Talk:Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons)

HD Table

What is the point of the HD table? It would be a lot more simple to note the levels of power (from white to gold), and not add useless information that is inexplainable to thse who are not familiar with the system, and trivia for those who are.

I agree. I'm definitely not against "fancruft", having added a fair bit myself over the years, but that table's a bit much. Not to mention that the stats are version-specific, the second edition's dragons have a very different progression (I just checked the old Monsterous Compendium) and I'm assuming first edition dragons were also different. I'm taking it out. Bryan 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Dragons are more like felines than reptiles"?

For the record, having "mammal-like" limbs, rather than sprawling like most reptiles, is (or was) an important characteristic of dinosaurs.

You'll have to read Draconomicon to get the full details, but excerpts from the book do detail their feline-like attributes, which are listed in the article.

And dinosaurs were not reptiles. There are several major differences between a reptile and a dinosaur.

Books about dragons

I added the "Books about dragons" section. Please help expand it. SpectrumDT 15:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Do we want pictures for this?

I can easily get ahold of illustrations of every major D&D dragon type. Should I do so, or might WotC decide to take issue with that? I have a drawing of a silver dragon that isn't in any official books, and I'm going to go ahead and upload that. Rogue 9 05:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What is that image's source? Better a dubiously "fair use" image with a known source than a complete unknown. Bryan 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The image is a Todd Lockwood oil print seen here and appears to be copyright of Wizards of the Coast. Since its not even being used to represent his work in any way, shouldn't it be removed? Lewis 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It's being used to represent the object in question (that is to say, a D&D dragon). This is unquestionably a correct instance of fair use. Rogue 9 16:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not being used to illustrate the artists work though, which I guess is why somebody else removed it. It may be useful to upload a book cover of one of the books mentioned, possibly Draconomicon as that will certainly be for the purpose of illustrating the depiction of dragons within Dungeons & Dragons. -- Lewis 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Croc Connection

I think that Dragons getting stronger as they get older is based on crocidiles growing until they die should this be mentioned ? Rubedeau 20:41, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dwarves ahve human blood what?!

What is the scource of the comment at the end of dragon biology about half-dragons being abominations? Horrific Grammar aside it makes no sence. Regshoe 20:45, 19 June 2006 (BST)

Classification of Fang and Shadow Dragons

Should fang and shadow dragons continue to be classified as Faerunian dragons, considering that they most recently appear in the non-setting specific Draconomicon supplement? CCShade 15:45, 28 July 2006 (EST)

Seperate Pages

AD&D Dragons are noteworthy and each major color and metal deserves a page of its own. Like Red Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) and Green Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Please help to complete a page for each. - Peregrinefisher 06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There is a lot more information such as anatomical differences and more indepth descriptions stats that could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.196.48 (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Heck no. The last thing we need is more messy, non-notable stub-articles about D&D sprawling across the face of wikipedia. Yes, D&D dragons as a group are noteworthy. No, each individual species is not. Game statistics aren't either. Fortunately, in the four years since you wrote that comment, someone with more sense went ahead and started merging those individual dragon articles. If you really feel the need to write details about every type of dragon, please do so on a dedicated D&D Wikia page.--68.149.127.157 (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-true dragons? Steel/Mercury versus Purple/Brown?

Even if the Steel and Mercury dragons aren't considered true 'metallic' dragons, they should at least be on the table. Seems like anything on the table should be any kind of 'true' dragon, that is, ANY dragon with listed age categories in its recent game-stat listings. AFAIK, they've had those in this edition.

Alex 'Leonidus' Krumwiede 09:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete references

Please format the following references & remove them from this list when complete.--Robbstrd 00:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Council of Wyrms
• The Draconomicon
• Dragon Kings (Dark Sun)
• Races of the Dragon

Hellfire Wyrm

Where do Hellfire Wyrms (Monster Manual III, I think, but don't quote me) fit in as far as dragon classification? Or at least, shouldn't they be mentioned somehow? They strike me as much too powerful to not note. Xiphe 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hellfire Wyrm (Monster Manual II) isn't a "standard" dragon (i.e. Gem, Prismatic, or Metallic); I would classify it as a "Lesser Dragon" since it is an "agent of the Nine Hells" (Quoted from MMII). -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 03:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

They should probably be mentioned at List of Planar dragons. They seem to be as dragon-ish as the planar dragons in the draconomicon. The MM 2 says they're a "Huge Dragon (Fire)." I wouldn't say they're a lesser dragon. They have more hit dice than a gold dragon. - Peregrine Fisher 03:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Sunwyrm

I know these guys have been in dnd based novel settings. I believe you will find one in one of the new year of the dragons Forgotten Realms (Faerûnian) novels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.196.48 (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

a Gold dragon has a maximum weight of 1,280,000 pounds? This is not really dubious, it is ludicrous. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Either way it is now properly cited. Web Warlock (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Question for Jack - is it ludicrous because you think it's obvious that a gold dragon could easily weigh more than that, or because a gold dragon could never weigh even that much? I'm unsure what kind of point you're trying to make? Rray (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A 22 foot max height, a max wingspan of 135 feet, and better than 1 and a quarter million pounds? That is ludicrous. But hey, it's fiction; whatever writer wrote those specs (in whatever primary source) is a twit. Nothing says fiction has to make any sense. I did not look at where those numbers were introduced into the article; I suspected that it might be someone's ideas of a joke. Now you have a cited bit of silliness. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, and I happen to agree with you Jack, BUT to say anything else is WP:OR. Now I have about two dozen books on dragons for D&D laying around here. I could very easily find another reference that gives more reasonable weights but why? I have to spend my time here digging up references for everything else. Web Warlock (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

OR does not apply to talk pages. Glad to agree with you on some things. Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Right. Just out of curiosity how much should a gold dragon weigh? Whatever formula the author used it looks like she used it through out the book. Web Warlock (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, gold IS pretty dense. Maybe the dragon is literally made of gold? Lead is heavy too... Rray (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack by SPA Giftitem (talk · contribs) removed by Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)})

You can't ignore him; he has got a valid point, which applies to many other D&D articles: this material should be not be treated as fact when in reality it is fiction. Providing "statistics", such as dragon weighs 1,280,000 pounds is basically a fictional device, the reproduction of which falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. These "statistics" are too in-universe to be of encyclopedic value as they fail WP:WAF, and should be removed, otherwise WP will be knee deep in "statistics" of fictional characters. Regurgitation or repetion of primary source material, particularly fictional content is a widespread problem with many D&D articles, which is why so many of them now have in universe cleanup templates. These "statistics" may not be OR, but you to ask what value has this information out-side of the game? Adding references does not provide a means of circumventing WP:WAF, nor does not make it worthy for inclusion in WP. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It is no different than the articles stating that a Hobbit is between 2 and 4 feet tall or a Smurf is "three apples high". You have issues with that then go vandalize those articles for a while. Web Warlock (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot argue that the guideline WP:WAF does not apply just because other articles make the same mistake, since there is nothing stopping anyone from ignoring the guideline. Also, the citation you have added (from Mirrorstone) is not considered a suitable secondary source because it is affiliated with the publishers (Wizards of the Coast). --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And you can't argue that it does apply just because of your opinion. Wikipedia works on consensus, rather than out of respect for Gavin Collins' opinion. Rray (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wikipedia ever really does work the way Gavin wants it to, then he can have it. What a dull, dreary place that must be. BOZ (talk) 20:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia does work on consensus which states:

"An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.

Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective is inaccurate and misleading, gives undue weight to unimportant information and invites unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become."

I think that once Web Warlock, Rray and BOZ grasp this, we can all work together.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please...I have forgotten more about writing scholarly content than you'll ever know. You simply put are narrow-minded and lack the imagination that even got a project like this off the ground in the first place. Stick to accounting, it’s less strenuous. And yeah, I have taught MBA level accounting courses before. Web Warlock (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to "work together" with Gavin that doesn't involve following all of his favorite rules in the exact way he interprets them? Because if not, then I'm not interested. BOZ (talk) 23:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, if past history is any indication. To be honest, I'm surprised that Gavin hasn't been blocked from editing (and by editing I mean tagging and trying to delete) RPG associated articles due to a repetatively demonstrated profound lack of knowledge about the material itself. I haven't seem him improve the content of articles on his own, rather I've only seen him use the bully pulpit of tags and AFDs to force others to scramble to do the work. That's a poor method to gain respect or foster any sense of community, and it ends up driving people away from WP. The sooner Gavin understands this, he'll become a much better editor. I hope he does.Shemeska (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The passage that Gavin quoted is a guideline for how to write about fiction. The implementation of that guideline is supposed to be handled by building consensus. Gavin's chosen communication style creates conflict; it doesn't work toward consensus. Assuming that the people you're supposed to be collaborating with are wrong just because they disagree with your interpretation of the guidelines isn't constructive.

Consensus, by the way, is policy. The passage that Gavin quoted is from a guideline. Here's the appropriate passage explaining the difference: "Policies and guidelines express standards that have community consensus, though to differing degrees: policies are considered a standard that all users should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature." (From Wikipedia:POLICY). Rray (talk) 00:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin's favorite rule to ignore is Wikipedia:Civility (a policy, not a guideline). Once he grasps that one, then I think we can all work together. I'm not going to hold my breath, in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not holding my breath, either. However, I personally think that, given that he thought TSR was still a company, let alone the owners of the D&D property, he should not edit any article related to the game until he brings his knowledge up to at least the year 2007. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 04:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The point I was making before the personal attacks started is that this article has a strong in universe perspective that fails WP:WAF, I think on this point we are surely agreed. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No one misunderstood the point you were trying to make. And I don't know how you come away from this discussion thinking that "we are surely agreed". Rray (talk) 09:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• So what is your counter-point? Please state your counter proposal. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

How this article can be improved

I don't think adding citations to an article with a heavy in universe perspective will improve it at all. I think that the in universe content, such as the descriptions and statistics should be edited out, and the remaining content converted into a list. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Gavin, I'm strongly recommending that this article be re-written to show how dragons were developed for the game and how their base characteristics evolved with the different editions. It could include some publication history like "In the AD&D 1st Edition Monster Manual, five chromatic dragons (black, blue, green, red, and white) and five metallic dragons (brass, bronze, copper, gold, and silver) were detailed, along with their respective rulers, Tiamat the Chromatic Dragon and Bahamut the Platinum Dragon..." Ravin' Ray (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I say that the physical description (sans weight, length, shoe size, etc.) should stay, even if stripped to its bare bones; I agree that stats and weight, length, shoe size, etc. are cruft, but disagree that adding citations to the article is an exercise in futility. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L13 ½-Raichu Soulknife)} 09:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

This article should be deleted until it can be significantly improved 75.68.225.211 (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

this article should be gutted. section one, "dragon classification," says everything wiki needs to say on the subject, and the rest should be kicked to the curb. pauli133 (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

True dragons and heading levels

I'm pretty sure that this article is currently miscategorizing some true dragons, listing them with non-true dragons instead of listing them under the true dragons subheading. Also, I think we should include a definition of true dragon, and divide the "types of dragons" section into four subsections: true dragons, lesser dragons, dragonkin and unknown dragon status. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, after checking the article history, the existance of a "lesser dragons" section and the article's current definition of true dragons, I have concluded that everything outside the "lesser dragons" section is a true dragon, and the heading levels got messed up due to an editing mistake. I've moved all the other subsections under "true dragons" based on that assumption. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

New categorizations

Okay, so obviously this page is really messy, and it seems like a lot of it has not been updated to fourth edition, which I think improves (or at least streamlines) overall categorization. How do we feel about reorganizing the page to fit better with the fourth edition types, and what do we then do about types of dragons that haven't yet been introduced to fourth? Ashre (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't particularly feel good about that idea at all! In fact, I'd say my personal mission has become to avoid any sort of "this is what is done in the current edition, so let's toss out the old stuff" focus whenever I see it. Check out what I did on Mimic, Bullywug, and Barghest for example. We need to be presenting information from every edition as equal to it's overall level of importance to the game as it has been evolving for the past 35 years. I think a lot of our D&D articles currently reflect this, but many still don't, and I'll still working on getting them to that point. The main reason I haven't gotten to this page yet is that it would be a lot of work. :) When I first came to Wikipedia, most of what I saw was 3E-centralized. Now what are we going to do, rewrite it all to be 4E-central, and then eventually rewrite it all again when 5E eventually comes out? No! That way lies madness for all involved. ;) The best way to be an encylcopedia, rather than a game-guide (which is something Wikipedia strives not to be) is to treat the subject with care, and put everything into a proper perspective.

Here's what I would like to see for this page. See that Publication history section? Well, right now it's pretty bland, but I think it provides a good skeleton on which we need to slap some meat. Check around on some of the other creature pages, such as Mimic, and you'll see that the information is organized by edition, so step one would be to split up the Pub history by edition. Step two, oh yeah, dig out your books and tell us a little bit about what you see there, and jazz it up a bit. Step three, as you do that, remove the superfluous information that remains in the rest of the article. See, like I said, a lot of work. :) Now, I'm not saying to move everything into the pub history section; in fact, since Dragons are major players, they do deserve other sections such as classification, abilities, campaign settings, etc, but even that should be presented in a fashion such as "in this edition it was like this, and in the next edition it was like that" (which, to some extent, it already is). What we don't need, I feel, is this ginormous list taking up some 70% of the article; we could probably even create a separate list page for that, if we really feel we need to keep it anywhere at all. If we keep that list in this article, it should be compressed and reorganized so that it doesn't take up so much space. BOZ (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Chromatic dragons and metallic dragons

Having examined the sources, as far as I can tell, these terms were introducted in the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual. The 1974 white box, and the first D&D basic set which drew directly upon the original, didn't even have all of the "Advanced" dragon types. The word "metallic", again to the best of my knowledge, isn't even used in either edition, and the word "Chromatic" is used only as an honorific title to describe Tiamat herself and not her children (it can be assumed, fairly enough, that later writers co-opted the term to describe the dragon types). The first edition Monster Manual also drew directly upon original D&D, and added additional types so that both the good and evil dragons now stood at five each. They were not grouped into categories as such, and each type was listed alphabetically (black first, then blue, brass, bronze, copper, gold, green...), and in early second edition the Monstrous Compendium did not innovate on this approach. As far as I can tell, the Monstrous Manual was the first book to explicitly use the terms "chromatic" and "metallic" to describe the two types, and to group them into categories. I think it's dipping a little into original research to start describing them using these terms in older editions, when the books themselves did not use these terms. I'll concede that using the word "dragon dragon dragon" over and over is probably excessive, but if we want to trim words the better way to do that is to just say "the black, white, red, and gold dragon" rather than try to lump them into categories which weren't invented for another nearly 20 years. I can re-examine the sources and report back exactly what I find, if that would help. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 14:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating dragon names over and over makes this section into one long eye-glaze inducing wall of text and does a poor job of presenting the information in an accessible manner. Using established terminology from the primary sources for sets of five that appear repeatedly makes it much easier to parse, even if the terminology wasn't introduced until some of the groupings had already been in use for a while. In my edit I even make sure to point out that the grouping names were not official until later. — Andrés Santiago Pérez-Bergquist (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting the publication history, which will hopefully address your concerns. I'd like to leave the 1974 boxed set info as it is here, naked and without assumption (note that the alignments weren't even given as "evil" at the time - merely "chaotic"). Anyone looking at that set for the first time expecting to see the word "chromatic" is going to be confused to find that it only applies to Tiamat (who wasn't even called Tiamat at the time, just "The Chromatic Dragon"). Therefore, I figure it is more appropriate to identify them as chaotic-aligned and explain the changes later, rather than try to explain early on what changes were coming. I also did some revision for the first edition MM, as your rewrite didn't imply strongly enough that the creatures actually appeared in the book, just that they were given pseudoscientific names. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is a sprawling mess. It's poorly written in places, and includes way too many details in an unclear way. I just finished removing some unofficial material from this article, as well as trying to make one section make sense, though there remains a lot of work to be done.

One major issue this article has is the way it bounces back and forth between editions. I recommend that we have a section divided by edition in order to talk about the characteristics of dragons. In addition, rather than elaborately detailing each dragon, we should have a simple chart that shows which editions it has appeared in, and in which publications of that edition. (Alignment might be considered relevant as well.)

As it stands, this article is almost unreadable, and also tends to neglect the 4th Edition perspective.--68.149.127.157 (talk) 01:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I like where you're coming from - so far so good! I'd tackle this one myself, but it would be a ton of work and I've got a lot of other stuff I want to work on! Keep up the good work. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's me again, signed in this time. I've started my work; I began by rewriting the introduction, and then by moving the "dragon classification section" to the top of the article, and then by writing a new, concise opening paragraph for it. (My biggest weakness is finding and citing references; I'd be much obliged if someone could help me out on that count.) There's still a lot I intend to do, but I'm out of motivation for tonight. Maybe tomorrow I'll do some more.

Frankly, I intend to get rid of a lot of the junk in this article, and that means that once I've reorganized it, much of it will need to be rewritten. I still intend to sort this article by edition, which will make it the most concise and readable, using a couple of general sections to tie them together. (One such general section will be the start of the "dragon classification" section, which I just wrote.) I think it would suitable to finish the article with one big table that details the publication history of each dragon species in each edition, and if there's room, a column to list each species' elemental affinity. Other than that, I don't think details like "preferred terrain" are particularly notable, and I don't foresee a place for that information here. (Put it on Wikia if you like.) That table is the last step I have planned for this article, and afterward, we'll see what we still need to do. --Doctorhook.thepirate (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I say the best way to do it would be to set up a section for each edition, then merge in some basic facts with the information that is currently in the "publication history" to make that material less dry. See the rewrite of blink dog for an idea on how that has already been done on a smaller scale. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you. I was looking for an article to use as a example for what I want to do to this one, and that one is laid out exactly the way I'd like to do this one. That said, I think this dragon article is going to need one or two extra general sections, on account of the sheer number of dragons and their importance to the game. Rest assured though, this article will be clean and concise once I'm through with it. --Doctorhook.thepirate (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Scent

In 3.5 they do not have it. Can anyone check in 4 and all historical ones? Adding scent to the mix is common houserule here, but it's just that. 195.22.117.118 (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Shadow Dragon merge

Considering how all other D&D dragons are treated and the scant info on the Shadow Dragon stub, should it be merged into this page? mattpersons 16:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Half dragons?

In the biology section of the article, it mentions that a humanoid creature breeding with a dragon will produce a “Half dragon”, which just sounds like a Dragonborn. I would add a link to the Dragonborn article but I don’t know how to do it AmazingFerret (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@AmazingFerret: Technically, this would work by replacing the first instance of the term half-dragon with [[Dragonborn (Dungeons & Dragons)|half-dragon]], resulting in this link: half-dragon. I would ask you to not do that, however, as half-dragons and dragonborn are similar but not identical in the game. Actually, the concept of half-dragons has been around longer. Also, dragonborn don't yet have an article on Wikipedia, only a paragraph within Reptilian humanoid. So I think so far we are better off treating half-dragons within this article here. Daranios (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

There was an article for Dragonborn, there just isn't one currently. BOZ (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@BOZ: so far as I can tell, a bot saw repeated subjects and just combined them, effectively deleting the entire article AmazingFerret (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Named dragons list

Name	Kind	Age	Sex	Area(s)	Status	As of
Amaeraszantha	Amethyst	Great wyrm	F	Tempus's Tears	Living	1374 DR
Amrennathed "Queen of the Mountain"	Amethyst	Great wyrm	F	Alaoreum, Turmish	Dead	1367 DR
Astanalan	Emerald	Adult	M	Murghôm	Living	1479 DR
Behrshimmer	Emerald	Wyrm	F	Lake of Snows, Giant's Run Mountain	Living	1374 DR
Bleucorundum "The Sapphire Sentinel"	Sapphire	Very old	M	Halls of the Sleeping Legion, Omlarandin Mountains	Living	1374 DR
Domborcojh	Sapphire	Adult	M	Murghôm	Living	1479 DR
Eldenser "The Worm Who Hides in Blades"	Amethyst (brass)	Great wyrm	M	—	Living	1374 DR
Esmerandanna	Emerald	Great wyrm	F	Peaks of Flame, Chult	Living	1374 DR
Felrivenser "Gembright"	Amethyst	Ancient	F	Channel Lock, Narrow Sea	Dead	1374 DR (-645 DR)
Iltharagh "Golden Night"	Topaz (dracolich)	Very old	M	Ice Floe	Undead	1374 DR
Kisonraathiisar	Topaz	Wyrm	M	Westgate	Dead	-349 DR
Klaruuotur	Crystal	Ancient	M	Forest of Mir	Living	1374 DR
Kraxx	Topaz	Mature adult	F	Wild Coast, Chult	Living	1374 DR
Krustalanos	Crystal	Very old	M	Northwest Faerûn	Dead	1374 DR
Llemgradac	Emerald	—	M	Murghôm	Dead	1479 DR
Malaeragoth "The Dragon Unseen"	Sapphire	Very old	M	Underdark beneath Graypeak Mountains	Living	1374 DR
Nolalothcaragascint "Nolaloth"	Crystal	Great wyrm	M	Sword Coast North	Dead	1374 DR
Raulothim "The Silent Shadow" "Wyrm of Axard"	Emerald	Great wyrm	M	Axard, Ruathym	Living	1374 DR
Saryndalaghlothtor "Lady Gemcloak"	Crystal	Adult	F	Crags, Mirabar	Living	1374 DR
Sh'derra D'zeer	Amethyst	Young	F	Highstar Lake	Living	1374 DR
Vercevoran	Emerald	Very old	M	Moonsea Dalelands	Living	1374 DR
Yiarni	Crystal	Adult	F	Thunder Peaks	Living	1374 DR

Just removed the above table. It is entirely focused on the gem dragons of a single setting (Forgotten Realms) & not dragons across D&D. I don't think we need this table in the article since it lacks secondary sources indicating why these dragons standout more than other named dragons across D&D. Sariel Xilo (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Something like this would be better included in a D&D-focused wiki as it is just too much detail to include here. BOZ (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

Shadow dragons need an update

The article adds Shadow Dragons as inhabitants of the shadow material plane. This is false and outdated. They are dragons that are either born or corrupted in the Shadowfell, which is no longer part of the material planes, but a parallel plane to the material one. SalimoG94 (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

This is neither false nor outdated. We don't change old information just because new information doesn't agree. You can add a note saying "as of 4th edition, shadow dragons now..." but we don't remove the information about previous editions. BOZ (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. SalimoG94 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Magic in Dungeons & Dragons is another example of documenting the changes from edition to edition. Ideally, we want to improve this dragon article so it doesn't have an MOS:INUNIVERSE style which means switching the focus to real world events (ie. the publication history). Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)