The intent of the page is to provide a full list of mounts that are currently obtainable by players. The primary use would be for the mount achievements. Items and spells that are not classed as mounts (for the purpose of the achievement), such as Druidic flight form and non-permanent mounts are not included on this page.

The page needs to be plain and simple. Other pages provide general mount and riding information. The headings have been kept very very simple.

To DoEdit

Most ImportantEdit

  • Finish the alliance section (please someone volunteer...)
I've added all the alliance ground and flying mounts to this section, as well as edited a couple of mistakes in the horde section. I also moved the DK flying mount into the section for both, as it's the same mount for both factions. While taking a break somebody else made a couple of changes and I seem to have lost track of where I was up to, a section (specifically the pally/lock/dk mounts that was below horde ground mounts) seems to have vanished. I'll come back and try and fix it later. Due to my additions the numbers are also slightly out, I'll also fix this when I'm able to come back to it. Ilphin (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ulduar references need to be removed and replaced with actual mount information


  • Mounts that will be deprecated in patch 3.10 have been left of this list (to save having to remove them again in a fortnight). These mounts include the achievement rewards for glory of the raider. Kainas (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Mounts that are no longer obtainable will not be include in the page (see discussion below)
  • Druidic flight form and non-permanent mounts will not be included in the list.
  • Columns in the tables have been intentional limited to avoid redundant information. In particular information such as cost, skill level, character level become very repetitive, and even rather obvious after a while. Regardless the information would still be included if it were not for the fact that the information is in the tool tip.

Discussion Edit

  • Maybe the class mount (except the paladin which does not have the same name) should listed in the "Horde and Alliance" sub part.

Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Considered that. When the page is completed, it might be worth looking at. Kainas (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The Blizzcon bear may not belong on this page if the bear is no longer obtainable (other then by people who has simply yet to unlock the bear). If the bear is given away every year then it belongs, if it was a one off thing, then it does not. Kainas (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Imo Blizzard bear is unlockable. No code are being produced, but if you use a valid code, you still get da bear.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Imo too, but opinions don't you have a refence? Kainas (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Hehe no xD One can only assume here.
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Removing the level and riding skill columns. They are redundant as they can be found in the tooltip, and really aren't adding value to the aim of the page.Kainas (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
After consideration, I think the cost column is also redundant. The amount appears in the tooltips, the amounts are also fairly standard. (A player chasing 50 mounts is possibly not overly convernced with costs) Kainas (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The Blue Dragonhawk Mount is alliance only, and the red one is horde only. Both through achivements. :)
Loremaster A'noob, Arch Druid of the Noobhoof Clan (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The AQ 40 Mounts count towards the achievement total, even though they are only usable in AQ 40. The item that teaches the mounts is called Qiraji Resonating Crystal and comes in blue, green, red, and yellow. They are still obtainable as of patch 3.09. The Black Qiraji Resonating Crystal one is the one given to the person that opened the AQ Gates via an extensive quest line and is no longer obtainable.
If they count toward the achievement, then they should be added.
  • An edit has been made to add male/female icons to the columns. I would like to know what the board policy on this is, and elicit some discussion. I think displaying both icons is unnessecary, and will remain so until the day that Blizzard makes a mount that only one gender can ride (ie. never). Players are not stupid, they get that both sexes can ride the mount. The purpose of the icons is to serve as a visual illustration of the mounts 'owner' race, not to let the viewers know that both sexes can ride them. I will revert the change until a discussion has been made, or a moderator tells me that this is the forum policy. Kainas (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I did this just because it seems to be standard across most pages. If you look at the page for Naxxramas for example, it lists the denizens as scourge, and shows both icons. Anywhere that lists an icon in this way seems to display both. Showing just the male icon, while obvious that male and female can use the mounts, is just not the way it seems to be anywhere else I've seen. The only places there's just one icon is where only one exists. Check the list for Ulduar, it shows both for the titans, as there are both icons, but only one for the rest, since there's only one. Ilphin (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I still argue against the use. Every picture added to the page adds to clutter. A look at some pages, such as the mount page, show how bad a page can end up looking if care is not taken to keep clutter reduced (e.g adding unnessecary pictures, columns, titles etc). The question needs to be asked "what is the purpose of the picture?". In this case it is to serve as a visual representation of the race. The argument "because everyone else does" is not satisfactory. Only one picture is required. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kainas (talkcontr).

Fixed width Edit

If you're going to use fixed-width tables, please at least use ems instead of pixels. Not everyone uses the same font size or style to view the wiki. --k_d3 19:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point Kainas (talk) 06:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Mount article Edit

I propose that we merge this page with the currant mount page, as Fandyllic is currently working on adding in collapsible tables in order to showcase each individual mount. When he finishes, this page will only be out-dated and redundant. PacmanNomNomNom Macrophager (talk) 01:22, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

I realize it has been quite some time since this article merge was proposed, and Macrophager has been inactive for well over a year. I was actually unaware of this particular page until recently. Since I have been updating the Mount page somewhat over the past few months, I am noticing that this particular page is now significantly less up-to-date than the other. I am thinking it may be easier and more logical to go with the "mount" article, opposed to this one. However before going forward, I would like to know if anyone has suggestions regarding this merge, reasons for or against it, or any modifications desired to be made to the "mount" article.
-Sitb (talk) 14:13, January 11, 2016 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.