Talk:Dragon (magazine)

message: Moving forward it may make sense to create a separate article page for Dragon's new online version, keeping separate from the article on the now defunct print edition.  On the disambiguation page it would be Dragon Magazine (print magazine) and Dragon (online magazine).  Some may make the argument that the online version is the direct successor, so should be kept together in one article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gdeyoe (talk • contribs).
*They are the same publication, just in a new format, and they should be kept together in the same article.  The format change is notable and should be worked into the article.  For example, Blockbuster Inc. is moving a significant portion of its business from a retail delivery model to an online model to compete with Netflix, but that doesn't mean there should be a "Blockbuster (retail)" and a separate "Blockbuster (online)" article.  It makes more sense to keep them together in the same article.  Fairsing 22:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Just" in a new format? If the format is the only difference you can spot, you're probably not looking very hard. This ought to be communicated better. -Stellmach 17:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Come to think of it, the change in format alone arguably makes it not a "magazine."  Calling a brand name for certain articles on your website "a magazine" doesn't make it so. -Stellmach 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward: separate articles for Dragon (print magazine) and Dragon (online magazine) 

message: I added the list of editors of Dragon.  I included the titles that the magazine used for each of them.   I have a collection of Dragon issues starting with issue #49 through #305.  So, the info I have ends with issue #305.  I also own the Dragon Magazine archive of #1 - #250.  So, I was able to look through that for info before issue #49.   Since I don't have access to any issues beyond #305... I couldn't include that information.  So, if somebody else knows the info for those issues, please add it to the article.  David Reiss (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors 

message: Someone deleted it, citing it was extreme trivia. Sure. But is that a reason to remove something? Seems the strength of an electronic encyclopedia is such edit considerations don't have to be made. Anyway, please vote, I'll abide by the vote. Mindme (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We do need to keep articles down to a moderate length. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to subscribe back when TJ was editor. I think a w/u about The Dragon (you can tell an old timer: you use "the dragon", use "FM" as a short form for your fighter class, reflexively write "Monty Haul Problem" instead of "Monty Hall Problem", and you keep waiting for that D&D movie Gygax promised us in From the Sorcerer's Scroll that was supposed to be as good as Star Wars ), a magazine with a rich and interesting history, doesn't have to be kept to moderate length. Mindme (talk) 02:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text:  That image just made me really smile. For that reason alone, I think it should stay. For a more objective viewpoint - the presentation of the material object itself is of encyclopedic interest. Information, such as when the magazine went to 4 colour throughout , from saddle-stitched to perfect bound, if it can be cited, should be added. All of these design and material considerations are just as valid as the ownership of the trademark and it's editorial stance. To know that the Dragon had it's own custom printed, ornate envelope in the 80's is a good thing. It would be nice if a citation were found about it too.  --Davémon (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Dragon Envelope

message: FYI, I have removed the speedy deletion warnings from images as fair use was justified.  If anyone has a problem with that, disucss it here.
--KNHaw (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Speedy Deletion Warnings 

message: Please see WT:JCW#Invalid cleanup. This concerns the usage of  in . Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:19, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dungeon (magazine)]] and [[Dragon (magazine)]] cleanup 

message: As the uploader, I received a rubbish notification on my talk page. (Rubbish because the notification should be at the places where the image is used rather than an editor who may no longer be active, 12 years after the image was added.) I have no interest in arguing with an automated bot, so if anyone wants the image kept, now's your chance. AndroidCat (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed non-free use rationale for File:SRLastThumb.jpg 

message: I hope I'm putting this in the right place.  The link to the Dragon Magazine Archive is returning a 404 (page not found) error. Thank you.
Rricci428 (talk) 10:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you find anything on Internet Archive for that? 2601:249:8B80:4050:813:5AA8:F505:67FE (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Hah, no problem. :) 2601:249:8B80:4050:813:5AA8:F505:67FE (talk) 18:01, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragon Magazine link needs to be removed (404 error) 

message: There is a reference to "Dialect collaboration" and wondered what the hell "Dialect" was. Why is it mentioned twice in the article without any explanation what it is?  This isn't the only Wikipedia article that does this but it should be explained or removed. 24.32.230.242 (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an advertising agency, as indicated by the associated source. I've clarified it in the article. Mindmatrix 13:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

text: The lead paragraph says that Dragon+ was "created by the advertising agency Dialect in collaboration with Wizards of the Coast". Does that need more clarification in the article? 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialect?