The table format should be the same of other class glyphs. --Killogwil (talk) 06:08, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
Update[]
Updated the table/key as with the other classes, but glyphs need updating and source info needs to be added. Wren (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Wren, I like the larger glyph to the left denoting the type of glyphs but the rest of the table is not visually pleasing to look at. It is a nice idea but some of the glyphs can be used by all 3 specs and your chart does not reflect that. Also, it should be up to the player to decide which glyphs they want to use and not force ones on them which may not reflect their playstyle. Neo (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Neo, thanks for the comments. Although it might not be the best looking table out there, it is far better than the previous table, though I’m open to any suggestions for further improvement (there is an open discussion on the forums regarding this). With regard to categorizing the glyphs (with Paladin as Holy, Protection, Retribution) I’ve only done as Blizzard them-selves have and as you will find on other sites such as wowhead, I’m certainly not trying to say that those Glyphs are for those trees only! Anyway if the consensus is to remove the sub categorization I will. Wren (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Glyph table updates[]
Ok the common consensus on the forums here seems to be that all class glyph tables should be split by Glyph type only and not further categorized into talent trees, please visit here if you want to leave your input. Wren (talk) 09:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)