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)