Talk:Dragon (disambiguation)

Shiney

Do we have any news on what happened to Shiney? from Goren's Stuff. The GWW page for Shiney says that whether Shiney is in GW2 is unknown, but a dragon is still a dragon... is it worth mentioning here? Neora 04:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Other Dragons

→ moved from Talk:Main Page

How are the lesser dragons going to be documented on the GW2 wiki? The only one we know of so far now is the Shatterer, in a location near the Charr territories called the Brand. Will a subsection under Elder Dragons be made, or will a new lead section titles Dragons be made, with the elders and sub dragons both in there?--Neithan Diniem 22:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what The Shatter is, I believe it was classed as a "special" dragon in the article. That sound like it's different from other dragons in some (and in my opinion, significant) way. However, I get what you mean, and I'd say that in the "Dragons" section, there just be a link to what ever other category(/ies) that there are, i can't see there being more than one or 2 additional groups myself (though i could be wrong =p) ~ PheNaxKian talk 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My assumption is that this (and any additional Dragons) are just pawns of the elder Dragons. Just because the lore states the Elders awaken every century now doesn't mean that lesser Dragons don't. Another possibility could be taht this Dragon is merely a construct built by one of the Elders to serve as a commander in its army. Either way though, they themselves classify the Shatterer as a Dragon, so the wiki ought to as well. Once more are found a proper section could be made, but what about an "Other Dragons" for the time being or whatnot? Also, should it be on the main page just as the Elder Dragons are listed there should a few (but not too many) more be revealed?--Neithan Diniem 04:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It was said sometime in the past that the higher ranking the minion is, the more draconic it is. As such, minions of the Elder Dragons will be draconic and some dragons themselves. Not all dragons are connected to the Elder Dragons though. Along with that, I'm sure each Elder Dragon has its own name or its minions (e.g., the destroyers are Primordus' minions).

@Neithan: It's about every 50 years, not century. The "lesser dragons" are either minions or unrelated (directly) and thus are not waking up.

So how I see it is that among the minions there will be "twisted minions," "draconic minions," and then "dragon minions" - from order of weakest/lowest rank to strongest/highest rank. -- Konig/talk 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

this is just a geuss but i think the shatterer is glint but corrupted by the corruption dragon beause it does say the corruption dragons lands near to glints lair—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadow spirit (talk • contribs).

I'm fairly sure that the Shatterer has been confirmed to be it's own dragon. Eive 18:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Shatterer isn't a single dragon. It is a title - once one Shatterer dies, the next powerful draconic minion of Kralkatorrik becomes the Shatterer. This was placed on the Shatterer's page. If Glint was the Shatterer - she'd be killed without anyone knowing and replaced by another minion of supposedly equal strength and look. -- Konig/talk 21:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

i can see the shatterer is a minion because if you looks at the minions of primordius ( the destroyers)they are mostly hollow aswell

That's what I meant Konig. Eive 21:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

possible mounts

[1] states that if mounts were implemented, then they would have dragons. add in notes? Getefix 17:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that was a joke. - Giant Nuker 17:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it was a joke. But I haven't heard much else about mounts so it would probably be a ways off. --Moto Saxon 18:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

so wait until further confirmation? Getefix 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a joke. Dragons are enemies. Why would they be mounts? Because Anet likes dragons, apparently. I'm sure that's what the comment meant. -- Konig/talk 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What if there are more friendly (lesser) dragons like Glint? At the end of the story you and DE could get to ride them and use their epic skills vs an elder dragon :P --zeeZ 21:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't a joke, it was a throwaway/not-so-serious/shoulder-shrugging comment - I don't think it's enough to conclude that there may be dragon mounts. pling 21:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@Zeez, you do realize that there has been only 2 dragons in the continent of Tyria other than Elder Dragons, right? Glint and her kid (although if you count drakes...). If dragon mounts are added, they'd be added with Cantha. I'm hoping for a lack of mounts all together, personally. Except in the form of Siege Devourers and Junundu wurms in GW1 (e.g., environmental weapons that change how you look and have limited places they can go - such as turrets). -- Konig/talk 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

GWW tag

Why is there a GWW tag on this article? The GWW tag adds nothing to the article because the only thing on the GWW page is a brief quote about Canthan dragons and then a list of dragons that appear in GW. Just because the page exists doesn't mean it warrants a gww tag. Aqua (T|C) 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

They are of the same topic. Same with dredge (more so there in fact!). Both articles could be argued to require improvement in the side of lore information (along with at least 60% of other articles, both wikis included). Konig/talk 18:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Same argument here as with any other "there is an article on GWW, so we surely must link it?!" articles touched. There's no need to link bestiaries like that, not even for dragons. - Infinite - talk 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the GWW tag is to provide additional information on a certain topic. So long as there's different information on the same topic then, imo, there should be a gww/gw2w tag. Articles such as The Underworld which provides absolutely no additional information doesn't need the tag (in this example, it would be the gww that doesn't deserve the tag, as the GWW provides information on the UW's background which the GW2W article doesn't). Konig/talk 22:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

But would you say the GWW template is actually useful here, because I personally see no value in it being here. - Infinite - talk 23:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A reader might. Lhimez 23:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it useful for you? Apparently no. Is it useful for me? Not really since I already know it, or if I'm interested I'd go to GWW from the get go, unless I was comparing the two articles. Is it useful for John and Jane Doe? It might be, it might not be. It depends on why they're coming here. At the moment, both articles lack in potential context, I'd argue, though this one is more iffy than the GWW as the only dragons we have in GW2 are dragon champions. For now. Konig/talk 06:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You dont know that. Anet maybe just thought the normal dragons were just as boring as any other normal mob and so didnt reveal them. And why not make this page a stub? (I swear thats not right. Correct me.) Whereas we link it to Dragon Champions and Elder Dragons without very much else on it. (That said; if my first and second sentence dont prove to be wrong.) Lhimez 09:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A stub is when more information is known to have been released, but not yet documented. That said, I suppose seeing the use in the GWW template on this article is a crystal ball case, exactly because of the lack of known information at this time. However, I still think that the GWW article gives GW2 players barely any additional insight that could be relevant and could not also just get an additional line on the GW2W article (Cantha still exists, it's just not accessible at this time; we should have a note or trivia bullet explaining that Cantha is dragon-themed on *this* article). - Infinite - talk 14:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @Lhimez: "the only dragons we have in GW2 are dragon champions. For now." Key words: For now.
@Infinite: I agree that GWW linking here doesn't add much, if anything, but that is irrelevant to the original topic of this discussion, which is about adding gww tags on gw2w articles. As for the second point: I disagree, as knowledge on Canthan dragons provides two things to readers: 1) That dragons exist(ed) on Cantha in quantities (this is not stated on this article and, as it stands, shouldn't as it's not immediately relevant to GW2), and 2) not all dragons are related to the Elder Dragons (despite what's currently (that's to you Lhimez) shown in GW2). I disagree with adding the note on this article as it's not directly relevant here - this is the point of interwiki linking in the first place (especially since we don't even know if Cantha still has lots of dragons or is dragon themed). Konig/talk 21:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

jormag

why is Jormag listed but none of the other Elder Dragons listed on this page?- Zesbeer 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As the page says, it's often referred to as "Dragon" by the Sons of Svanir. None of the other dragons are commonly referred to as "Dragon". Manifold 19:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

couldn't you say the same thing about all the other dragons?- Zesbeer 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Primordius, Zhaitan, Kralkatorrik, and Mordremoth are generally called by their names. When referred to as "Dragon", it's in context (like during the personal story, which is about fighting Zhaitan, so it's not ambiguous which dragon is being referenced). Jormag is a little different because he's often referred to as "Dragon" in the sense of "Dragon, Spirit of the Wild". This is similar to how other Spirits of the Wild are referred to in shortened form, like "Bear" or "Minotaur". Vili 点 21:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)