User talk:Voldemort/Dragons (The Enchanted Forest Chronicles)

Accuracy Dispute

Accuracy dispute--no citations, fictive or unverifiable claims, and a list of assertions that look like they came straight out of Dungeons & Dragons. Hey, this is tremendous fiction--but the article as it stands is fiction, not factual.

--Justin.eiler 21:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found the fictional series that this article relates to (The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia Wrede). Made a link to the novel series, and another link to the main Dragon article. However, I'm leaving the Disputed tag up--this article needs to be verified by someone who has read the novels, and edited or removed if inaccurate.

--Justin.eiler 21:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to me to be very unencyclopedic... I also really feel that there shouldn't be seperate articles for "dragon" and "dragons" this being the same thing, only plurulized. I'm gnerally not impressed by this article.

--Oracleoftruth 10:05, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

I can verify a large portion of the biology was ripped from "The Book of the Dragon" by Ciruelo, and several dragon sites. The information looks dubious, like it's out of a novel or a D&D manual. It does not sound mythologically accurate. Also, I agree with Oracleoftruth's post- "dragons" and "dragon" should be the same article. -Lurker.

Lurker, by "ripped off," are you referring to actual plagiarism, or just similarity?

--Justin.eiler 21:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dragons did exist

There has actually been concrete evidence supporting this article. A two hour long documentary by the Discovery channel depicted several scientists discovering a cave in a glacier containing the skeletons of dragons. They determined that a dragon was able to fly only on an empty (gas filled)stomach, otherwise its wings couldnt support its weight. Also, they determined that they were equiped with a sort of valve the stopped fire from going inside their bodies.

That was a pseudo-documentary. It was meant to show what dragons would have been like if they DID exist. --Chanting Fox 02:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those "skeletons" were a hoax. Prior to the documentary someone was sending out photoshopped images of dragon remains found in a glacier. They were floating around dragon message boards a long time prior to the airing of the documentary, asking the members what they thought. The whole thing was suspicious. -Lurker.
If you watch the credits of it, you'll see that all the "scientists" were played by actors. It was just a clever way of pointing out the ideas they'd come up with on the dragons' bioglogy etc. Oracleoftruth 10:00, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Removal Discussion

In light of the many objections to the content of this article, and the possibility of plagiarism, perhaps we should submit this article for deletion? I'd like to hear from both detractors and supporters, but at this point, I have some grave concerns on whether or not this article should be here at all.

--Justin.eiler 21:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't submit the article for deletion. It's really fascinating and fun. If you really feel that it needs editing, then by all means, perform some heavy editing on it. But deleting the article is far too drastic a move. -- Voldemort 22:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's what I'm afraid of ... if I edit it, I'll take out the fun. ;) But in all seriousness, while I can appreciate fun as much as the next person, I have to wonder if Wikipedia is the place for this kind of fun?

By the way ... where did you get the material from?

I really think this article should be listed for deletion. Even aside from all the other problems with it, there is another page which is the singular form... there's ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to have a "dragon" page, and a "dragons" page.

--Oracleoftruth 04:26, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

This article

Who is the maniac who insists on presenting Dragons as actual creatures in an internet encyclopedia? Please. I'm erasing all the crap a.s.a.p. 007 05:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's unfair to just make this page a redirect without properly making the case, so I'm restoring it. -- Voldemort 01:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The case: Wikipedia is not the place to present Dragons as actual creatures. Verdict: this article will be nominated for deletion. If you are presenting a fictional embodiment, then add the category:Fiction, and specify the intent of the article even clearer in the main text. As Step 1 in clarifying its fictional presentation, the article has been moved to a new title. 007 09:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With the change in title noting a fictional basis for the article, I'm going to remove the accuracy dispute notice. However, even with the notice as fiction, I still have to question if this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. I like fantasy and science fiction too, but this is an encyclopedia.

By the same token, Voldemort, if there's enough original writing in the article to not get into copyright problems, I strongly recommend posting this to some sort of fan fiction website.

Vote For Deletion

This article has been listed under VfD.

--Justin.eiler 06:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nobody can vote on it till the article's entry is started. Usually, the person who lists it for VFD is the one who begin's the article's entry and states the case, so the voting can begin. 007 05:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that ... I've been sick, so I wasn't able to open the VfD discussion until today. It's up now.

--Justin.eiler 14:29, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It made the situation awkward, because I figured that you wanted to start the VFD article, so I didn't want to intrude & start it myself. 007 18:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)