v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
- 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.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.
Difference between revisions of "v0.31 Talk:Black diamond"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Vote for retaining masterwork quality) |
m |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
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) | 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) | ||
: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! [[User:Speed112|Speed112]] 17:36, 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! [[User:Speed112|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. [[User:JohnnyMadhouse|JohnnyMadhouse]] 20:47, 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. [[User:JohnnyMadhouse|JohnnyMadhouse]] 20:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:51, 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)
- 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)