Any particular reason this page was moved? --Helmar 17:04, 11 January 2007 (EST)

Moved TOC to the right-float position --Helmar 00:30, 4 January 2007 (EST)

"Not better, but different". Edit

This article started off really well... we can all tank, we just do it differently. Paladins do lots of 'me too' damage with extra holy damage talents... warriors have 69,105 different blocks and interrupts, and bears have an ISO standard buttload of armor and HP to live through it. Down at the end, though, it fell apart. "As a result warriors remain the tank of choice and both Paladins and Bears fit better as Off-Tanks and need to bring additional utility to justify a raid slot." Pff. They're not better than bears or paladins except in a few skills... and we have other skills to balance those. --Azaram 12:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The "Comparison to Warriors and Bears" section is truly awful. It has some truths in it so I feel as though I shouldn't straight up delete it but it needs heavy editing. It's obviously written by guy who has a warrior but never played a paladin or druid. A lot of what is said in that section is said above in the "disadvantages" but the table comparison has some merit. Warriors do have a different toolbox to draw on and comparing class toolboxes against each other is useful. The table is still wrong... plus it's ugly. Shield Wall = Holy Shield (not Divine Shield). Imp Revenge shouldn't even be on there. Still the section is so crappy I don't want to start making minor word edits. Don't know where to start to save it.--Brunpal 23:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"Better take off and nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure." Heh. Possibly not that drastic, but I'll see what I can do with it... --Azaram 01:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested, rather than cluttering up the talk page here, hit up my talk page. Paladins and druids as tanks --Azaram 06:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, after reading it, I am going to nuke that whole section. There's really nothing worthwhile in there. The rest of the article is pretty good, I think; that just stands out like a turd floating in a punchbowl. --Azaram 08:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the "Druid 2 Cents" section have to be composed in a first-person perspective? It is not a quote, nor is it cited, so why is it in first person perspective? I think this needs to be edited, or at least have it mentioned that it is a particular point of view. -- Kasyx 16:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't do that. :-p The whole section of "2.5.3 Paladin Tanking Concerns: Endgame BC" (Including 'druid 2 cents') is labeled as a quote from a post from the forums: "The following comes from a post by Megor (60, Rebirth, Smolderthorn) / Donar (70,Blade's Edge) (Original thread here)" and as such is written as first person. It reads well enough as that, and I didn't want to go butchering it. I agree that the labeling could be a bit better, though. --Azaram 05:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I suggest simply delete the whole "Druid 2 Cents" section. It is only an elaboration of some personal wishes and the arguements for it. Furthermore, it begins with the statement that pally tanks hp are lower than warrior tanks in general, but this is not true anymore since patch 2.3 with the further +10% hp talent. I would say the whole section is irrelevant. WakemanCK 11:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree, that section can go. Might want to update the header to say that the post has been modified, though. It wouldn't be a bad idea to pull it all out and NPOV it. Even though its a little outdated, there is some very good information in there. --Azaram 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I removed the "Druid 2 Cents" section since no one seems to oppose it. In fact, as it is already some time since patch 2.3, it is now common to see that many pally tanks have more health than warrior tanks with gear of similar level. Therefore, the Druid 2 Cents section is not only unnecessary. It is actually misleading. Besides, it will be cool if someone brush up/rewrite the other parts of section 2.5.3, as some of its information is outdated as well. I would love to do it myself but I don't have the time. =/ WakemanCK 05:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Grand edit Edit

looked through this and found it very hard to find anything, was trying to imagiane a new paladin tank using this guide and walking away very very confused as a lot of it is information dumped in a very confusing order. So have re-aranged a lot of the information. Moved some of the information into alternative linked to pages, if not part of the direct message of the page (eg morals and ethics very usefull information but was better on another page. Some of the info i changed : Some of the druid stuff was not accurate and seems to have come from somebody who hs no experiece of paldin tanking, Spiritual attunment was not properly explained, Overgearig seen as particually a paladin problem, when actually all tanking classes have to gear down if they overgear an encounter (wars and druids both needing to take damage to get rage), parts of the threat generation section where a little odd, few slight changes. all of megors stuff was so far out of date so as to be confusing, there was alos no mention of our ohh shit buttons and Argent denfer .. all added ... sigh ... ok, comments and changes...lengths 13:21, 16 January 2008 (BST)

Good job. It is more readable now. Though sometimes the detail are not related to the heading it is under, so I helped editing it a bit and added several headings. I also added several points that I think is important for new tankadins or non-tankadins to know. I tried my best not to elaborate too much detail, so that the page remains concise and easy to read. On the other hand, this page has definitely not covered everything about paladin tanking, so for those who are interested in learning more, please check the links at the end of the page. WakemanCK 10:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

@Richieboy Edit

I appreciate your effort of helping with this page. Apparently, you are new to wowwiki editing and paladin tanking, so I spent some time to edit some of the paragraphs. Please don't take it personal. It is how a wiki works. If you are not convinced with my editing, please do some search at , especially this post:

Cheers! -- WakemanCK (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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