- v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
- Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
Difference between revisions of "v0.31 Talk:Black diamond"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Perhaps you should talk this over rather than prolonging an edit war. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC) | Perhaps you should talk this over rather than prolonging an edit war. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
:there is no edit war that I am aware of. --[[Special:Contributions/99.35.187.9|99.35.187.9]] 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (briess, via iPhone) | :there is no edit war that I am aware of. --[[Special:Contributions/99.35.187.9|99.35.187.9]] 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (briess, via iPhone) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hmm. Well I'm bumping the rating up. Note that as you've defined the criteria for masterwork. | ||
| + | * Comprehensive on the subject - check | ||
| + | * No unverified information - check | ||
| + | * Appropriate number of outbound links - check | ||
| + | * No redlinks - check | ||
| + | * Intra namespace links only - check | ||
| + | * Properly categorized - check | ||
| + | * Mainspace redirect exists - check | ||
| + | * Multiple editors - check | ||
| + | In order to reasonably say this isn't masterwork, you need to change the [[df:quality#Masterwork|criteria]] first. In fact, I insist you do so. This article isn't one of "the best of the best," so this belonging to the masterwork category indicates a mistake in how the categories have been set up. The easy way out would be to add a length requirement, but that really isn't meaningful. | ||
| + | However, unless we change the rules, I insist this goes in the category where they say it belongs. There is no point to having an objective ruleset about this if nobody follows it. [[User:VengefulDonut|VengefulDonut]] 12:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:50, 19 May 2010
Perhaps you should talk this over rather than prolonging an edit war. VengefulDonut 02:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- there is no edit war that I am aware of. --99.35.187.9 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (briess, via iPhone)
Hmm. Well I'm bumping the rating up. Note that as you've defined the criteria for masterwork.
- Comprehensive on the subject - check
- No unverified information - check
- Appropriate number of outbound links - check
- No redlinks - check
- Intra namespace links only - check
- Properly categorized - check
- Mainspace redirect exists - check
- Multiple editors - check
In order to reasonably say this isn't masterwork, you need to change the criteria first. In fact, I insist you do so. This article isn't one of "the best of the best," so this belonging to the masterwork category indicates a mistake in how the categories have been set up. The easy way out would be to add a length requirement, but that really isn't meaningful. However, unless we change the rules, I insist this goes in the category where they say it belongs. There is no point to having an objective ruleset about this if nobody follows it. VengefulDonut 12:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)