Progression Design Template Vote Edit

Vote Closed. We're keeping the new one due to lack of interest.

Keep Old Progression Format Edit

  1. D3korum (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC) - Feel free to add a 10man table, but its tough to see just how far a guild is in Ulduar 25 man progression with the new aspect. Keep the old version until Ulduar starts to become a farmable instance.
  2. Osiris8919 (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  3. BLDruid22 (talk) 06:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC) The reason why I changed it back to the old format because the new table is very crowded and not very clear in terms of who killed what. The old format was working and it was very clear on the boses that were killed. Eventually the table would have been downsized as guilds replaced the boss names with "Complete". There is no reason to also add top5 as the old table would clearly show the server first and the top2-5 are irrelevant.

Use New Progression Format Edit

  1. DanSheps (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC) - Reason is I am going to add 10 man progression into the mix as well, since alot of guilds are not paying attention to the fact that the table is 25 man only.
  2. Monk10 (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC) - I am in favor of the new table structure and layout. It is cleaner to quickly read and update. It also allows for progression content to exist on another page.
Addition - I might be inclined to change my vote, since Trill seems very concerned on where they are on this chart, and are willing to screw up the formatting. Monk10 (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Could most likely get rid of the alternating colors for horde and alliance and have it all one. Or just keep a eye on it. If they cause problems with formatting there are ways to solve that as well. I just wish there was a quick template for alternating table rows.DanSheps (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm old :), and one of the reasons I like the new format is the styling follows more standard expectations around how to display stuff. Monk10 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I also like the idea of putting it on a new page, and regardless of which format we decide I figure we're going to do that. My only real problem with the new format is that it is someone else's work taken without permission. If we end up deciding to use it, I'll play with the design a bit to make it at least somewhat unique to our server. Osiris8919 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at Template:guildprogress ally wotlkraid1 header, template:guildprogress ally wotlkraid1 and WoWWiki:Guild_Progression_Templates DanSheps (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Horde Guild Cleanup Edit

Please help clear out some of these fake guilds - there's still a bunch of them I've never even heard of but of course can't remove them until I'm absolutely sure they don't truly exist. Especially help on the Alliance side, I can only see the guilds on Horde side. - Hend

Alliance Guild Cleanup Edit

I went through the list of Alliance guilds and armory'd/websited the ones I didn't personally know. More than half of that list was guilds that disbanded over a year ago, and a small number havent had active members since before Burning Crusade, even. However, I do know there are some guilds that are not listed on this page; so if your guild is alive as of 3.0.9, go ahead and add it. (Also I may have deleted an active guild or two on mistake; hasty judgments are hasty.) Hinata Soul (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Complete Edit

For Ulduar when you kill all bosses in the column, please change to "complete". It will save scrolling space.

Monk10 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were to do that, I would need a different method of recording hard mode kills. Suggestions are welcome.

Osiris8919 (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It can be tracked with Heroic: Glory of the Ulduar Raider. As all of the bosses that have hard modes have their achievements on that meta. Could also maybe track it some other wayDanSheps (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Progression Edit

Working on seperating the Progression into sub pages for some cleanup.

DanSheps (talk) 03:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.