Talk:Elder Dragon/Archive 2

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

More Speculations

so.. whilst reading random things some time ago on various wikias for games I play, I realized something. the movement of the world mentions a "cycle" in which the dragons awake. I wonder if this cycle in some way might be similar to the cycle of extinction which the reapers go through in mass effect ( I'm not saying that the fine point are similar, but that the idea is the same. Though also, this is taking into account how the dragons appear to be at odds with each other. This taken into account, could the "true gods" ( have something to do with this cycle? could they have left now that the cycle of awakening is once again beggining? maybe the gods exist to start the cycle, by creating life. the dragons, on the other hand, exist to end the cycle, at which time the gods, as stated, leave Tyria. now, unfortunately, as I have found one problem, which is that "Their age is not known, but it is known that the current pantheon is not the first, and that it is not as old as the Elder Dragons", as well as "Gods predate humans, "but not by that much". ". your thoughts? -- Reez 23:25, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

The cycle it refers to is that a dragon awakens every 50 years until they are all awake.- Giant Nuker 18:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Also why does your time tag state July 2, 2010?.- Giant Nuker 18:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
clock was off... Reez 18:34, January 3, 2010 (UTC)
The cycling could just be guess. Remember, the Movement of the World was written from a human point of view, so not everything would be accurate (i.e., changed since the early pre-beta lore). And there is the possibility that the view is that the dragons were once awake then sleeping and once more awake; a cycle just as any creature's waking/sleeping habit is a cycle. -- Konig/talk 05:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


It is said that Dragons rival the power of Gods. Bloodstones surpress the power of magic. Does anyone think that Zhaitan broke the bloodstone? It would explain the missing bloodstone that Abbadon created and why he is very powerful. --Miteshu 23:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Abaddon didn't create any bloodstones, it was just the other five gods. And as far as we know, it is uniting the bloodstones, not breaking, that would grant powerful magic. But all the dragons rival the gods, not just one, so that idea wouldn't work anyways, not to mention Zhaitan was always as strong as he is now, so he couldn't have gained power via bloodstone. -- Konig/talk 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How do we defeat such beasts?

my mind trails back to Shadow of the Colossus on PS2, cause honestly I don't want a majorly anticlimactic battle like against Abaddon..oh attack the face... Zachariah Zuan. 22:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in GW1 was really all that climactic in terms of the fights in GW1 - at least to me - simply due to how the game is played (same goes for a majority of rpg games tbh); however, who even said we'll be defeating the dragons? Even Anet has made it foggy on if we do anything to Zhaitan aside from encountering it. And he/she/it is the main enemy of the game. -- -- Konig/talk 22:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Mabey we can fly.</sarcasm>--NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 22:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
true point there Konig, I remembered then that the Order of Whispers believe they're immortal, and are trying to send them to sleep again still, ya gotta fight one at least Zachariah Zuan. 22:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope there is no flying.... unless then entire level flies and we do battle on the back of the dragon Venom20 [User_talk:Venom20] 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
They said that the players won't be able to fly. Not even a norn in raven form. -- -- Konig/talk 00:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
well it'll hover I assume, just above ground, otherwise it'll be useless Zachariah Zuan. 10:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
No, on both accounts. Raven form != Harpy Form. And it won't be useless just because it can't fly... -- -- Konig/talk 10:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation and Archive

I archived it, due to warnings of being too big. And, from [1] they are capitals... --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasnt to bad. but i do agree it was a little bit too long :P --NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Capitals indeed, so we're going to have to move it back to Elder Dragons or Elder Dragon (up for discussion, or see archive for previous discussion). - Infinite - talk 17:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the move; "dragon" here doesn't seem to be a proper noun, and we generally don't (or at least shouldn't) base titles or capitalisation solely on ArenaNet's usage. As I said in some previous discussion about the article's name, these are just dragons that qualify as elder.
For those who don't go with the independent-from-Anet argument, their house of style thing uses lowercase for race names; the book would've been written before they decided to go with that style. pling User Pling sig.png 22:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
One passing mention isn't necessarily confirmation, though I'm not really going to take a side on this issue. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 02:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
"One passing mention"? Check this, mate: (Ctrl+F then type in "Elder Dragons")
A Tyrian tradition for over 250 years, snowball fights just goes to show you that even the looming threat of the Elder Dragons isn’t enough to break the spirit of the people.
^ This was the second mentioning of the Elder Dragons with capitalisation on the 1st of July. I don't believe in coincidences, and you?
I suggest we should move it back to Elder Dragon(s)
@ and pling: check that excerpt. It is fully following the rules of the new House of Style. --Thalador Doomspeaker 06:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I must say, "Elder dragon"... feels wrong.
"we generally don't (or at least shouldn't) base titles or capitalisation solely on ArenaNet's usage"
^wat? The Wiki should copy the game. That's one of the absymally few things GWW got right, let's not scrap the good stuff. The book is the closest we have to knowing what way the capitalization will be in the game, and so we should use it. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 14:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
GWW chose to capitalise things its own way; that's why I've come to prefer that to just copying ArenaNet. Let's not scrap the good stuff. edit: Capitalising Dragon when we don't capitalise asura, human, norn, sylvari, and charr is not only [a bit] nonsensical but inconsistent. pling User Pling sig.png 16:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Writing things in the wrong way is considered to be "good stuff"? --Thalador Doomspeaker 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't - I don't think having "dragon" lowercase is wrong. It's not a proper noun, therefore it shouldn't be capitalised. pling User Pling sig.png 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We've followed ArenaNet's House of Style, why should we stop that now? They are not normal dragons. Their collective name is 'Elder Dragons'. That is their title. --Thalador Doomspeaker 16:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
We've never actively followed their style. I agree that they're not normal dragons, but they are still dragons; they're qualified by the "elder" bit. It's like the dwarves being an elder race; these dragons are Elder Dragons. pling User Pling sig.png 16:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it is very likely that the House of Styles was developed during or after the writing of Ghosts of Ascalon. As for Elder Dragon(s) being capitalized, wouldn't it be possible for it to be a title? Per this Wikipedia page, capitalizing both Elder and Dragon is considered correct, and the fact that ArenaNet chose to capitalize both letters leads me to believe that we should just move the page (back?) to Elder Dragon. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 16:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
The formatting guideline on GWW and the guideline draft on GW2W both say to capitalise the beginning of sentences and proper nouns only in article titles and section headers; that's in the GW2W draft because it's what we've generally done thus far. pling User Pling sig.png 16:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately this is not GWW, and the formatting draft is just that, a draft. I strongly believe in following the House of Style over what has generally been done "thus far", we've got official rules on capitalization etc, I believe we should follow them. I'm also gonna bring this up in the GW2W formatting draft. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 16:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
It's in the draft because it's the wiki's current practice; obviously, it can be changed, but that's why I mentioned the guidelines. pling User Pling sig.png 17:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I have a mixed opinion of this. Either we stick to "elder dragon" if we refer to it as just the dragon, that is elder; or we have "Elder Dragons", if it is specifically a special group of dragons, similar to The Five Gods. poke | talk 17:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we should make it Elder Dragons , think, by now, Glint and Kuuni are probly "Elder" by now, which would put them in Elder dragons, But i think that'd be just .. strange?.. with Elder Dragons, it clearly points to the Elder Dragons, Zhaitan 'nd co. --NeilUser Neil2250 sig icon5 Anti.png 18:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Glint and Kuunavang aren't considered a part of the group collectively called the Elder Dragons (Jormag, Zhaitan, etc.). And as far as I am concerned, Elder Dragon is a singular title, whilst the plural form refers to the whole group. I'll keep hammering on the fact that ArenaNet decided to capitalize both Elder and Dragon, making it consistent the House of Style, and also with general (American) grammar rules. Hence, the page should be moved to Elder Dragon. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 18:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Wasn't well informed before. So, even in multiple excerpts from Ghosts of Ascalon, they capitalize both words. Should be moved. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 04:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Though both 'elder' and 'dragon' are ordinary words. Combined within many fiction related stories, 'Elder Dragon', is a title given to the dragons that have lived for over centuries. Either way, it's different then a name or name given to a particular location within the world. I think we should just keep this for now, and wait for future updates about the lore. Is this really something we should discuss about? Ge4ce 12:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Considering how few and far between the updates are, and considering everything should, in fact, be documented properly...yes, it should be discussed. Capitalization counts for properness too. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 05:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I've just checked it, and Ree wrote "Elder Dragons" in her Personal Stories article. Ree is the Lore & Continuity Designer for Guild Wars 2, so if someone knows how to write Elder Dragons in the proper way, then it is her. --Thalador Doomspeaker 12:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
After poke pointed out his Five Gods example, I would be ok with having "Elder Dragons", but still reluctantly so. (By the way, there are probably many "proper" ways to write things, it's determining what's proper for us and our house style. Which is why I don't think renaming this article should be an indicator to rename any other article or section title; I'm not agreeing to the move being based on capitalising all words in titles.) pling User Pling sig.png 12:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if being a bureacrat/sysop means that you have the right of veto - since I'm new -, but basically you're the only who disagrees with the moving of this article (all the others seem to agree that "Elder Dragon(s)" should be capitalised in every article). However, we should follow ArenaNet's House of Style if we want this site to be the official Guild Wars 2 Wiki. --Thalador Doomspeaker 12:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
In content matters, bureaucrats and sysops have the same weight as any other user. As I said, I'm ok with moving this particular page to Elder Dragons - note the plural form; the singular would be "one of the Elder Dragons", not "an Elder Dragon", similar to how it would be "one of the Five Gods" and not "a Five God". The discussion about general formatting should continue at Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Formatting/General instead of here. pling User Pling sig.png 14:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Now that I'm back from vacation, I got a lot to catch up. I'll state this: I haven't read this whole discussion. However, just because a couple things have been capitalizing it doesn't mean it should automatically become capitalized. We've seen far more cases of it being lowercased. Also, I've seen dislike for "Elder dragon" - that isn't what the article is, it is "Elder Dragon" but the first letter is automatically capitalized. Anyways, whether or not we move it, it should stay singular for sure. I personally don't see how simple descriptions of the game (i.e., interviews, blogs, and these updates) can justify a whole rework of the wiki. I think we should wait until we know how it is addressed in game - where the capitalization counts - instead. I've seen Ree and others capitalize and lowercase multiple race names - the primary victims of this confusion being the mursaat, asura, and seers. So I say "wait for official and intended (read: in game, not talks or discussions) spelling. -- Konig/talk 02:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read the excerpt from the book - and this is a case which would be the same, in my opinion, as what I said before "wait for the official and intended." So I'm in favor of changing it to Elder Dragon (not Elder Dragons as that will cause, yet another, issue with linking as everything using Elder Dragon would have to be [[Elder Dragon|Elder Dragon]] instead of having [[Elder Dragon]]s for plural cases. However, depending on how the excerpt of the book was put up, even that may be wrong. -- Konig/talk 12:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the problem is there. If it's moved to Elder Dragons then linking to [[Elder Dragon]] can be made a singular-to-plural redirect, can't it? Isn't that the point of redirects? --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 17:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
How I see it, redirects are meant more for searches (and talk pages?) and not the articles. Redirects are always avoided where possible in articles - at least, as far as I've noticed. And besides, articles should be kept in the singular, not plural. -- Konig/talk 18:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Using redirects in articles is fine. pling User Pling sig.png 22:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's still not moved to Elder Dragon, and due to this tl;dr discussion (which I DID read) there's still no consensus reached. Edit conflict, much? - Infinite - talk 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It happens every so often; everyone just forgets about it. Just have to bump it usually. --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so, discussion is diminishing. Unless something else is brought up, should I assume we have consensus...? --Kyoshi User Kyoshi sig.png (Talk) 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've got a question. If the book, Ghosts of Ascalon, uses "Elder Dragon(s)" the whole time, shall we move this article to "Elder Dragon" at last? I would be very surprised if the lore gods - Ree and/or Jeff - (or anyone with the proper knowledge) did not check the book in the light of the new House of Style. --Thalador Doomspeaker 19:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
While I do find it interesting that the excerpt of the book does have it as Elder Dragons and not Elder Dragon, we shouldn't have it plural. If the first book has it capitalized, then I see no reason why not to move it to Elder Dragon. Though a sysop or admin should move it, as they can delete the current redirect page Elder Dragon and move the page. Like it should be. -- Konig/talk 21:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Consensus reached then? All we need now is a member of staff to execute it. (Yes a bump for not voiding walls of texts and ignoring consensus.) - Infinite - talk 14:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it should be plural. After all the article is about dragons not one dragon. Ramei Arashi 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So is High Legion, any other article on plural topics, it is still put in the singular because how the article name can be used is singular first and foremost. When you speak of one Elder Dragon, you do not use Elder Dragons. Articles should never be plural unless the name is plural. In this case, it isn't. -- Konig/talk 00:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Leave it singular but capitalize it. It's not "Elder Dragon", it's "Elder Dragon". ^^ --Thalador Doomspeaker 20:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

-pokes the sysops/admins- =] - Infinite - talk 07:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, I fail to see a clear consensus here. While there seems to be consensus now to have an upper case "D", I can't say the same thing for the singular vs. plural debate.
Personally, as explained somewhere above, "Elder Dragons" makes more sense. Also using High Legion as an example doesn't work at all, because that article is far from being complete and it has yet to be decided if a singular makes sense there (and why). On the other hand the better example would be gw1:The Five Gods (and all their other names)... poke | talk 17:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Truth be told, it really depends on how the articles are made. E.g., Languages of Tyria/Religions of Tyria/Gods of Tyria - it's a list of multiple languages/religions/Human Gods. Elder Dragon(s) is on the race (if it is a race) called "Elder Dragon" just as High Legion is about the rank of charr society known as "High Legion." Would we call it fleshreavers or fleshreaver, human or humans, norn or norns, centaur or centaurs, gladium or gladiums, captain or captains, season or seasons, timeline or timelines, druid or druids? With the exception of list-esk and list articles, they always end up being singular - the exception being where you cannot talk about the whole topic without going into plural (e.g., gods, religions), you can talk about the Elder Dragons in singular just as well as plural (that is, you can say "The Elder Dragons are etc." or "An Elder Dragon is etc." - the only iffy one is the Gods of Tyria page). -- Konig/talk 21:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
<insert d'oh moment> The current article is already using singular, case closed. Move it to Elder Dragon. - Infinite - talk 22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm amazed how you think this is closed. It is not. poke | talk 08:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
"While I do find it interesting that the excerpt of the book does have it as Elder Dragons and not Elder Dragon, we shouldn't have it plural. If the first book has it capitalized, then I see no reason why not to move it to Elder Dragon. -Konig" From there on out until I put my comment about poking the admins/sysops. There was plenty of time to disagree, only one user did so and that was worked out clearly. But, if anyone still objects, by all means state as to why. - Infinite - talk 12:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
My comments here don't have a time limit on them - the arguments and opinions still stand until I decide to change my mind and thus say so. Therefore, they presumably go towards determining consensus as well. pling User Pling sig.png 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) May I suggest moving this to Elder Dragon, archiving this annoyingly long discussion, and begin a new one on whether to use Elder Dragon or Elder Dragons? At the moment, this article is incorrect and it is better to be correct but community-based-pluralization-being-uncertain than incorrect and community-based-pluralization-being-uncertain. Honestly, it doesn't matter whether it is Elder Dragon or Elder Dragons, we have cases of it being stated "Elder Dragon" - when talking about one ED - and we have cases of "Elder Dragons" - when talking about multiple ED. It is correct either way we title the article.
However, it is easier to utilize the article title via Elder Dragon so that when talking about one, we do not have to do [[Elder Dragon|Elder Dragon]] but can rather do [[Elder Dragon]]s. It is out of pure ease of use and fewer characters (thus fewer bytes) used that it should be singular (other articles, such as Gods of Tyria, is not so. Perhaps if we changed it to "God" or "Language" instead of Gods of Tyria or Languages of Tyria, it would be far different), and it is out of pure preference that it is either. -- Konig/talk 17:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"we have cases of it being stated "Elder Dragon" - when talking about one ED" Citation needed. - Tanetris 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Timeline - "Elder Fire Dragon" "Elder Crystal Dragon" "Elder Undead Dragon" - GoA also stating things like "The Elder Dragon Kralkatorrik" and the like. When mentioning one Elder Dragon, it is not called "The Elder Dragons Primordus" or whatever - Primordus is not multiple things, Zhaitan is not multiple dragons, etc. Heck, ever we do it that way, even the ones wanting Elder Dragons do! The only case it talks of one Elder Dragon and uses plural cases is as Pling says - utilizing the phrase (or similar phrases) "one of the Elder Dragons..." - but that's like saying "one of the humans..." or "one of the Americans" "one of the (enter plural form of anything here), the phrase could be reworded to "an Elder Dragon" or "the Elder Dragon" without change to the meaning. -- Konig/talk 19:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm with Konig on this (and have been for weeks now). It should be at least moved to a page which capitalizes dragon and go from there with a fresh discussion to reach new concensus.
Also, I'd like to point out that "My comments here don't have a time limit on them - the arguments and opinions still stand until I decide to change my mind and thus say so. -pling" implies that there should not be a certain time limit on reaching concensus. Though I partially agree with that, this is still a Wiki and things should reach concensus as soon as possible, to correctly display the information we have documented. We simply cannot take our sweet time reaching concensus on anything, especially when more and more are being discussed. Just my two cents. - Infinite - talk 22:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I fail too see how this has NOT reached a consensus, we've had quotes from articles and the book. It is Elder Dragon, not Elder dragon. If the Article "Elder Dragon" was not a redirect, it would have been moved by now. The whole plural or not plural is a different discussion all together. So for now, I strongly agree it should be moved to Elder Dragon --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 23:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with "Elder Dragons", due to poke's argument. Instead of moving this to "Elder Dragon" and then to "Elder Dragons", it would be better to settle the issue now and decide which of the two it will be moved to. Erasculio 23:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) After a long discussion with Naut, I have actually changed my mind about moving this to Elder Dragon, it shouldn't be singular. Much like we recognize a dead god as much as a living one, the Gods of Tyria depict a group, much like the Elder Dragons depict a group. We cannot tell at this time whether every Dragon in this category is unique or is replaced after death (frankly, we cannot even be sure they actually DIE). Even so, the article describes a group of creatures of significant importance. Enough to exclude them from standard race guidelines (using singular for races). The article should be moved to Elder Dragons. Unless more information about the Elder Dragons is released, we should treat them much like we treat the gods of Tyria. - Infinite - talk 23:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with ^, due to me winning the discussion :P Elder Dragons is best. --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 23:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) x2 The argument for utilizing "Elder Dragons" is using the Five Gods as an example. But what people seem to fail to realize is that the article gw1:the Five Gods is a redirect to gw1:Gods of Tyria - made the same to the article on this wiki. Now, it being a redirect means that it is a poor article name, but still a commonly searched or used term. Likewise, Elder Dragons will be just as commonly used/searched as "ancient dragons" (the previous name for this group). Now, before the argument shifts from using "the Five Gods" to "Gods of Tyria" - like I've said before, it would be inaccurate to call the article "God of Tyria" as that would imply one god, as it is an unofficial term for a group, while Elder Dragon is an official group title. The difference is that Gods of Tyria is a descriptive title that describes the whole instead of a title given to the whole. Likewise, "the Five God" doesn't make sense as Five is plural thus God would have to be plural - likewise goes for Six Gods should a move be suggested for that. Human Gods is, like Elder Dragon, an official term and could be made singular as well, though it would still seem weird imo. Elder Dragon is far different in that aspect.
A side note: At the argument above (as I finally got around to reading the entirity of the discussion) that revolved around the House of Style and how we don't capitalize race names yet we are capitalizing Elder Dragon - the answer is simple: dragon is the race, Elder Dragon is the group. It's like human and Margonite - the first is the race, the second is a group within the race (until they were turned into demons), or human and Ascalonian. -- Konig/talk 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I can accept Margonite as a singular, Elder Dragon I can not. The Elder Dragons are not simply directly related to other dragons. Margonites are more or less a race, though mutated/tainted from another race. Elder Dragons are not in the sense that they are a group of superior beings. In sentence: "Jormag is an Elder dragon, one of the five known Elder Dragons." Elder is its title, dragon its species and Elder Dragons the group. - Infinite - talk 00:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Again, I still support Elder Dragons, under this view: "Elder Dragon" is, in itself a title. Much like "God of Tyria", "Elder Dragons" is the group of the things that hold this title, as is "Gods of Tyria" too the gods. This article, talks about the actions of a group. Not like Hylek which just describes the race, it is again, similar to Gods of Tyria. If it was Elder Dragon, then it would describe the basics of a race. Appearance, short history, location etc. Sorry if this didn't make much sense. I'm an newbie to walls of text --Naut User Naut Dark Blue Monk.png 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So you want this page plural, Margonite - another group but of greater numbers - singular. What about Druid, gw1:Kurzick, gw1:Luxon, High Legion, Asuran college, Firstborn, Corsair... the list goes on. Groups, like races, in every case has been denoted as singular unless the article title is descriptive (Gods of Tyria), or the official name is plural (Five/Six Gods). The only exception to this that I can think of currently is Spirits of the Wild, which actually could be made singular, though I cannot think of a single instant where the whole name is used in a singular notion - instead they are called simply "spirit" when referred to as smaller than the whole. So tell me, why should Elder Dragon(s) be any different? @Infinite specifically, actually elder is a descriptive term for its age, dragon is its species, and Elder Dragon is the combination of such which has become the name of the group when referred to in a plural sense. By the sounds of things, Elder Dragon is not a group name, as there is no real group name, but it is the combination of its race and its descriptive term to separate it from the rest of the dragons and said combination has become used as the group name. It is still no different from anything else - ethnicity or group, all the same really; it's a classification of multiple individuals and are capitalized terms. -- Konig/talk 02:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
As per this quote from The Movement of the World; "Although these creatures are called dragons, they are as different from Kuunavang and Glint as night to day—more powerful, older, born of different, unfathomable magic, these horrors are controlled by no god nor any other power known to the races of Tyria. What connection they have to these "younger dragons" is unknown, but they certainly do not possess the mercy or familiarity with the sentient races of the world that Kuunavang or Glint portray." the Elder Dragons are, infact, no normal "older" dragons. This means they are indeed a special group and should be treated as such, resulting in a move to Elder Dragons, unlike a common singular that we use on all races. - Infinite - talk 02:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
But we use singular for groups too! Or were you not listening to what I said? -- Konig/talk 03:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Of course I listen, but your point is not applicable to this particular group. If it was, I'd be nominating Gods of Tyria for a move to God of Tyria, as Naut, myself and others have stated above. This is the only group next to the gods themselves I can think of to be titled with a plural, from the top of my head. On Elder Dragon you'd have to state how they behave, their history and their current standing, not the fact they're running rampage on the inhabitants of Tyria or their effect on nature and environment. Something we didn't do with the gods either, yet Centaur, Heket, Asura, Kurzick, etc. we did. This is because those groups are in a different league as Elder Dragons and the Gods of Tyria. Simple as, to be very honest. - Infinite - talk 03:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Uh... This wiki's Gods of Tyria article is incomplete at best to me (hence the stub, after all - that's just a placeholder no one bothered to work on). Over on the other wiki, we do state their history and current standing - their behavior we don't know (well, we mention what we know - such as Dwayna and Grenth having yearly battles; personal behavior goes on their own pages, like Balthazar being a sore looser should be if it isn't). For the Elder Dragons, running amok is their bevaior, we don't know their history and their current standing is mentioned on their individual pages. So... it kind of fits the requirements. That is, to what we have of knowledge. Once we learn more of either the ED or the gods, their respective pages will be edited and expanded. -- Konig/talk 04:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
So what exactly is the objection of doing the same thing for the Elder Dragons? As in this article moved to Elder Dragons and when we know more details about them individually, expanding their individual pages (and possibly adding more general info here)? - Infinite - talk 13:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Aside from it being different from the rest of the groups which doesn't share the naming system of the Gods of Tyria (<topic> of <subject> - such as Languages of Tyria, Governments of Tyria, Spirits of the Wild, etc.) and it would be different from the system used for the kind of topic it is (groups of individuals - which are all singular like races, excluding the aforementioned situation). It would be out of place with other articles of similar use and would create inconsistency. Also, Elder Dragon is easier to use than Elder Dragons in terms of linking (utilizes less bytes and characters) while God of Tyria doesn't work like that. Also, naming of the like of the Gods of Tyria article in a singular form implies that there is one - and only one - of that kind simply because the name utilizes terms normally seen or used in both singular and plural form - while something like Druid, Margonite, Elder Dragon gives a different interpretation than God in comparison to its plural form.
Along with that, as I said above, Elder Dragon is utilized in its singular form officially, while the Six Gods (one of the two terms used in GW2 for that group of Gods) isn't, nor is Human Gods (yet). However, Human Gods can be used as a singular form (Human God) without conflict in grammar, so if Gods of Tyria ever gets moved to Human God(s) - I would then suggest the singular form. -- Konig/talk 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit: Along with that, just because an article exists doesn't mean it is in the right. Gods of Tyria is an unofficial term (official terms being Six Gods, Five Gods, Old Gods, True Gods, Tyrian Gods, and Human Gods - all but the first two are used in singular context as well as plural). Utilizing an unofficial term for support shouldn't be done. -- Konig/talk 13:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
And as per this quote, from the GoA page on the official site; "Both charr and humans are exhausted by continual fighting and deadly new threats such as the ascendant power of the Elder Dragons." it would imply that even for documentary purposes, the GW2 house of style uses the plural. Same can be seen in the excerpt of Chapter 1 "fleeing from the power of one of the great Elder Dragons to the north." "One of the great Elder Dragons." It points towards using the plural for this article, no matter how they co-exist next to other groups/races on the Wiki. - Infinite - talk 15:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"One of the Margonites" "One of the norns" "One of the Druids" - it's just a form of typing it. Also, there are uses of Elder Dragon over Elder Dragons in Ghosts of Ascalon as well. For instance, on page 100: "To have any hope of defeating an Elder Dragon, the peoples of Tyria would have to band together to fight it." That was a prime chance to use Elder Dragons (defeating the Elder Dragons) but it chose Elder Dragon - it didn't even have to use "Elder Dragon(s)" at all in that line, in fact, considering the rest of the paragraph and, in fact, the entire scene. So Elder Dragon is used, and while Elder Dragons is used more since the phrase (singular or plural) is used mostly when referred to the group, that does not make Elder Dragon wrong, nor does it make Elder Dragons the absolute.
It should also be noted that a majority of the references to the Elder Dragons are denoted as "the dragon(s)" or "<element> Dragon" (for instance, Almorra refers to Kralkatorrik a majority of the time as "the dragon" but occasionally as "the Crystal Dragon" - likewise, Gullik refers to Jormag as the "Ice Dragon" and Kranxx to Primordus as the "Fire Dragon" - however, they are all called "dragon" at some point, denoting a species). -- Konig/talk 15:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"To have any hope of defeating an Elder Dragon, the peoples of Tyria would have to band together to fight it." Reminds me of "defeating a god", in reference to Abaddon. If you're not going to change your mind, and neither am I anymore, it's best to call for a majority vote to reach consensus. Obviously discussion leads nowhere any longer. - Infinite - talk 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Elder Dragons based on their importance as a group versus Elder Dragon based on their importance as a species? I believe the majority should decide from here on out. - Infinite - talk 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

... I never said that. Their species is dragon, their group - or rather, their ethnicity within the race - is Elder Dragon, and referring to them in multiples is Elder Dragons. Just like Margonite is the species of first human then demon, their group is Margonite, and in the plural it is Margonites. Also, to bring back the original argument for the singular form: It is easier to use in the articles, where with Elder Dragons if we want to denote a single Elder Dragon without always having to go with "one of the Elder Dragons" we'll have to type [[Elder Dragon|Elder Dragon]], while if the page were Elder Dragon it would be [[Elder Dragon]]s for the plural form (yes, redirects can be used, but it's preferred by many to utilize direct links). It is far more convenient for it to be Elder Dragon. -- Konig/talk 16:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
"I'm not sure what the problem is there. If it's moved to Elder Dragons then linking to Elder Dragon can be made a singular-to-plural redirect, can't it? Isn't that the point of redirects? -Kyoshi" That. - Infinite - talk 17:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Smacks Konig*. --Naoroji User Naoroji Golem - Green.jpg 17:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You're not even listening anymore, are you? "yes, redirects can be used, but it's preferred by many to utilize direct links" -- Konig/talk 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not really.. Article names are not decided based on how easy it is to link to them.. poke | talk 12:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
For documentational correctness, we should move the article to [[Elder Dragon]]s. For wiki-efficiency, we should then link to that with [[Elder Dragon]] or [[Elder Dragon]]s whenever there's use of a plural. - Infinite - talk 15:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
@Poke: You're right, it's based off of official terms or, should it be deemed better otherwise (which is rare and the current only situation, off the top of my head, is the Gods of Tyria page or when there are multiple pages with the same name, such as gw1:Gwen). Official term here is Elder Dragon, and I fail to see how Elder Dragons is better than Elder Dragon in any way aside from personal preference. And, tbh, personal preference should be overruled at times.
@Infinite: What, pray tell, is the purpose of making the article name Elder Dragons then setting links as [[Elder Dragon]]s? At that point, it would be better off as [[Elder Dragon|Elder Dragon]]. Though that's still less... effective, for lack of a better term, than utilizing Elder Dragon as the article name. Besides, right now, we have Elder Dragon so why can't we keep the singular use? -- Konig/talk 16:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Does anyone other than Konig oppose a change to "Elder Dragons"? Erasculio 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sirrush stated s/he wants Elder Dragon. Aside from you, Naut, Pling, Poke, and Infinite, myself and Sirrush - everyone is just wanting capitalization. 5 for Elder Dragons, 2 for Elder Dragon, four for capitalization does not make consensus. -- Konig/talk 18:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Again, would anyone other than Konig state any opposition to the idea of moving this to "Elder Dragons"? Erasculio 18:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
After some reading, I've come to the conclusion that each individual dragon is named "Elder X Dragon" (Elder Crystal Dragon, for example) and that Elder Dragons refers to the whole group. This page describes the group as a whole, thus, I (change my?) vote for "Elder Dragons". Oh and Konig, I'm a he. ;) --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 21:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to be politically correct, do Elder Dragon. Elder Dragons, while may mean as a group, in most senses is politically incorrect. Elder Dragon could be for a race, etc. as well so... As Dragons from my understanding are a race of creatures, are they not? Seriously, think about it. Ariyen 22:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
... Wha? What does political correctness have to do with a wiki name? It's not like they (the Dragons) are gonna complain, or anything. Seriously, what? --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 22:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, So many are into this political crap. Just thought I'd chime in something. Personally, I don't see what's the big deal in moving it and why it can't just stay. Seriously, Is dragon used a noun that's suppose to be capital? Rather, the way that it's currently used?... If not, don't worry about it and leave the damn thing alone. If so, move it to Elder Dragon (as previously mentioned by me) and there'd be no need of a redirect with that word. Cause if you create it with Elder Dragons - you will need a redirect for all those people that would just type Elder Dragon... Not that many will use the s. Think on convenience too... Ariyen 00:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
6 for Elder Dragons, 2 for Elder Dragon. - Infinite - talk 00:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually it might be 6/1 now, depending on whether Konig did or did not include my "vote" in his 5/2 count, which seems likely. --SirrushUser Sirrush sig.jpg 01:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
No, I included you in the plural vote, Ariyen seems to join Konig for the singular. - Infinite - talk 01:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
@Sirrush: Actually, they are called "Elder Dragon" "Elder <element> Dragon" (such as Elder Crystal Dragon), "<element> Dragon" (such as Ice Dragon), or "dragon." All four are used in the singular, but only Elder Dragons and dragons are used as the group, as that is the only way to denote them (though you can use "the Crystal, Undead, Ice, and Fire Dragons"). Considering how the terms used for referring to the group is just a plural form of the singular, I see little reason to use Elder Dragons on Sirrush's reason. -- Konig/talk 12:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Before this discussion becomes an infinite wall of text, failing to achieve anything, I think it would be better to move it to "Elder Dragons" (which is what most people support more than "Elder dragon") and continue the discussion (between "Elder Dragons" and "Elder Dragon") there. Erasculio 12:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
... or continue it, when we have actual valid references (i.e. not a book with a lot artistic freedom) to back it up. poke | talk 13:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I have the feeling we have a lot of support for capitalization over the current non capitalized format, with reasonable arguments for "Elder Dragon(s)". I think it would be a pity if one or two stubborn contributors were the reason why we would keep an article at its least supported version. Erasculio 13:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, my comment wasn't an objection Erasculio, I just continued your last sentence :) poke | talk 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If the book is canon and the majority as far as we can tell is in favour of a move to Elder Dragons we should move there. Also, if in the future reason to move it to a singular submerges, we should discuss it in that time, not now. - Infinite - talk 18:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The book is canon, and the book was looked over by Jeff Grubb. I don't see how that is not a valid reference. We see Elder Dragon used in the singular so the argument that was used that it isn't used in the singular should be null and void now, tbh. Honestly, I'm against moving this for now as if we do, then archive this discussion, it will more than likely be forgotten when it isn't settled - which has happened on the gww a couple times. What I'm failing to see, however, is why this article is so different than any other group article which are also singular (with a handful of exceptions which this is not part of - heck, it's even singular right now). -- Konig/talk 19:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This is probably a place for you to compromise. pling User Pling sig.png 19:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) All those arguments were used when I was in favour of the singular, they were voided before my eyes. We've not progressed any, except a majority for using the plural. Move and re-open whenever more solid arguments arise to (possibly) move it to the singular. Not now, consensus cannot be reached right now. Majority rule, end of story. - Infinite - talk 19:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Still seems completely inconsistent with just about all other naming for articles. Sadly, between Elder Dragon and Elder Dragons, there is no compromise (a compromise is finding a middleground to agree upon - there would be a middle ground if I were for Elder Dragon (which would be in the form of either Elder Dragon or Elder Dragons) but I'm not). There is no middle ground between singular and plural. >.> -- Konig/talk 19:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Question: Isn't Singular names used more than Plural on GWW? Ariyen 17:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and this is thus far the case over here as well. With a few (read: two; Spirits of the Wild and Gods of Tyria) exceptions in terms of groups of races. -- Konig/talk 18:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if it changes something to the debate but the leaked gameplay video shows the word "Elder Dragon" (singular, capitalized) used in game (@4:03 inside the video). Chriskang 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I think that helps. With it being used singular in game, I think it should be the same here. Ariyen 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
This here has Elder Dragon ... rather the world Dragon in it is capital... I'm for the move from Elder dragon to Elder Dragon with more than one source capitalizing Dragon... Ariyen 21:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
All arguments voided, in-game use is singular, move to Elder Dragon, case closed? (I want this discussion off the table, these sources seem to allow for it.) - Infinite - talk 21:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
In-game proof and several official sources seem like enough to move the page I'd say. First we will need to kill the redirect that we have there though.***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm curious what poke, pling, and Erasculio's opinions are on this since we have the multiple cases of Elder Dragon used over Elder Dragons. -- Konig/talk 22:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Just move the goddamn thing it won't break the wiki.--Emmisary 22:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it would break the wiki since the page already exists. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Nah, manual transfer don't break wikis. It's just annoying with the history of the article(s). We still need to wait for an admin either way - and sadly all admins are in favor of Elder Dragons (as of their last comment that is). -- Konig/talk 01:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Basically 4 against 3 right? (4 being us, 3 being the admins, etc.) If that's right then I say the consensus is against them and a sysop has no higher power than any other user when it comes to the community and agreements of pages. Right? Ariyen 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Majority is not consensus. -- Konig/talk 05:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
True... *sigh* Just a little impatient... It's also we should follow the House of Style when it comes to things like this... And then things like Capitalization should be considered. There is proof that both Elder and Dragon are capitalized, not just with ArenaNet, but Wikipedia, etc. Ariyen 05:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
We capitalize Sand Drake, True Giant, Ghostly Hero, and practically every other title for names. Elder Dragon is a title referring the group as a whole and as such should be moved. Not only that, but it looks more professional. Btw the great flaw of a consensus is when no two sides can come to an agreement.--Emmisary 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Which is why majority rule should kick in in that case. Majority votes for a move to Elder Dragon now, so it should be moved. If majority rule isn't mentioned in any policy, might as well go write one for it... - Infinite - talk 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Elder Dragon is inconsistent with Anet's stated house of style, and the only evidence so far to dispute this is the blog post. Allow me to explain while all the other evidence noted isn't actually applicable using an analogy with a commonly used English term: king. If you were to refer to King George (Elder Dragon Kralkatorrik in the linked video), you would capitalize it. If you referred to the King of England (Elder Crystal Dragon, as apparently used in Ghosts of Ascalon), you would capitalize it. If you referred to the Three Kings (of the Bible) (Elder Dragons), that is a specific group entity which, again, would be capitalized. If you referred to a king (an Elder Dragon), any king without any particular specification, you would not capitalize it.

All that said, as shown on the blog and confirmed by Josh Petrie, it's Anet's inconsistency and it's intentional, thus Elder Dragon is a more appropriate title. I'll move it, if I haven't been beaten to it while writing this. - Tanetris 22:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Now that all is done, I will archive it soon. Any closing comments should be made within that time--Emmisary 22:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Best to archive when the discussion's stale, not just now that it's resolved. pling User Pling sig.png 22:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me for my hastiness then. I will wait but in my experience resolved discussions become stale ones very quickly.--Emmisary 22:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
There is actually no reason to archive at all, when the space won't be needed for a while (which is the case here I would say). poke | talk 07:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Except for this appearing at the top of the edit screen: "Warning: This page is 60 kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into smaller sections." -- Konig/talk 07:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand why it is Elder Dragon instead of Dragon(s). Aside from all possible reasons for it being more practical, (which I don't think should be a valid argument for something like this wiki trying for complete correctness under the English language) there don't seem to be any truly valid reasons to keep it as such. This page is talking about a group of Elder Dragon and should thus be plural. All examples provided up until now of outside sources using Elder Dragon show it being used in a SINGULAR CONTEXT. For instance the example "an Elder Dragon" was given as a reason to keep it singular. How is this in any way a valid example? He uses the singular because the word "an" precedes it. If he had used the word "the," then in all likelihood it would have been proceeded by "Elder Dragons." The only reason we would have to use Elder Dragon is if someone used the phrase "the Elder Dragon" to refer to the entire group. Even then, the word "the" is essential in establishing plurality. As I haven't seen a single example of this given in the entire argument up until this point, the title should be plural when talking about more than one of these dragons. A case for them being grouped as a species cannot logically be made because each is so different from the other. The example of the Five Gods being treated as an exception also doesn't make much sense either. The Elder Dragons are even older and more powerful, not to mention just as different from one another as the Five Gods. If anything then, this article should be the only one plural instead of that one because of the importance and differences of each individual dragon. 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This entire discussion has been devolved into splitting hairs now, I see. "Single form of each word should be used, according to already established standards in the English language. Obviously, in the case of multiples of one thing being referenced, then the plural form would be used. To use an example, you would not have an article titled "List of Charr Boss", but "List of Charr Bosses" would be appropriate for an article covering that subject. But, you also would have an article titled "Boss", not "Bosses" when defining the concept of a Boss NPC. The use of redirects to these pages could be used to aid in navigation as needed in the future." - While this is from a [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Naming Style Convention Proposal|mere proposal]], it has been, more or less, the line of thought for all of wiki. The Gods of Tyria could easily be renamed to "Human God" and be about the six gods (of course, if we put them by their other commonly used name - Six Gods - then it would need to be plural). Gods of Tyria is not a good name to use as it is an unofficial term for the gods - one devised on the GW1Wiki since there were about 5 different names for them (the Five Gods, the True Gods, the Old Gods, the Tyrian Gods, and then in Nightfall: The Six Gods and the Ancient Gods). Articles should, when possible - no matter what they're referring to - be used in the singular unless it makes no sense to put them in singular (e.g., list pages and names with plural terms in it such as the Six Gods). Technically, Spirits of the Wild can be put into singular as well, and if we're to put that policy I quoted to be accepted, then we'd have to in order to conform to it. -- Konig/talk 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
@12.13: That was kind of my argument as well, but it has been confirmed by ArenaNet, that "Elder Dragon" in singular is used with exactly that casing, despite their new capitalization rules.. poke | talk 06:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Zhaitan or Jormag second to awaken?

The Timeline article says Jormag was the second with Zhaitan third, this article says Zhaitan followed Primordus. One of them is wrong. Which one??? RazoR39999 21:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Originally, by the Movement of the World, Zhaitan was second and Jormag third. But since then, it got switched around along with the time of the sylvari's awakening and the Battle of Ascalon's time (originally that was 10 years later than it is now). -- Konig/talk 21:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


Noone mentioned the Dragon in 'ArenaNet's MMO Manifesto' some purple being, and the one at the end, underwater, may not be dragons, but worth thinking about especially since the purple margonite like Dragon was farily large, The Shatterer shows that they have some sort of.. Dargon like minions, much like The Great Destroyer Zachariah Zuan. 19:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those are Elder Dragons. They are discussed elsewhere, such as the Shatterer (and it's talk page). The one at the end is not related to the Elder Dragons. -- Konig/talk 21:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible other dragon

Ever thought about an dragon being in Cantha aswell? it could've been slumbering in the jade sea or in those mountains in the south and come on the empire of the dragon not having any Elder Dragon -no they all heaped up in tyria -,-.-- 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Very common thought. I find it very unlikely due to various reasons I've probably stated at least thirty times now. Of course, most people seem to be thinking that the good ol' "Deep Sea dragon" is held up in/around Cantha. -- Konig/talk 19:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know Bubbles was gonna be in Cantha? aren't we going to fight him in the original GW2? would be nice to have an underwater battle with an Elder Dragon. I think it would be kind of obvious to have dragons in Cantha aswell, with the dragon festival and all but I haven't seen any large dragon-like structures there, unless you count those mini dragons in Shing Jea on the bridges-- Prince Grazel 19:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Nothing states that the dsd is in Cantha - i said people think it is, despite the fact that no information has come from Cantha in over 200 years. No we're not going to fight the dsd in the original GW2 - the only dragon we are going to fight, for sure, is Zhaitan - the others we're only told we'll be fighting their influence (minions and such).
As for "with the dragon festival and all" - that stuff is connected to the dragons that live there, mainly gw1:Kuunavang and the gw1:Celestial Dragon, who is not an Elder Dragon. Nothing implies the existence of Elder Dragons in Cantha. And given the timeframe between awakening that we have (Jeff Grubb stated that they wake up every 50 years or so, and see the Timeline for exact dates excluding the dsd), if there are more than 5 Elder Dragons, they'll be waking up about 40-50 years after Guild Wars 2's initial release, thus we won't fight them. -- Konig/talk 20:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
apparantly, there are 9 dragons in total - 5 have been revealved - we know the locations of 4 of them - but - whose to say all 9 are on the continent of tyria? they are bound to be all over the world, in cantha wouldnt surprise me - elona - thats a tough one - since there are no new maps of elona we have to make do with old ones - if any1 sees a possible Elder Dragon sleeping somewhere in elona, post it here THE HUNT IS ON!! The preceding unsigned comment was added by Getefix (talkcontribs).
Please sign your comments. Where is your source on there being 9 Elder Dragons? Also it was stated that they awaken every 50 or so years so we wouldn't fight them if there were more. - Giant Nuker 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, what is your source? I've paid attention to as much as I can (the gamescom hype has made this hard), but I have never heard of more than five dragons - with the exception of people once thinking the desert dragon wasn't Kralkatorrik, but it was confirmed that they are one in the same. Not to mention that if there were more dragons, we wouldn't be able to find them, as the concept of Elder Dragons didn't exist until Eye of the North - thus any and all Elder Dragons in GW1 will be in EN and only EN. (@Giant Nuker: Actually, we can if Jeff was meaning the five Elder Dragons we know of - but I find it unlikely either way).-- Konig/talk 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)