Talk:Dragon (type)
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)
- No, we don't offer explanations behind type effectivenesses. --SnorlaxMonster 13:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
But on the psychic type page tells that all they types thats super effective against psychic refers to fears affecting the mindMithril 20:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
"The only Dragon type without a weakness to Ice is Kingdra." Isn't there also Dialga, Palkia, Reshiram, and Kyurem? Kianglo 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- "The only non-legendary Dragon-type Pokémon that doesn't sport any weakness to Ice is Kingdra. :--SuperAipom7 (Wanna chat?) 19:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Dragon and Fire attacks
"Furthermore, the combination of Dragon and Fire has almost unresisted coverage." Though Heatran does resist Dragon, Fire is neutral on it, so wouldn't this sentence be false? —βetA ZerØ 18:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Heatran has Flash Fire, which makes it immune to Fire. Werdnae (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
What about Fighting? I'm looking at the Steel-list, and not seeing any pokemon I know to resist Fighting. I believe Fighting isn't much less common than Fire in the wide move-pools of Dragon-types. PLA (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Technically Heatran can still be damaged by Fire if Gastro Acid or Mold Breaker is in effect, or if Heatran has its hidden ability Flame Body -- but I don't think you can even get hidden-ability Heatran, so under normal circumstances it does resist Dragon and is immune to Fire. Also note that any Pokemon with Tinted Lens and a Dragon attack (beyond Dragon Rage) will have completely unresisted type coverage due to the ability, but that's largely a hypothetical scenario as it requires Skill Swap, Mimic, Hidden Power, and/or a summoning move to execute. --Stratelier 23:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Type specialist on Trivia
The trivia says "Every Dragon type specialist has been the final member of their associations, with three eighth Gym Leaders (Clair, Iris, and Drayden),[...]". In Pokémon B2 W2, Drayden is the seventh Gym Leader. Should not this be fixed? BrasilLucasSant 21:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC-3)
- I've altered it. ★Jo the Marten★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 00:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Salamence (Trivia)
Salamence is the only Pokémon that is used by every Dragon-type gym leader or Elite Four member. Maybe this is worth mentioning in the trivia section.--Perlgia (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Redundant info
The page mentions the fact that Dragon is the only type resistant to all starter Pokémon types twice, once in the defensive characteristics and again in the Trivia section. Not sure which one should be removed. Hawntah (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Type charts
The Steel-type did not exist in Generation I. This is not reflected in the type-effectiveness charts. There should be three type-effectiveness charts: one for Generation I, one for Generation II-V, and on for Generation VI onwards. Geodude6 (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposal due to changes from Mega Evolutions
Considering the fact that Ampharos becomes part Dragon due to Mega Evolution, and only that way, I was wondering if a separate section could be created for any Pokémon that temporarily/permanently change their type through it under the "Half Dragon-type Pokémon" section. This way it will reduce needing multiple sections that will just end up needlessly expanding the article, keeping everything simple, while allowing users to see all of the changes caused by the Mega Evolutions. --Super goku (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Couldn't we treat it similarly to type changes through form changes, with a tooltip noting that it only has this type while Megaevolved or whatever? Actually, it might be better to wait on that until we know how Mega-evolution works. Yamiidenryuu (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
- Potentially and likely to be what will happen. However, Mega Evolutions seem to only focus on the Final Evolution of the family of a Pokémon or at least based on what we know at this time. That would mean that over 300 Pokémon would still have a Mega Evolution based on families alone. With enough type changes, we may overload how many templates an article can have. --Super goku (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Be aware that we have no evidence that all final evolutions will get Mega Evolutions. In fact, I've seen some sources saying specifically that not all final evos will get Mega Evolutions, but I don't know if that was actually from CoroCoro or if it's just a rumor. In either case, it's definitely confirmed that not all Mega Evolutions will have type changes. I think treating it like form changes (for example, Darmanitan) should be fine. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- That is a good point. In addition, I made a mistake when I thought about the sections that I should have noticed. Even with a separate section, the article will always have a limited amount of templates it could use, which the only way around that is to make another article off the original. --Super goku (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- Be aware that we have no evidence that all final evolutions will get Mega Evolutions. In fact, I've seen some sources saying specifically that not all final evos will get Mega Evolutions, but I don't know if that was actually from CoroCoro or if it's just a rumor. In either case, it's definitely confirmed that not all Mega Evolutions will have type changes. I think treating it like form changes (for example, Darmanitan) should be fine. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
- So, when will Ampharos be added to the secondary part Dragon list (with an asterisk saying "MegaAmpharos") and on the Electric type page, when will there be an asterisk by Ampharos in the Pure list saying "Normal Ampharos", and Ampharos being added to the Primary part Electric type list with an asterisk about MegaAmpharos? SeanWheeler (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
- Potentially and likely to be what will happen. However, Mega Evolutions seem to only focus on the Final Evolution of the family of a Pokémon or at least based on what we know at this time. That would mean that over 300 Pokémon would still have a Mega Evolution based on families alone. With enough type changes, we may overload how many templates an article can have. --Super goku (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Number of Dragon-type Pokemon
Jo The Marten updated the "number of Dragon-type Pokemon" from 29 to 30 to account for Noivern. However, this is incorrect, as the sentence clearly states as of Generation V. I can't undo it because the page is locked. Would a staff member like to help me out, either by changing it back to 29 or updating the sentence to express that it's as of what has currently been revealed of Generation VI? Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry. ;_; I missed the "as of Gen V" and thought it just said "There are x number of Dragon-type Pokémon." I think I've fixed it. I just don't want to ignore Noivern. ★Jo the Marten★ ಠ_ಠ♥ 08:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
gen 1 battle properties
what exactly is the point of having a separate table? they only thing that changed was steel resisting dragon. Using that logic we need a different table for types such as grass and flying as well, where the only change in battle properties in gen 2 was steel resisting them. 0danmaster0 (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
