v0.31 Talk:Black diamond

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)

Well if this is masterwork, then I know plenty of others which should be, according to the criteria, but aren't because they're just not that "comprehensive". I agree that the guidelines are a bit vague, because of that "comprehensive" line. In my opinion though, it is not the quality of the other masterwork articles, but I guess it could be good enough due to the fact that there isn't much to be said about gems, as the sidebar pretty much covers everything. Let's make a vote! Speed112 17:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote make it masterwork. "Masterwork" to me implies a pleasingly formatted, informationally complete article, and this qualifies. What is there left to add? Even the paragraph description currently on the page is redundant, as all that information can be found within the table. I say keep em' both, so the table-lovers and paragraph lovers can both be happy, and call it complete. EDIT: An added thought. The quality system is meant to be used in order to let editors know which articles need attention, correct? Even if it is short, this article is complete and doesn't need attention. JohnnyMadhouse 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This might be true, but if so then every other gem, tree, stone and whatnot article should be masterwork, because all of them have such tables in the side with all of the raw info. This to me isn't quite right. I, personally wouldn't give more than an Exceptional, unless there is something special to this article over all the other articles with a little description and a template table. Also this article could still have added some things, don't really know what exactly, but it sure doesn't feel complete. Speed112 00:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the vast majority of those articles are done now too. If they are complete, they should be labeled as masterwork so other exceptional articles that actually need editorial attention get it. If you can think of ANYTHING about black diamonds that isn't already in the article, I'll be pleasantly surprised. As it is, they are just another gem. The location data is present, and there are links to the gem skill articles. What else could be necessary? A three-paragraph D for Dwarf section about why black diamonds are black? JohnnyMadhouse 00:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with Exceptional. "Masterwork", to me, implies something I'd find looking at the Encyclopedia Britannica. There's just not that much that needs to, or can, be said about black/clear/yellow/red/blue/green diamonds. I think labeling these articles (and all the other gem articles, and all the stone ones, and all the ore ones, and all the tree ones...) "Masterwork" is just trying to inflate the quality rating of the wiki. And some users will no doubt try to compare their work against this article ("What're you talking about? It's a paragraph long - Black Diamond's a paragraph long, and it's Masterwork!"). --DeMatt 01:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)