Forum:Glyph pages update

Ok, I started to update the Warrior articles a little while back, and it’s slowly growing into the mammoth task of updating the Class articles as a whole! Anyway I have just updated this article; Warrior_glyphs and would like your thoughts please – I think it’s much clearer than the original (have a look here Warlock glyphs for how all the pages are laid out at the moment) If I get positive feed back will update them all in a similar fashion. Wren (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

--Wren (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of having the left-most column span all of the primes, then span all of the majors, etc.  Mage glyphs was done a bit differently by adding in the effect as a last column.  I think it would be really cool to put the two ideas together. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've changed Mage glyphs to reflect some of the work you did, notably the left column. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 23:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok done Hunter glyphs it looks much better I believe! Wren (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated to Warrior glyphs standard
 * &#x2713; Death knight glyphs
 * &#x2713; Druid glyphs
 * &#x2713; Hunter glyphs
 * &#x2713; Mage glyphs
 * &#x2713; Paladin glyphs
 * &#x2713; Priest glyphs
 * _ Rogue glyphs
 * _ Shaman glyphs
 * _ Warlock glyphs
 * &#x2713; Warrior glyphs
 * Add the checkmark ( &rarr; &#x2713;), if you've updated it. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 4:08 PM PST 29 Nov 2010

Request for no subcategories version

 * Ok had some comments on the updated glyph pages, some people would prefer the glyphs not to have sub categories (i.e. Holy/Protection/Retribution) have a look at User:Wren/test4 and tell me what you prefer. Wren (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the 2nd. At least for Priests, there are a few glyphs which are good for all 3 talent specs (shadowfiend, levitate, etc), which shouldn't be pigeonholed into 'Shadow' or 'Disc' when its good for any spec. Ressy (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to change Priests to the 2nd version if theres no objection. Ressy (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How about making the table transcluded, but you can pass a variable setting to make it show the subcategories or not... See Forum:Glyph_pages_update/Sandbox. You could make the default table show the subcategories version and have a link to it, but transclude the no subcategories version on the page.
 * This way you could have both versions, but only maintain one table. Does this make sense? --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 2:33 PM PST 3 Dec 2010


 * On second thought, we should probably just standardize on the no talent tree subcategories version.
 * I'll make a new checkmark list... --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 2:39 PM PST 3 Dec 2010


 * I would prefer to not have the subcategories. If we follow a format similar to Mage glyphs then this information could be passed on by adding a column, but I don't think it should be passed on as a header.  This creates too many headers. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 01:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, now we're getting off track again. Can you, Ressy and Wren agree on something to standardize on? Mage glyphs is now different from most of the others. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 11:27 PM PST 3 Dec 2010


 * Updated AND no talent tree subcategories
 * &#x2713; Death knight glyphs
 * &#x2713; Druid glyphs
 * &#x2713; Hunter glyphs
 * &#x2713; Mage glyphs
 * &#x2713; Paladin glyphs
 * &#x2713; Priest glyphs
 * &#x2713; Rogue glyphs
 * &#x2713; Shaman glyphs
 * &#x2713; Warlock glyphs
 * &#x2713; Warrior glyphs
 * Add the checkmark ( &rarr; &#x2713;), if you've updated it. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 2:39 PM PST 3 Dec 2010


 * Ok updated to no sub-subcategories, just Shaman glyphs and Warlock glyphs to do. However not sure what to do about Mage glyphs, Ddcorkum is actively working on this page, however as pointed out it's completly different from the others. My view would be to remove the effect column as hovering over the glyph gives this information, if we need a removed glyph section this could be a seperate page listing removed glyphs for all classes. Views? Wren (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we should let DDCorkum make an argument for the Mage glyphs style before we say we agree on a standard. I may try to start making some guideline pages for formatting of things like glyph tables and other stuff. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 10:41 AM PST 4 Dec 2010
 * You have a good point regarding the tooltips. The effect column can be removed.  As far as creating standards, I think simply by making all of the pages the same we will have already in effect made a standard.  Making it a formal standard in writing will only discourgage innovation.  If we are to make it a standard, then I think we need to be looking at the same issue being discussed in Forum:Recipe tables.  The information would ideally be stored as meta data on the glyph pages, not in a table listing all of the glyphs.  The tables should only present information, not store it. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Setting standards only discourages innovation for the meek. WE are not the meek. . Back on topic, having glyph effect info in the tables runs the risk of it getting out-of-date based on having to maintain the info in multiple places. Just a thought. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 3:11 PM PST 4 Dec 2010
 * I absolutely agree with the latter point, which is why I would prefer the meta-data approach (for everything, not just effects), similar to the idea I put forward in Forum:Recipe tables. Anyways, I have removed the effect column from the mage table.  The source column I think is still formatted slightly differently, so I will hold off on placing a little checkmark. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 04:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Complete
Ok all the pages are up to the same standard now, though a lot of the individual glyph pages need updating or adding.

At the start of each page is a brief intro; Glyphs are ability enhancements created by scribes; Warriors have access to a total of 9 Glyphs. Prime Glyphs enhance our main damage dealing abilities, Major Glyphs enhance our abilities with more targets hit, greater self-healing or decreased Rage cost and Minor Glyphs enhance our utility abilities.

Once learned, Glyphs are a permanent addition to the Warriors arsenal and can be swapped out any time outside of combat using Vanishing Powder for characters level 25-80, and a Dust of Disappearance for characters level 81 and above.

It is the same on each page, with only a few minor variations - so if any one wants to make them a bit more class specific, feel free, though in my view it should stay brief and not go into to much detail etc.

The bottom of each of the pages are also identical;

World of Warcraft Community Site (EU) Official EU Community Site Profession Forums. World of Warcraft Community Site (US) Official US Community Site Profession Forums. World of Warcraft Community Site (EU) Official EU Community Site Warrior Forums. World of Warcraft Community Site (US) Official US Community Site Warrior Forums. Wowhead Wowheads Warrior Talent Calculator MMO-Champion MMO-Champions Warrior forums

Again I think a link to the offical profession forums, offical class forums, wowhead talent calculator and mmo's class forums are all that's needed, if any one has different views please let me know.

Wren (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could we condense it a bit, like the following? D.D. Corkum (T / C) 23:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Official Community Site:
 * [[File:Icon-bnetwoweu-22x22.png]] Profession Forums (EU)
 * [[File:Icon-bnetwowus-22x22.png]] Profession Forums (US)
 * [[File:Icon-bnetwoweu-22x22.png]] Warrior Forums (EU)
 * [[File:Icon-bnetwowus-22x22.png]] Warrior Forums (US)
 * Fan Site Resources:
 * [[File:Icon-wowhead-22x22.png]] Wowhead Talent Calculator
 * [[File:Icon-mmochampion-22x22.png]] MMO-Champion Warrior Forums


 * More condensed is better. I also updated your community site icons.
 * Here is a version with elink templates used in the usual "External links" section format:


 * Official Community Site
 * Fan Site Resources
 * --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 12:12 AM PST 9 Dec 2010
 * Fan Site Resources
 * --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 12:12 AM PST 9 Dec 2010
 * Fan Site Resources
 * --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 12:12 AM PST 9 Dec 2010
 * --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 12:12 AM PST 9 Dec 2010
 * --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 12:12 AM PST 9 Dec 2010


 * Ok condensed the external links - don't think there is anything else on those pages?? Wren (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Wren. You and DD Corkum have done a great job on these glyph pages. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic (talk &middot; contribs) 10:36 AM PST 9 Dec 2010
 * Wren deserves the credit here. Good job. D.D. Corkum (T / C) 22:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I actually belive we all deserve credit as we have all contributed ideas. Anyway going to give the class articles a rest (will be back to them at the weekend) - instead going for something completley different; Companions so if you get a chance comment on the thread in the forums. Wren (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)