With the new templates for the flights i was thinking of removing a few things from this template to make pages a little less bulky. was wondering what everyone thought of removing 'Dragons Of Nightmare' 'Factions' (since both are already in their resppeciv flight's templates) a few noteable members etc....Warthok 07:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Do Proto-Dragons and the Frostbrood really count as their own dragonflights? I haven't seen any reference to that being the case (and I know we had this discussion earlier about a theoretical Undead Dragonflight with the frost wyrms), but by all means feel free to prove me wrong if it says this somewhere. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 09:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose they don't really count as their own flight, but if you ask me, not putting them there implies that they're a part of another flight, and I say they most certainly aren't. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

About the proto-dragons, I mean. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 00:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

They aren't members of any flight. Not putting them under flights does not imply they are members of one os the listed flights. But they are still listed in the table under types.Warthok Talk Contribs 02:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll settle for that I suppose. Now that I think about it, Dragonflights are like...dragons that were enchanted by the Titans. If the name is anything to go by, proto-dragons aren't really part of any because they aren't enchanted. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just a lil taste of info further enforcing that proto-dragons are the first dragons, but there are proto-drake mounts for each major Dragonflight color. Bronze =  [Reins of the Time-Lost Proto-Drake] (even has the word "time" in it!), Blue =  [Reins of the Blue Proto-Drake], Red =  [Reins of the Red Proto-Drake], Black = Black Proto-Drake, and Green =  [Reins of the Green Proto-Drake]. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And Violet. Yes the colors exist, i see it as hinting as to how the five colored flights the titans bless originiated from. But i've looked everywhere, quest text, blizzcon transcripts, etc...and i've never heard the word dragonflight or flight assosiated with the proto dragons. A flight is more than just a type of dragon. Think Undead dragonflight.Warthok Talk Contribs 22:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Just found a little thing I'm a little curious about on my DK...

Penumbrius at the Argent Vanguard calls the proto-drakes there "kin - blood from ages past." He could just be referring to the fact that they're dragons, but the "blood" remark kind of strikes me as him aiming at something else. Toran Wildpaw of the Frenzyheart (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragonkin Character template

Since i updated the Creature template to have more complete information on Dragonkins half of this template is obsolete, so i suggest removing that information and turning this into a dragonkin characters pages, what do you think? --Ashbear160 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to turn this into a footer template

Completed--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragonflight footers


Ashbear, what is the point of extending out the individual flight footers like that? And did you even think about what you were doing, or did you just jump on it without really examining what you were linking to? Drake redirects to Dragon in almost all cases, and there are no flight-specific pages for dragonspawn or drakonid, resulting in several footers with redundant links. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually i didn't originally added most of these, i only added a list of types of dragonkin that appear in that dragonflight, because they are not universal(dragonspawn don't appear on nether df but drakonid do), it's to show which types of dragonkin appear in that dragonflight.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
However i agree with you and i'll try to fix all bad links soon.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Add in the following links that you think are bad.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It's probably best if i create new creature articles all together than make mob articles, i'll do a quick study and see what i can do.--Ashbear160 (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually we have to review all Links, most contain only RPG information, and the fact that i can't see he shared model option in wowhead doesn't help...--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I thought it might have been a bug or something temporary, but according to this post yea removed it. Shame though, cause it was often quite useful. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 05:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem with making pages for all of them is that there's really no point. There's very little you can say about, say, green dragonspawn that doesn't also apply to dragonspawn as a whole. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Some already exist as you can see above, i just started with whelps, i'm trying to make it similar to the Fire Hawk, i've asked coobra for help because i can't find the "same model as" tool/button in wowhead which would be really helpful for this.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Also a lot of information is from RPG which we need to separate from the wow info, in some cases add wow info that the article never had.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
That's because there are several mobs and companion pets for most of the whelps. That's not the case with, say, infinite whelps, where there's exactly ONE mob in the entire game. Why make a completely separate page for them that says nothing more than "this thing exists"? And the dragonspawn and drakonids may as well all be the same creature for all the differences between the flights.
In fact, taking into consideration your point about the RPG, it might not even be a bad idea to consider MERGING the whelp articles instead of creating new ones. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
So we should merge all the articles of that type into one(all whelp types into the whelp article, all drakes into drake article and all dragonspawn in the dragonspawn article, etc...)? note that the RPG information still need to be there, the types, notable, companions, mounts and transforming items, like the Fire hawk article.
In the case of the Nether whelp there's also the Pet.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I said CONSIDER. As in, look at it and talk about it. Not just blindly rush into it, like you seem wont to do, just because the idea occurs to you. As you say, there is a lot to take into account with such a change; it's not something to do lightly. However, just because pages exist for the commonly-used whelp types, doesn't mean pages should exist for the other whelp types. I turned most of the pages you made into redirects because there's no point to their existence; all they do is state that it exists and then links to the sole representative of that type of whelp. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
It also had infoboxes depicting their affiliations and leaders, categories and this here template.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it's better if we start with smaller section, the wyrm section, we turn all current 6 wyrm articles into one Wyrm, and move the current Wyrm article into Wyrm (disambiguation), what do you think?--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think if you want to have a merger of all those different types of articles into a collection of just a few, you should do a proper vote. Snake.gifSssssssssssssssssssssssss Coobra sig3.gifFor Pony! (Sssss/Slithered) 21:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Before we do that we must at least agree on something most of these divided articles contain RPG only information but they still exist in WOW so we have two alternatives. make a creature lore articles similar to the Fire Hawk article for each individual being or fuse all articles of that type into one, with all the notable, types, companions, mounts, transforming item and RPG information, leaving as it is, isn't a good solution.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Ashbear, you have this attitude that everything absolutely HAS to be either one way or the other, and it's just not right. Just because there are individual articles for some whelps - namely, those with a lot of information and representation - doesn't mean there have to be individual articles for those that don't. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I also wanted to correct you on another point: I never said that I wanted to merge all the whelp articles, or that we're going to, or even that it's necessarily a good idea. I merely pointed out that it's a possible option. I mention this only because the note you left on Coobra's page implied that this IS what we're doing, which is patently false. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I like common standards, once they are applied they become significantly easier to read for everyone and generate less confusion, however most of these articles have to be reviewed, and i'll agree your opinion those that only have one example should be removed, the problem is that the tool that showed that on wowhead disappeared...
I must have misunderstand what you said... sorry.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
With the whelp section what's missing is a full list of types and notable, and probably some pictures.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll try drakes now--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Did the five drakes of the main dragonflight and the chromatic, the netherwing drake page needs to be remade, there is no infinite and twilight drake.--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from creating new articles for now, though. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I'm only redoing the ones that already exist, still need to add types to whelps, drakes and dragonspawn, from the 5 main dragonflights, i'm using the information i find in wowpedia--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Green drake, whelp, dragonspawn and black whelp are done, maybe it misses infoboxes.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Not everything necessarily needs an infobox, you know. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 00:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hence the may.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Finished the 5 main whelp pages, i only found one mob for bronze so yeah, if anybody has any problems with the whelp pages tell me, going now to dragonspawn.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
finished the 5 main dragonspawn once again the bronze only has one known example, but the list of blue and black dragonspawn types got rather extensive so i'm gonna add collums, i hope nobody has problems with that.--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed Netherwyrm the info on it was entirely from RPG.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Finished Drakes all that remains is dragons, and wyrms of the 5 main DF, if you see any problems tell me?--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Finished dragons i hope it's okay.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The template is broken

The template seems to be broken and i don't remeber how to fix it--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Not here of course, i mean the sub-templates aren't working... click on one of the dragonflights scroll to the bottom of the page, and you'll see what i mean--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone removed one of the if/then lists. I put it back. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be working. thanks--Ashbear160 (talk) 23:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


Could I change Aspect to Leader in light of the events of Deathwing's...Death? Inv helmet 44.pngInv helmet 119.png High Warlord MoneygruberTheGoblinChieftain of the Gentleman Tribe (talk contribs) 08:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah whatever... Leader is more encompassing too...--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)