Talk:Diamond: Difference between revisions
From Hack Forums Wiki
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I've softened the wording slightly. Thoughts? [[User:Ethereal|Ethereal]] 17:52, 15 March 2015 (MDT) | I've softened the wording slightly. Thoughts? [[User:Ethereal|Ethereal]] 17:52, 15 March 2015 (MDT) | ||
: What I mean to criticize if only to make sense of whether to pass judgement on an award. [http://www.hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4731466 The Wiki guidelines] says to 'Please write objectively.' and 'Please only post factual information.'. How can we tell that this is factual? Who's arguing it? How is it the most prestigious? I would just remove the bit altogether. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (MDT) | : What I mean to criticize if only to make sense of whether to pass judgement on an award. [http://www.hackforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4731466 The Wiki guidelines] says to 'Please write objectively.' and 'Please only post factual information.'. How can we tell that this is factual? Who's arguing it? How is it the most prestigious? I would just remove the bit altogether. [[User:Tutelary|Tutelary]] ([[User talk:Tutelary|talk]]) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (MDT) | ||
:: In which case we need a new description to replace that, unless of course you think we should just have the official description? [[User:Ethereal|Ethereal]] 18:05, 15 March 2015 (MDT) | |||
Revision as of 00:05, 16 March 2015
How are we sure it's the most prestiguous?
The award itself doesn't state that, it merely states, 'A valued member of our community.'. It doesn't really pass much judgement. Couldn't 'Hustler' arguably be the most prestiguous or even 'Star'. It just seems arbitrary. Tutelary (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (MDT)
I've softened the wording slightly. Thoughts? Ethereal 17:52, 15 March 2015 (MDT)
- What I mean to criticize if only to make sense of whether to pass judgement on an award. The Wiki guidelines says to 'Please write objectively.' and 'Please only post factual information.'. How can we tell that this is factual? Who's arguing it? How is it the most prestigious? I would just remove the bit altogether. Tutelary (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2015 (MDT)
- In which case we need a new description to replace that, unless of course you think we should just have the official description? Ethereal 18:05, 15 March 2015 (MDT)
