Any chance of getting this templated when finished? Gloryness ate all your cake and drank all your beer (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Discuss here why you want to make certain changes. Keep it civil. User:Coobra/Sig4 05:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Starting on page 5 of the Exodar Progression Page the conversation turns to numerous false edits(re: don't follow with wowarmory, for server firsts, etc) from Vabu. After that I began redacting such edits from Vabu.exodar. Perhaps the format is up for debate, but as per Exodar Realm Forums Vabu's edits have become destructive. --Rainman5419 (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As I've thoroughly detailed on page 7 of the Exodar Forum Thread, I agree with Thoreus and Bakchihin that this is the best format. Not only does it follow the Original BC & Tier 7 Tables but it's simply easier to read and provides a superior presentation for the Wiki. Yajin (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Format still seems up for debate. My concern is getting the page too cluttered, as this section of progression started with only 3 tables(the top 2, and the explanation table). Then we had the Server Firsts table added, now these two. What's next, someone adding a table for 10-man server firsts, and another one for speed kills?
I was gonna suggest a vote for it, but with millions of alts and all the raiding guilds, that would just become a matter of size.
I only saw the one edit in which Vabu edited one of Lineage's kills, 11:38, 21 May 2009 Vabu.exodar [], all of the other edits involving Lineage have been Vabu and Thoreus fighting over which guild is slightly more progressed. I do not see any edits by Vabu changing the server 1st table, the one that you fixed Rainman was done by Jasonba. (15:54, 26 May 2009 Jasonba)[] Is there another one I'm not seeing? Gweneth78 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I never once deleted anyones progression, if anything it was a simple "revert" back to the old format from someone who modified/changed my edits which placed the page back to the original format which can be seen on [] as well as []. That format/layout was "OK" and "accepted" by everyone until Ulduar came out. Pointing fingers at me saying I'm defacing this page when all was done to it was restoring the original format was/is pretty pathetic when all I was attempting to do was preserve what was fine by everyone up until the point of Ulduar. If anything whomever started that new template is the "real defacer" as there was no question of it, no debate, no discussion anywhere regarding it. As far as opinion/vote on this page I agree with and enjoy the format of : [] better than the old one and would like to vote for keeping that one over the merged tables. Simple clean and to the point for those who wish to seek out a 25 player progressed guild or a 10 player progressed guild.
Also I would like to apologize if it did happen to Lineage, honestly didn't think I deleted your progression/kill and if I did I am sorry. I simply didn't agree with the 10s making or breaking the "over all" progression of the 10&25 table format. Which is the concern of mine regarding the merged table, if we are comparing 10 and 25 what are the guildlines for who is ahead? Who is behind? A guild that does more hard mode 10s and one boss behind in 25 should be ahead of another guild? There will need to be some very clear and bold guidelines regarding how to judge progression with that. Assign points to the "hardmodes" etc whomever has the highest points in the end? Seems silly to go to such lengths which would be needed in a merged table if we want to keep it fair to everyone and not just some personal judgement on what is harder or not, what makes one guild ahead of another, etc. —The preceding
I am wondering if we should make an adjustment to the what we are tracking. Although "Hardmode" is true progression and a great feat, it doesn't give the viewer enough information and it only gives hardmode. I'd like to see progression for normal mode with an added "Mark" for those that have clear it in "Hard Mode". Someone who might be looking at this server for a transfer could than use this page as a reference site. See who has progress where.(talk) 016:50, 6 Oct 2009 (UTC)
Return to tranquility
peace at last?? --Thoreus 1:30, 1 June 2009 (EST)