are at least enough big structural / topic concerns for me to place this one on hold for now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: It has been ten days since I replied to all of your comments here and I have pinged you multiple times, but you still have given absolutely no response to any of my questions or replies. Are you still there? I cannot address your criticisms if you do not respond to clarify and elaborate on what you have said. I am trying not to be impatient, but, if you do not respond within the next five days, I will close this review and renominate the article so that a more responsive reviewer can take it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

  • My apologies for the delay. I had some unexpectedly internet-free travel. Let me look over the changes in the next day or so. That said, one of my foremost concerns is still the inclusion criteria. What criteria do you use to determine whether a given mythological creature is or is not a "dragon" for the purposes of this article? If that standard is "has been referred to as a dragon in one or more reliable sources", then there are significant lacunae. Otherwise, I'm not clear on what the standard is. A more thorough re-review will be forthcoming. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Second Pass[edit]

I think this article is much-improved from my first examination. Unfortunately, I think it still has quite some ways to go. In a large part, that's because this is a big topic area. The broader a topic is, the harder it is to clear the quality bars. Also, to some extent, I'd like to apologize. I should have done a far more exhaustive analysis in the first pass; some of this should have been caught then.

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Thank you very much for your feedback. I would appreciate it if you would read my comments below before failing the article. Once again, thank you for your time. I am not sure if I still plan on eventually bringing this article up to GA status, but, if I do attempt such a feat, I will certainly enlist the help of more editors who know more about mythologies outside my area of expertise. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


I think the restructuring of several of the sections greatly benefited the article. However, there are still content issues, mostly related to what isn't here yet.

  • I think there's probably more to say on the origin of the dragon myth beyond what's listed here. Consider, for example: Blust, Robert (2000). "The Origin of Dragons". Anthropos. 95 (2): 519–536. JSTOR 40465957. which postulates physical observations of rainbows as origins for dragons (via an intermediate layer of rainbow serpent mythologies dating to the Pleistocene).
Hmm... I am highly unconvinced that a paper suggesting rainbows as the source of dragon mythologies is worth taking seriously enough to include in our article. I do not expect to include every explanation that has ever been put forward; I think that just the most popular ones and the ones with the most scholarly support will be sufficient. Do we have any sources indicating that this whole rainbow-dragon hypothesis is widely accepted by scholars? --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see some mention of the dragon as a heraldic charge, but I really think there's more to say here. Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if this topic actually needed to be spun out to its own article: Dragon (heraldry), most likely, and mentioned here in summary style with a section hatnote. But, since we're a long way from there, this article has to carry some of the burden. That means, most liklely, some discussion of the history and development associated with the charge, which starts with the Dacian Draco, then the Roman draco, through early English dragon standards, and into formalized heraldry. Also, I'm fairly certain that the symbolism of the charge can be sourced. Source quality is especially important here, as early associations of various people and regions with dragon symbols (and heraldry in general) has suffered from historical inflation.
I will try to find some more information on this subject. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There's some significant problems with Asian coverage, mostly because of the reliance on Bane. More on that in sourcing. In particular, there may need to be more effort to distinguish between Hindu cultural myths and Buddhist traditions.
I have completely removed all references to Bane and all information gathered from her book. This meant removing the entire sections about Korean and Vietnamese dragons. I will try to see if I kind find the same information someplace else. I do not know if I can, though, since scholarly writings on the subject seem to be few and far between, so we may just have to omit those. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In general, the South Asia section might be the most under-developed prose passage currently in this article.

* I would re-order the sections to go Southwest Asia -> South Asia -> East Asia, from a strictly geographical perspective.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* Regional etymology probably belongs in the "East Asia" parent section rather than under "Chinese dragon"; it's odd seeing Vietnamese and Korean terms at the head of the Chinese subsection.

There was a second explanation of the Chinese word for dragon in the "Chinese dragon" section and the explanation in the section lead was uncited, so I just removed it entirely. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The quoted passage on the Neolithic origins of the eastern dragon needs to be attributed in text if you're going to quote directly. That said, I don't see a compelling reason to do so here. Consider rephrasing to avoid the direct quotation. Also, is there any more recent scholarship on this topic?
What do you mean "more recent"? The source cited is from 2008; that was only ten years ago. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Chinese section is presented in anything like a chronological order. For example, the Shan Hai Jing (at least in its finalized form in the Han Dynasty) is much later than any of the Warring States Period material.
I have tried to reorganize the section in a more chronological order, but I am not sure if it is even possible to arrange it completely chronologically. I honestly know very little about southeast Asia at all and I am mostly just following whatever I find in the sources. I am confused about the chronological order myself. My main areas of knowledge are the ancient Near East and the classical eastern Mediterranean. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Emphasis and comprehensiveness is also a problem in East Asia. The Dragon Kings of the Four Seas are given a captioned illustration, and half a sentence of prose coverage, despite their relative importance. There's no mention at all of the Azure Dragon in other contexts, such as the Four Symbols (in China, or their equivalents in Japan, Vietnam, and probably just about everywhere else in the region) or in Chinese astronomy. In general, this section has a fundamental problem; it focuses on individual dragon stories while eliding the major cultural themes.
Once again, I think the problem is a result of the fact that I know virtually nothing about southeast Asia. I am just following what I find in the sources. The sources barely mention anything about the Dragon Kings, so I assumed they must not have been particularly important. I have never even heard of an "Azure Dragon" until now. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I really think you're going to have to confront the issue of "dragons" from other regions. In particular, that means the pre-Columbian Western Hemisphere. The source I mentioned in the first pass is a decent place to start, I suppose (Carlson, John B. (1982). "The Double-Headed Dragon and the Sky: A Pervasive Cosmological Symbol". Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 385 (1): 135–163. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1982.tb34263.x. [and available via]). In general, I think there's more published regarding dragons or their ilk in Aztec, Mayan, and Olmec mythology than in any North American traditional culture.
  • Entirely separately, there's the issue of the Maori taniwha, which are referred to as dragons rather commonly, despite being even further removed from the "traditional" Western dragon than other mythological entities sidled with the term. You'll want to be somewhat choosy with sources here in order to avoid fringe theorists that explicitly try to syncretize Maori beliefs with Chinese or Western mythology.
  • That probably goes for sources connecting the Australian Aboriginal rainbow serpent to "dragons", also.
I do not really know very much about dragons in pre-Columbian American, Aboriginal Australian, Polynesian, or African mythologies, though. (Indeed, I actually know hardly anything at all; I was only vaguely aware until now that there were creatures in those mythologies that were commonly referred to as "dragons.") I think that this article really has to cover such an impossibly broad topic that the only way it will ever be brought up to "Good Article" status is through a massive collaboration by editors with different areas of expertise, because its scope covers too many cultures for any one editor to be knowledgeable about all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I rarely say this about any article, but I think the "Modern depictions" section needs more development. I'm somewhat concerned by the structure of this section, for one thing. I'm not sure that the transition from Carroll's Jabberwock (and note: the poem itself is "Jabberwocky", but the creature is "the Jabberwock") to the harmless dragons of children's literature is well-executed (Tenniel's parody of Carroll notwithstanding, the Jabberwock is not a harmless comic character!). Likewise, the prose here suggests that the harmless dragon has largely ceased to be after the 1960s, but I'm not entirely sure that's well-founded despite Nikolajeva's claim. Is there more to source on this subject? Finally, while it's obviously easier for a Western editor to source depictions of Western dragons in Western media, it's a systemic bias issue to avoid modern depictions of other dragons entirely.
I am not aware of any depictions of other dragons, though. It is also extremely difficult to find scholarly sources about dragons in modern entertainment because it seems scholars generally do not write much about such vulgar things. If they do, I suppose I must be looking in all the wrong places. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


I remain convinced that this article is non-compliant with WP:GALLERY. Trying to select from a cornucopia of images is one of the harder editorial tasks. Nevertheless, that's what policy demands here. The good news is that licensing seems in order (indeed, pretty much everything here is from Commons, which makes life relatively easy). * I think the snake picture is superfluous. The Wawel Dragon bones are fine.

I have removed the snake image. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* There are two images for Cadmus (one inline with text, one in the Ancient Greece and Rome gallery); I'd cut the second.

I have removed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* There are two images for Heracles slaying various dragonish things. I'd keep either the vase painting with the Hydra or the relief plate with Ladon, but not both. My preference would be the former, personally.

I have removed the second image. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The cetus mosaic is an attractive image so far as it goes, but I don't even see where the cetus is discussed in text. You cannot introduce content exclusively in an image.
  • MS Harley 3244 is fine, as is an illustration of Saint George slaying the dragon. No objections to the one chosen; you can probably safely remove the other two Saint George images from the section gallery.
I have removed them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* The Shakespeare pull quote doesn't seem to be discussed to attached to any text. Cutting that might give you room for at least one more image in this section.

I have removed the quote. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* If you're going to have an image for the Book of Revelation, you certainly only need one.

I have removed all of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* I like the Red and White dragons illustration. You may be able to shuffle around image placement to rescue that from the gallery.

Done. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • You have two Welsh flags in the gallery. You don't mention the flag of Wales in prose. In any case, the red dragon flag of Wales in the gallery here isn't the flag of Wales (at least, not since 1959). The current flag of Wales is this one. An expanded heraldry section might offer room for one of these, although it's possible to just relegate heraldic dragon images off elsewhere.
I have removed both flags from the gallery. The red dragon flag was in the article before I came and the gold one was added by another user while I was rewriting the article. I personally never really cared for either of them. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* The Liber Floridus dragon is cute, but probably superfluous.

I have removed it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In the Eastern Europe section, is there room to inline that illustration of the Wawel Dragon on the left?
No. There is no room at all to move it there without creating an "image sandwich." I have kept the image, placing it underneath the first image of Zmey Gorynych. It hangs over into the next section, but oh well. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* I'd cut the rest of that gallery completely; you don't need three images for Zmey Gorynych, and the prose doesn't even mention Vahagn, so there's no need for an image of statue of him. Likewise, that statue from Varna is cute, but totally unconnected with the associated text.

I have removed the gallery and all of the images in it. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If anything, you need better images for some of the Asian topics.

  • Your only image for South Asia is of Pakhangba, who isn't mentioned in the text at all! This section's prose needs a lot of work, so exactly what images you need (and can fit) will depend on how the text develops.
  • Likewise, the bulk of the prose on Persian mythology deals with the azhdahās, but the associated image is of a dragonslayer who is only name-dropped in a list of others.

* I'm not sure that the dragon character infobox is a good use of space here, but can probably be convinced otherwise if you're attached to its use here (it already appears in Chinese dragon, though).

I have removed the infobox. It was there before I came along and I was never particularly fond of it, but I figured that some people might find it useful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any sort of Warring States Period or even Han Dynasty image that can be used to illustrate all the prose about stories of those eras?
None that I know of, but, obviously, once again, east Asia is not my area of expertise. I tried searching, but the only ancient images I could find were the belt plaque of the lung ma that is already included in the article and a depiction of a dragon dance from the Han Dynasty, which was originally included in this article, but was deleted off the Commons for some legal reason that I do not exactly remember. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not thrilled with the image chosen for Zhulong; it's a 17th-century illustration of a work composed 2000 years earlier. And frankly, it's not a very eye-catching piece.
This is the only image of it that I could find. It is either that one or no image at all. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd snip the image of the dragon boat race, as that's not mentioned in prose. Likewise, the Longshan Temple sculpture and Fengdu Ghost City pictures, unless you're able to work in more dicussion of temple ornamentation or the like. Also, choose one image for a dragon dance; this isn't the main article on the topic, after all. The one currently inline is certainly colorful, but you might also consider a picture that gives a clearer idea of what's going on.
The dragon boat race is mentioned in the prose; nearly half of the last paragraph is entirely devoted to talking about the dragon boat race. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The Qing dynasty flag might be able to be moved inline, especially if you remove the character infobox.
  • Something to illustrate Vietnamese or Korean dragons? One potential example might be an image of one of the dragon figures from the Seoul Olympics opening ceremony.
I have removed the sections about Vietnamese and Korean dragons because they relied entirely on Bane. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The caption for the Smaug image is misleading. As currently worded, it suggests that this an illustration from (some edition, at any rate) of the book itself; in actuality, this is fan art. You identify who Smaug is in the prose, so you can probably shorten the caption considerably to dispel the confusion, but should credit the artist (David Demaret).
I apologize. In my mind, "illustration" just means it is an image intended to show a scene or character from a work of fiction. My definition does not necessarily require that the image be produced by a professional and printed in an actual edition of the book. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As with the South Asia section, how many images you retain, and what those are images of, will largely depend on what you do with the prose here. I imagine you'll want to keep Tenniel's Jabberwock. I like the Smaug image, and can't really argue with the public domain Hungarian Horntail model picture, either. I'd cut the Crotian carnival image, certainly, because it doesn't illustrate anything referenced in text. Having some sort of illustration of a D&D style dragon seems imperative; the one currently here is... not particularly appealing, however. And, of course, if you expand this section, you may need a non-Western image as well. I'm not entirely sure how to arrange those images, but... it's a start.
The Croatian carnival image was added by another user after I had finished rewriting the article. I did not like it either, but I did not want to offend the user by reverting his or her edit. The image of the DND dragon that is currently in the article is the only one I could find on the Commons. As a general rule, if there is a poor quality image in the article, it is usually either because I could not find a better one to illustrate the same point or because some other user added it and I did not want to revert him or her. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


  • Bane is probably the single most problematic source used in this article. To be blunt, I don't think her work is reliable at all, which is a common trait in these capsule-summary "encyclopedias" of mythological elements. As regards this article, her treatment of the nāga is... problematic, to say the least. Her East Asian content is less obviously troublesome, but frankly, that may just mean that I'm not familiar enough with the actual material to recognize what's wrong. Replacing Bane as a reference here is going to be a lot of legwork, because you cite her for quite a bit, but I think that's ultimately in the best interests of accuracy.
I have completely removed all citations to Bane as well as any information that was cited to her book. I used her as a source because I tried looking for better ones and could not find any. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* I'm unable to determine the reliability of the website (as it does not render properly for me), nor the website (as it returns a unhandled exception error at the time of this writing).

Both of those sources were in the article long before I came along. I have gone ahead and removed both sources, as well as any information cited to them. The site seems to have only been cited because some editor a long time ago felt it necessary to include the Greek spellings of names for the Greek authors mentioned in the article and that source was used to provide the spelling. The site is more problematic, however, since the entire "Southwest Asia" section about Iranian dragons is cited to it. That section was the one section I barely even touched, because I could not find any sources on the subject and it (at least superficially) appeared to have a source supporting it. The website, however, is entirely in Farsi, a language I cannot read and have no knowledge of, so there is no way to confirm if it actually says any of the information attributed to it. I was able to write brief, but some well-cited, discussion of Avestan dragons in the "South Asia" section. Hopefully that will make up for the material I removed. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* I'm fairly certain that (cited here as the "A to Z Photodirectory of Japanese Buddhist Statuary") cannot be considered a reliable source. Among other concerns, some of its text explicitly cites Wikipedia, leading to concerns about circular referencing. Additionally, the site itself is entirely the work of one author (Mark Schumacher), who doesn't appear to have any background that would satisfy the exceptions in WP:SPS.

I have removed the citations to website as well as all information that was cited to it. That source was in the article long before I came along, so, unlike Bane, that one is not my fault. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

* iMDB is never a reliable source for any purpose.

I have removed it from the article, as well as all the information sourced to it. Once again, that one was in the article long before I came along. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Some of the sources in the Bibliography don't actually appear to be cited anywhere in the article. I noticed this for the Manning-Sanders source (because I was trying to see if that was used appropriately). I didn't audit comprehensively, so there may be others.
There was already a sizable bibliography before I came and, since I do not like to remove reliable sources from an article, I just left all the sources there and added to them. The ones that are not cited are probably the ones that are leftover from before I rewrote the article, although I think most of them were not actually used in the original article either. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Beyond the concerns I have for the GA standard, I have quite a bit of history reviewing references and reference formatting for the Featured Article process. I've found that many people undertaking a GA push are at least interested in the bronze star as well. Note that none of the issues below are problems at the GA level, but since I was auditing sourcing and references, I thought I'd offer additional notes:

  • Some of this sourcing is probably okay for the GA level, but would fall short of the "high-quality" sources required for FA (such as
  • You have some book-style sources in references (rather than in the bibliography and connected via sfn). Typically (when using sfn, anyway), journal and web referenecs are cited directly, while book-format sources are listed in the bibliography and then cited with sfn. Consistency is the goal. None of this is a GA-level requirement.
  • Website references aren't formatted consistently.
  • Actually, neither are other references. Immediately evident, sometimes book sources have publisher locations. Even at the FA-level, publisher locations are optional, but it's all-or-nothing; you either always need them, or always need to omit them.
  • A few uses of hyphens in place of endashes in page ranges (for example, the Hartsock source, which has a collection of other formatting issues).
  • Sources not in English need a language tag in their cite template.
  • ISBNs should be standardized to properly-hyphenated ISBN-13s.
  • Book sources that predate the ISBN system (or don't have an ISBN assigned for whatever other reason), such as Gould's Mythical Monsters, should ideally have an OCLC number instead.
  • Journal articles should have DOI links, where available (or, failing that, JSTOR links where available).
I have no intention of ever trying to bring this article up to "Featured Article" status. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I realize that's a daunting and exhaustive list of article concerns. I do think this has the foundation of a good article, just not—yet—a Good Article. I'm inclined to close this GA to permit additional research and development, but from my time at FAC, I know that sometimes revision and expansion can be surprisingly quick. I'll leave it to your discretion whether you'd prefer I keep this open for another week or two or wrap it up for now and revisit the situation when you're ready for GA2. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You can go ahead and fail the article immediately. I do not think it is possible for this article to ever be brought up to "Good Article" standards without a massive effort involving many different editors with different areas of expertise. The scope is simply too impossibly broad for any one editor to be an expert on it all. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018[edit]

Could someone please create a separate subsection called "South Asia" in the "Orient" section of this page and move the information about the Druk to the "South Asia" subsection? Bhutan is not in Southwest Asia, it's in South Asia and is culturally similar to Tibet, India and Nepal. It's wrong to group the two regions together when they aren't the same. (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@  Question: Are you asking me to rename that section from "Southwest Asia" to "South Asia"? OhKayeSierra (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello, @OhKayeSierra: I wanted to create a separate section called "South Asia" within the broader "Orient" section that can include the information about the Bhutanese Druk and Indian dragons and keep the other section, "Southwest Asia" as it is. I'll show you what I mean below. Hope this makes sense. :) ( (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC))
 Done Diff OhKayeSierra (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for making the changes @OhKayeSierra:. ( (talk) 08:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC))
Edit request example

South Asia[edit]

In the Rigveda, the oldest of the four Vedas, Indra, the Vedic god of storms, battles Vṛtra, a giant serpent who represents drought.[1] Indra kills Vṛtra using his vajra (thunderbolt) and clears the path for rain,[2][3] which is described in the form of cattle: "You won the cows, hero, you won the Soma,/You freed the seven streams to flow" (Rigveda 1.32.12).[4] In another Rigvedic legend, the three-headed serpent Viśvarūpa, the son of Tvaṣṭṛ, guards a wealth of cows and horses.[5] Indra delivers Viśvarūpa to a god named Trita Āptya,[5] who fights and kills him and sets his cattle free.[5] Indra cuts off Viśvarūpa's heads and drives the cattle home for Trita.[5] This same story is alluded to in the Younger Avesta,[5] in which the hero Thraētaona, the son of Āthbya, slays the three-headed dragon Aži Dahāka and takes his two beautiful wives as spoils.[5] Thraētaona's name (meaning "third grandson of the waters") indicates that Aži Dahāka, like Vṛtra, was seen as a blocker of waters and cause of drought.[5] Nāga are snake-like dragons from India who were thought to guard massive hoards of treasure.[6] They are usually portrayed as "destructive, evil, and terrifying creatures living in the mountains."[6] They are constantly at war with Garuda, the god of the mountains.[6]

The Druk (Dzongkha: འབྲུག་), also known as 'Thunder Dragon', is one of the National symbols of Bhutan. In the Dzongkha language, Bhutan is known as Druk Yul "Land of Druk", and Bhutanese leaders are called Druk Gyalpo, "Thunder Dragon Kings". The druk was adopted as an emblem by the Drukpa Lineage, which originated in Tibet and later spread to Bhutan.[7]

  1. ^ West 2007, pp. 255–257.
  2. ^ West 2007, pp. 256–257.
  3. ^ Ogden 2013, p. 16.
  4. ^ West 2007, p. 257.
  5. ^ a b c d e f g West 2007, p. 260.
  6. ^ a b c Bane 2016, p. 108.
  7. ^ Waddell, Laurence (1895). The Buddhism of Tibet Or Lamaism. p. 199. ISBN 9781602061378.

Southwest Asia[edit]

In Persian mythology, azhdahās are dragons with huge bodies, terrifying faces, wide mouths filled with teeth, and bright eyes. According to Ajāyeb ul-Makhlooghāt, a book by Mohammad b. Mahmoud b. Ahmad-e Tusi (written in 1160 AD), "when a snake lives 100 years and its length becomes 30 gazes, it is called an azhdahā". He also writes that "because of their harassment to other creatures, the God eventually will throw them in the sea and in there, their body continue to raise, such that their length becomes more than 10,000 gazes (a traditional measurement unit roundly equal to a meter). Then in the sea, they evolve to have two wings, like a fish, and the seawave is because of their movements. Eating the heart of an Azhdahā brings courage and bravery. Their skins are suitable to healing the wound of love, and if someone buries an azhdahā's head in a land, the conditions of that land will become good."[1] In Shahnameh, the national epic of Greater Iran, dragons appear in a number of stories. Sām, Rostam, Esfandiar, Eskandar, Bahram V (Gur) are among the heroes that kill a dragon.[1]

  1. ^ a b Kajani Hesari, Hojjat. "Mythical creatures in Shahnameh". Retrieved 30 January 2017.

GA status[edit]

Hi Katolophyromai and Squeamish Ossifrage, I'm surprised that this failed GAN because it looks like a wonderful article. The GA criteria are fairly limited (see WP:GACR); articles don't have to be as comprehensive as they do for FAC, for example. Squeamish, was the scope the only issue or were there others? SarahSV (talk) 02:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @SlimVirgin: Thanks for your support, but I think the failure was justified (at least for now). The lack of discussion of "dragons" outside Eurasia is obviously a problem, but, even if that is ignored, I still think there are some major issues that need to be addressed before this article can become a GA. I think that the "Sources of inspiration for dragon myths," "Middle East," and "Occident" sections are either up to GA status or very close to it, and if the whole article was in the same condition as those sections, this article could easily pass the GA criteria. Nonethless, I think that Squeamish Ossifrage is right that the "Orient" and "Modern depictions" sections need considerably more work in order to really be GA-level material. The main challenges with those sections are my own lack of expertise in those areas and an at least seeming lack of reliable scholarly sources. I think I will probably renominate this article within the next few months at least, after I have had a chance to find editors knowledgeable in those areas to help with those sections. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • 3a was certainly the main consideration here, but not the exclusive one. By means of example, I judged that the article didn't reach the 3a "main aspects" topic by failing to address any Australasian or Western Hemisphere material. On the other hand, if the article had provided some reasonable mention of dragons in Aztec tradition, but failed to make any mention whatsoever of Olmec and Mayan material, that would be satisfactory for GACR 3a, but would fall short of FACR 1b. The East Asian material is a little closer on the line, but the lack of coverage of the Azure Dragon (which is a major pan-Asian cultural element) in favor of relatively minor Warring States-era stories, and the lack of any modern Asian depictions whatsoever are also problematic under 3a. The result was an article that has a pretty well-researched Near East and European perspective, but presented incomplete or absent views of the topic from other cultures. I'm not entirely sure that systemic bias is the sort of "editorial bias" contemplated by GACR 4, but it's certainly a problem regardless. Finally, it didn't help that there were several sections cited entirely or primarily to a source that presented 2b reliability problems. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Katolophyromai and Squeamish Ossifrage, if you both agree that it doesn't meet the criteria, that's fine. But I wonder whether this was closer to an FAC review. GACR 3a says (in a footnote): "The 'broad in its coverage' criterion is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." Also see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(3) Broad in its coverage: "Point (a) means that the 'main aspects' of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be 'addressed' in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects." SarahSV (talk) 04:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Kato, I agree with SlimVirgin that the article is already up to GA standards, or nearly so. Doing a Google Scholar on "dragons" mythology", I couldn't find any evidence of mythology outside of Europe and Asia being a major aspect of the subject. I wonder if any citation indices have been consulted in making judgments about GA broadness.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Hadn't pinged Squeamish Ossifrage yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes to article[edit]

Iv'e noticed that the article has been almost halved in size even though most of them were officially credited to officil sources, such as the Welsh dragon, can anyone explain why so much was haemorrhaged/chiseled away? I see there is a 'revising caption per request by GA reviewer' in the edits.. but surely some should be edited, bettered & corrected instead of a huge deletion?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talkcontribs) 10:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed hyperbolic statement from non-technical source[edit]

Previously, the section called Sources of inspiration for dragon myths began, "Dragon-like creatures appear in virtually all cultures around the globe", with a ref note to "The Guardian of All Things: The Epic Story of Human Memory" by Michael S Malone. Malone is a writer on economics and IT, and isn't an authority on topics related to dragons, but more to the point, the statement is obviously false. A feature that is not found in any culture of Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas or Polynesia can obviously be said not to "appear in virtually all cultures around the globe". I replaced this opening with a more modest statement. Ordinary Person (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ordinary Person: Actually, there are plenty of creatures in Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, the Americas, and Polynesia that are routinely referred to as "dragons" (see, for instance, Rainbow Serpent, Taniwha, Quetzalcoatl, as well as countless others). This article's lack of coverage of those creatures is actually the main reason why it failed to become a "Good Article" back in May of this year. Furthermore, per WP:OR, we are required to report what sources tell us, even if we disagree with them. This statement must either be preserved or omitted holistically; we do not have line-item veto, so we cannot change it to say that dragons appear in "several cultures in Europe and Asia" unless we replace the source for the current statement with a different one saying that dragons appear in "several cultures in Europe and Asia". The main problem here, of course, is that the word "dragon" is so utterly vague that it is widely applied to any mythical entity that is even vaguely serpent-like. The word itself has such a broad definition that it is practically meaningless in terms of trying to apply it to any one specific creature. It originally only applied to the so-called "European dragon," but it has been applied to so many other creatures of entirely separate origin that it has taken on a much broader definition. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

First Punic War - Regulus vs. the 120-ft Dragon in North Africa[edit]

Haven't you missed the dragon that Regulus' army fought against in North Africa during the First Punic War? (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

What about Skyrim and other popular video games?[edit]

No mention of any dragons from Skyrim or even Spyro. SPYRO!!! Makoshark5 (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This is an article about history, not pop-culture trivia. If there is significant coverage about the dragons in certain video games, we could include it, but there is no reason to list video games that just happen to have dragons in them. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
You are in the wrong article. See List of dragons in popular culture and add whatever is missing. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Recent revert of my edit[edit]

  • @Katolophyromai: (edit comment "included the addition of random, uncited bits of trivia thrown in seemingly random places and the wholesale removal of the entire section on dragons in western Europe, which was replaced with merely links to other articles")
    • Best check which of these items are trivial. The section about Virgil is NOT unreferenced :: his poem Culex is on the internet and linked to.
    • The section on dragons in western Europe was not destroyed :: I text-merged it into European dragon, to keep all this information together, to avoid WP:content forking.
    • See this compare. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As Wikipedia:Content forking points out, all the information about a subject should be kept together. As I found it, some of the information about European dragons was in page Dragon, and some was in page European dragon, causing inconvenience to a reader and forcing him to repeatedly leaf back and forth between the two pages. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: See Wikipedia:Content forking#Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections. The section "Medieval western Europe" is a necessary and adequate summary of the parts of the article "European dragon" dealing with medieval western Europe. The article "European dragon" is a more specific meta-article that gives more information on this specific aspect of the subject of the article and is available if the reader is seeking more information. All the most significant information, though, must be covered here as well and cited to reliable sources.
Merely listing links to other articles is not adequate here; we need to provide a section giving the most pertinent information about dragons in medieval western Europe in this article, because dragons in western Europe during the Middle Ages are a significant aspect of the subject of this article (i.e. dragons). Having articles on more specific aspects of a subject spun off from sections of a more general article is common and accepted practice here on Wikipedia. As an example of this, see for instance the article "Ancient Greece," which has full sections giving summaries of the most pertinent information concerning each specific aspect of ancient Greece, with a link to another article specifically dealing with each of those aspects in particular. There are hundreds of other articles that do this. That is the same thing I have tried to do here, but you removed the section talking about dragons in medieval western Europe and replaced it with just a bunch of links to other articles. In fact, not having the section on dragons in western Europe during the Middle Ages here would be a violation of the very policy you cite, because we would be omitting a crucial aspect of the subject of this article from this article and forcing the reader to go to a different article to find it.
Concerning your additions, I may have perhaps jumped the gun a little in calling all of them "trivial" and I apologize if I offended you by saying that. I do, however, have several serious problems with them. For one thing, none of them are cited to reliable secondary sources. As you should already know, all information added to Wikipedia is supposed to be cited to reliable, secondary sources. The one about Virgil that you mention above was only cited to Virgil, but Virgil is a primary source. Per WP:PRIMARY, we are allowed to cite primary sources, but only if we also cite secondary sources interpreting them. The reason for this is because primary sources do not interpret themselves and any interpretation of the primary source at all—including even the interpretation of the source's relevance to the article—must be cited to a reliable, secondary source.
Another major problem with your additions is that you just inserted them into the article at various points in stand-alone paragraphs without trying to work them into the text of the article at all. This is supposed to be a well-organized encyclopedia article, not just a bunch of pieces of information about dragons arranged in a disjointed and haphazard fashion. Some of your additions also covered things that were already discussed elsewhere in the article, making them redundant. —Katolophyromai (talk) 18:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Katolophyromai: A complication about writing a history of dragons is that people's image of what a dragon is, changed down the centuries. It started in Roman times as merely "big snake". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Anthony Appleyard: I am not sure why you are bringing this up here because this is already addressed extensively in the article. There is already an entire section on ancient Greek and Roman conceptions of dragons: "Dragon#Ancient Greece and Rome." (Also, the word dragon comes from Greek, not Latin, and the Greeks already had a highly developed notion of a dragon as a giant serpent, just as you describe, long before the Romans, so the changing meaning of the word dragon actually starts with the Greeks, not the Romans, but dragon-like creatures that are usually identified with dragons are found in earlier cultures.) --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2019[edit]

Change "Heracles must procure a golden apples" to "Heracles must procure a golden apple". Pluralizing seems incorrect. SamCWill (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@SamCWill: Done. Thank you very much for pointing out this grammar error. I am surprised no one noticed until now, since it appears to have been there for a very, very long time. —Katolophyromai (talk) 05:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Winged lizard listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Winged lizard. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 04:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a green dragon[edit]

Please, someone make it so that on the caption of the D&D dragon it specifies that it is a GREEN dragon. Dragonfyre (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dragonfyrecooldude: Why does it matter? It is shown as an example of a contemporary representation of a dragon; for the purpose that it serves in this article, it hardly matters what color it is supposed to be. —Katolophyromai (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

'Notes' section of the article should be deleted[edit]

In my opinion, the 'Notes' section of this article should be deleted if there are no notes to add to it as it is pointless in my opinion to have a section in the article that is empty. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2020[edit]

please let me edit 2A00:23C5:CC12:DD01:E17B:DDA2:BAAB:D08C (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Majavah (t/c) 13:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to split off “East Asian dragons” section[edit]

Imagine if a section dedicated to Mesoamerican feathered serpent deities took up a quarter of this article, without articles of their own: this is the predicament that East Asian dragons are currently facing.

Considering that this article is supposed to be a general-purpose overview of dragons, with a particular emphasis on the European-type dragon, the glut of text dealing with East Asian dragons seems out of place. These dragons are completely unrelated to the type portrayed in Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic mythologies, and the two only share the name because of association. The other non-European dragons listed in the article have a much clearer relationship to one another than East Asian dragons do to anyone else.

Therefore, the section dealing with East Asian dragons should be split off into its own article, with only a redirect or much smaller section remaining on this one. This split would unify the purpose of this article in dealing with Western dragons, and also allow for the shared history between East Asian dragons to be gone over with more depth in its own article. If not that, then the section should at least be vastly reduced in length, so that the real articles can do the talking themselves. Marisauna (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that East Asian dragons should be made into a new article. It takes so much space in this article. Also, having a new article for East Asian dragons would benefit both sides, with a more concise Dragon page and a more focused East Asian dragons page. But I also think that sections about European dragons in this article should be shortened, since there is already an entire article for European dragons. Ggrandez17 (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I also agree. The concepts of "Dragon" in the West and East are not the same topic. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I thought one of the most interesting facts about the dragon myth is that it's a global phenomenon.Shtove (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I support a split too. Its simply sily to not have an article on eastern dragons.★Trekker (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, so long as a summary is retained in the context of the global phenomenon. Shtove (talk) 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)