Please remember to follow the manual of style and code of conduct at all times.
Check BNN and Bulbanews for up-to-date Pokémon news and discuss it on the forums or in our IRC channel #bulbagarden on irc.systemnet.info.

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Dragon (type)"

From Bulbapedia, the community-driven Pokémon encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
(Fully evolved Dragons: new section)
(Trivia: new section)
Line 8: Line 8:
   
 
Should we keep the small section saying that before Gen V, all fully evolved dragons had two types? Seems a bit pointless now that two of them don't. [[User:Dawnshadow|Dawnshadow]] 09:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 
Should we keep the small section saying that before Gen V, all fully evolved dragons had two types? Seems a bit pointless now that two of them don't. [[User:Dawnshadow|Dawnshadow]] 09:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
  +
  +
== Trivia ==
  +
  +
Should it be stated that Dragon's legendary status, and nature themed powers in mythology are why it resists the "basic"/natural elements Fire, Water, Grass, and Electric?[[User:Tesseract|Tesseract]] 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:34, 10 December 2010

Should the new Gen.5'ers be included in this list?

Now that we know their types, should Reshiram and Zekrom be included in the list as well? Ztobor 21:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They should be, but we're lazy and the server glitches have prevented us from doing much. TTEchidna 23:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh. I was half-expecting you to answer "no". Ztobor 03:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully evolved Dragons

Should we keep the small section saying that before Gen V, all fully evolved dragons had two types? Seems a bit pointless now that two of them don't. Dawnshadow 09:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

Should it be stated that Dragon's legendary status, and nature themed powers in mythology are why it resists the "basic"/natural elements Fire, Water, Grass, and Electric?Tesseract 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)