Talk:Dragon

"Javanese Dragon" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Javanese_Dragon&redirect=no Javanese Dragon] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

"Multi-headed dragon" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multi-headed_dragon&redirect=no Multi-headed dragon] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Etymology
If "The word dragon entered the English language in the early 13th century from Old French dragon", how do we explain the etymology of dracan which the accompanying image says appears in Beowulf at least a couple of centuries earlier? 89.243.148.15 (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Dragons are not just magical creatures
In your wikipedia article, dragons are depicted as being magical or mythological creatures. However they can be real creatures as aliens on other worlds. So a change needs to be made here. For reference see my game "The Other Worlds Tale" at simmer.io/@skgupt which has a youtube video. Dragons as aliens have been in scifi but it hasn't been very popular because it didn't crystallize that that could be real (they were just combining dragons with scifi). Skgupt (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of things could be true. What goes in the Wikipedia article is what we have evidence for in reliable secondary sources, which is dragons in folklore, religion, mythology, and pop culture. There is already a major pop culture text mentioned that portrays dragons as beings from other planets (Dragonriders of Pern), but that's in the appropriate section rather than speculating on anything that could be real. That would be outside of Wikipedia's mission and against its guidelines.--MattMauler (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * An article on dragons should still indicate what is possible. Skgupt (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this should be changed because there is confusion, if you look up "are dragons real" or "can dragons exist" in a search engine the answer will be no, so this would be a very good change. Skgupt (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Dragonriders of Pern was first published in 1967. Even today no one believes dragons can exist as aliens on other worlds, so this is important. Skgupt (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should read WP:RGW. It explains many useful things about Wikipedia. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need for verifiable sources, it's obvious it's just a concept that makes sense, I've already mentioned the game at simmer.io/@skgupt that illustrates the concept. Skgupt (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Us disputing the addition means it needs a reliable source. That's the general rule, because two sides of an argument can consider a different thing obvious. Your game is WP:SPS, so it is not reliable. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense, a reliable source for what? I'm going to have to move this to the dispute noticeboard Skgupt (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A reliable source for "they could possibly exist for real as aliens on other possibly existent habitable planets". Otherwise it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, as it is something you came up with yourself. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So if it is something I came up with myself it is original, and if its original than the source would be something made my me. Skgupt (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and if it is a claim that you can get published in mainstream secondary sources first, then it could potentially go in the article. That's basically it; we need a reliable source. Our policy prohibits self-published sources in most cases.--MattMauler (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Dragons could be aliens" is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, given that there's no conclusive evidence of any type of extraterrestrial life, let alone anything so complex that would fit this article's description. However, even if such a thing were to exist, it would be given its own article like Dragon (extraterrestrial) as it would be an entirely separate subject from this article's subject, which is about the terrestrial creature of folklore. There is no dispute amongst reliable sources that this article's subject is a mythological creature. - Aoidh (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I make an article like this then? Dragon (extrasolar) Skgupt (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if such a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which does not appear to be the case by any means. If reliable sources have discussed such a topic enough that it is notable then an article may be warranted, but per the discussion above that does not seem to be the case. You said above that there is no need for verifiable sources but notability requires verifiability as does content within articles per WP:V. - Aoidh (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible dubiousness of the word "dragon" in descriptions of sea serpent in Canaanite and biblical Hebrew translations
In the Levant section, the Ugaritic Baal Cycle which contains a description of a mythical sea serpent, the possible incorrect word "dragon" is used in describing the "sea-dragon Lōtanu" when no supporting quotes from a corpus of text is given to justify using the word "dragon" as reliable description. The word "dragon" in English carries many connotations and it doesn't seem to be appropriate to use it as it's used in the aforementioned section when describing a sea serpent.

Furthermore, the rest of the section abruptly jumps into the supposed description of the western concept of the word "dragon" in the Hebrew bible when it and the Baal Cycle descriptions should have their own sub-sections.


 * Partially corrected by adding a paragraph break Jdbtwo (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As for the word "dragon" in the biblical Hebrew translations, it seems to be a mistranslation from the obsolete King James translation. For example, in "In the Book of Psalms, Psalm 74, Psalm 74:13–14, the sea-dragon Leviathan, is slain by Yahweh" and in "He will slay the dragon that is in the sea" the word dragon comes from the King James translation for the biblical Hebrew word Tannin which is a mythical "sea monster" or "sea serpent" and which the section conflates with the word "Leviathan", which is another mythical sea serpent. It is clearly evident from the the description of "Tannin" that another sea monster is being described : "translated in the King James Version as 'the dragon'" The only citation in the section that lends credence to the word "dragon" as being a correct translation of the Hebrew source text is "Job 41:19–21 states that the Leviathan exhales fire and smoke" but this only applies to "Leviathan." Also, the statement : "Job 41:19–21 states that the Leviathan exhales fire and smoke, making its identification as a mythical dragon clearly apparent" seems a bit dubious to me : There are many types of "monsters" that exhale fire and smoke -- just because a "sea serpent" does, in my opinion, doesn't make it a representation of the western concept of a "dragon."

It seems that the problem comes from the improper use of the word "dragon" as it relates to the Ugaritic Baal Cycle and also the King James mistranslation of "Tannin" as "dragon" and in addition the conflation of the words "Tannin" and "Leviathan."

In my opinion, the whole Levant section seems to be describing "sea serpents" or "sea monsters." Jdbtwo (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)