Talk:Outland uncommon gems

Clean-up
So... What cleanup did you have in mind, Fandyllic? --Eirik Ratcatcher 17:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)


 * This page needs cleaned up. It looks terrible the way it currently looks.  Too much color going on. Paly 1 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fine now. Xhamon (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No it's not fine. There is no reason for all the stat lines to be lime green! --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:08 PM PST 15 Dec 2008


 * And another thing... having a wide table with nowrap is lame. Split it into 3 tables stacked on top of each other so it will fit on most browser windows. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:21 PM PST 15 Dec 2008


 * I made a version of the table(s) I'd like to see here: Outland_uncommon_gems/cleanup. --[[Image:gengar orange 22x22.png]] Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 2:53 PM PST 15 Dec 2008

Xhamon Diagram?
As a JC myself, I found those "Xhamon Diagram" not very suitable to stay in wiki. They may look beautiful, but are out-of-date, oversimplified and somewhat misleading. Besides, I despise people adding their names on the page for no good reason. WakemanCK 03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Xhamon Diagram?
Dear WakemanCK, I can always accept criticism, but I'd be even more inclined to accept it if it was done in a respectful, constructive and professional manner. Consider this: I'll be removing part of what you wrote and rephrasing/integrating the rest to restore the neutral point of view of this article. Xhamon (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I made these diagrams one year ago. They were complete then, but not anymore. I am aware that they need to be updated and I will do so soon.
 * My original intent when I made those was to make public this tool I created so it could be profitable to other jewelcrafters. I don't necessarily want to take credit about them, the thing is: This is probably not the only way to classify the existing gems and because of that fact, I could not give them a generic name like "Circular Diagrams" or "Cyclic Diagrams". I am aware that the fact to see someone give his own name to something may look selfish, but it is actually quite a common behavior. There are many, many mathematical theorems and physical laws that bear the name of their authors. Even now, I think about it and I can't think of any other suitable name. Anyone has a suggestion?
 * When I made those, my intent was to create a map of all the green gems, not a guide. Of course I encourage people to look in specific guides to make their choice. When you say "incomplete", "oversimplified", "misleading" and "lack of attempt to differentiate the different needs for [...]", I think that is irrelevant because you just didn't get the point. I will clarify the intent in the article.
 * The sentence you wrote "Do not rely on those diagrams when making gem choice!" clearly breaches the "neutral point of view" policy of this wiki. While it is not completely wrong, you can never use the imperative mood towards the readers of a wiki.


 * Nice change. It looks much better now.
 * I am sorry if you feel offended when I commented that the diagram was out-of-date. Of course I understood that it had been made much earlier. However, you need to understand how Wiki works: Wiki is something dynamics. We always try to keep everything up-to-date. Check the history of some bigger pages, you will see that there were hundreds of edits over the year and out-of-date items were continuously being removed/replaced. If what you added was "words", I would have edited it myself. However, I do not have the talent to create beautiful diagram, so those comment was the best I could do besides removing them all together. Now you have updated it, it's cool.
 * About the naming thing, yes of course, you see a lot of XXX's guide, XXX's list of, etc all over the forums or other game sites. I have no arguement with them. Yet you can browse around some wikis, not only wowwiki. You will be surprised to see so few articles have the author's names on the main pages! This is how wikis works. Everyone can edit but generally no one add their names to the articles or demand any credit from them. Otherwise we would have hundreds of random names over every pages. --WakemanCK (talk) 12:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)