Changes: User:AngelsMark

Revision as of 17:41, 4 December 2010

Forums: Village pump → 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

Add the checkmark (✓ → ✓), if you've updated it. --

Fandyllic (talk · 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? --

Fandyllic (talk · 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... --

Fandyllic (talk · 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. --

Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 11:27 PM PST 3 Dec 2010

Updated AND no talent tree subcategories

Add the checkmark (✓ → ✓), if you've updated it. --

Fandyllic (talk · 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. --

Fandyllic (talk · contribs) 10:41 AM PST 4 Dec 2010

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Forumheader|Wowpedia general}}
-{{Player}}
+<!-- Please put your content under this paragraph.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
-[[Category:Server:Lothar US]]
-[[Category:Users]]
-<center>[[Image:AMBanner1.jpg]]</center>
-<br>
-===Player===
-I was introduced to WoW back in 2006 and since then I've been playing on the [[Server:Lothar_US|Lothar]] server on the Alliance side. Previously to WoW the only on-line experience with a video game that I had was with Phantasy Star Online, nothing that can be compared with the experience I had with this MMORPG. As fan of caster classes, which started when playing a sorceress in Diablo, I created a human mage in late 2006, which became my main character and as of this day is still is. Since the original WoW to WotLK today, I've gained a lot of knowledge about the game and have also had a lot raiding experience, so if you ever find me in-game, feel to ask for help in any aspect of the game that you might need.
+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.
+[[User:Wren|Wren]] ([[User talk:Wren|talk]]) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
+--[[User:Wren|Wren]] ([[User talk:Wren|talk]]) 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
-As for this place, I think Wikis are a great source of information if well maintained, so I'm always looking for information and learning in which ways articles can be updated.
+: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. [[User:Ddcorkum|D.D. Corkum]] ([[User_talk:Ddcorkum|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ddcorkum|C]]) 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
-===Characters===
-{{usertable/header02|100}}
-{{usertable/row02|Angelsmark|Alliance|Lothar|Human_Male|Mage|80|Veni Vidi Vici|}}
-{{usertable/row02|Amodei|Alliance|Lothar|Draenei_Female|Priest|80|}}
-{{usertable/footer02}}
-<br>
-<br>
-{{DEFAULTSORT:AngelsMark}}
+::Okay, I've changed [[Mage glyphs]] to reflect some of the work you did, notably the left column. [[User:Ddcorkum|D.D. Corkum]] ([[User_talk:Ddcorkum|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ddcorkum|C]]) 23:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
-===About the Characters===
-{{User Dedicated}}{{User All Races}}{{User Scryer}}{{User level|80}}{{User class|Mage}}{{User class|Priest}}{{User Profession|Tailoring|Mining}}{{User Profession|Enchanting|Herbalism}}{{User DPS}}{{User title|Corporal}}
+:::Ok done [[Hunter glyphs]] it looks much better I believe! [[User:Wren|Wren]] ([[User talk: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 (<code>&amp;#x2713;</code> &rarr; &#x2713;), if you've updated it. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]]&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contribs]])</small> 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. [[User:Wren|Wren]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Ressy|Ressy]] ([[User talk:Ressy|talk]]) 19:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
+::I'm going to change Priests to the 2nd version if theres no objection. [[User:Ressy|Ressy]] ([[User talk: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]]&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contribs]])</small> 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]]&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contribs]])</small> 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. [[User:Ddcorkum|D.D. Corkum]] ([[User_talk:Ddcorkum|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ddcorkum|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]]&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contribs]])</small> 11:27 PM PST 3 Dec 2010
+;Updated AND no talent tree subcategories
+* &#x2713; [[Death knight glyphs]]
+* &#x2713; [[Druid glyphs]]
+* &#x2713; [[Hunter glyphs]]
+* _ [[Mage glyphs]]
+* &#x2713; [[Paladin glyphs]]
+* &#x2713; [[Priest glyphs]]
+* &#x2713; [[Rogue glyphs]]
+* _ [[Shaman glyphs]]
+* _ [[Warlock glyphs]]
+* &#x2713; [[Warrior glyphs]]
+:Add the checkmark (<code>&amp;#x2713;</code> &rarr; &#x2713;), if you've updated it. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]]&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contribs]])</small> 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]], [[User:Ddcorkum|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? [[User:Wren|Wren]] ([[User talk: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]]&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|Fandyllic]] <small>([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contribs]])</small> 10:41 AM PST 4 Dec 2010