Talk:Diamond cut

message: :I believe this 'diamond cut' article does not describe enough cuts. I have added one, and would like to add more but want to wait until I get an idea from this group as to whether my contribution is on the right track. It was already deleted once by VSmith, who thought it too sales-y, but truthfully that is not the goal. I do ghostwrite for the Passion Cut inventor, but that is for press and social media, not Wikipedia. He does not sell to consumers, and no one can buy diamonds from him online. Only big retailers can contract to buy from him, and they are not Wikipedia's audience. This contribution is intended to be educational and appropriate to the encyclopedic discussion of round brilliant cuts. Hearts and Arrows is another patented cut, and I used it as the model for the Passion Cut and would like to use it as the model for other round brilliant cuts. 
:I included a link to the US Patent office, a link to an image of the cut schematic, and a link to the GIA page about the 4c's, which has good information about cuts. It is important for the article 'diamond cuts' to include descriptions about various diamond cuts. As I find more, I will add them as well, so the 'round brilliant' is not only discussing ideal, hearts/arrows, and passion cuts. There are many, and it makes sense for people interested in learning about cuts to have access to information about the different cuts out there. I hope you will allow the link to the passion cut schematic, because the image shows how the pavilion mains are split, which is good original source information that is relevant to the other schematic on the diamond cut article and not available elsewhere as the cut is only three years old. If you disagree, I would prefer you notify me so I can take out that link rather than have the whole contribution deleted, please. I look forward to hearing your comments about this edited post. Thank you, Norreida (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've converted the patent bit to ref format although as a primary source it has WP:RS problems. I've removed the inline link to the Passion cut.com page as there was no illustration at that specific link and it is a commercial promotional page. Upload a free image for illustration rather than linking to a commercial site. I've also removed the GIA see also bit, the GIA page is referenced in another section. The section is in need of reliable sources independent of the commercial entity. The whole page has problems, but just adding more of the same doesn't help.. Vsmith (talk) 23:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I've uploaded the free image of the cut specs. Also, will continue researching independent reliable sources. It's new design, relatively speaking, which is why there's little out there right now. Will add as soon as I find something appropriate. Also, am researching other cuts to add, as well. Thank you for your time and good advice. Norreida (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Passion cut

message: Pavilion is pavilion in at least one place.
: This graphic is taken from a document that consistently uses "pavilion".  "Pavilion" is a legitimate alternate spelling.  -- Jasper 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor spelling difference on the graphics 

message: This article has been removed from the Ga list as it has failed WP:WIAGA criteria 2b. Feel free to renominate the article once these issues have been addressed. Tarret 23:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: I disagree with the validity of the Pricescope link on this article. While it is a valid topic of discussion, Pricescope is a biased forum owned by someone who is in favor of certain diamond cutters... and in some cases "paid off" by them to show favoritism, thus degrading the value of information found within. The population of the forum is a blunt mix of curious consumers, old hat diamond fans, and employees of the diamond cutting companys which pay the forum... the employees exist to provide carefully disguised sales pitches as if they are unbaised valid information. -- Jess 208.179.106.90
I agree with you, thus I removed it.  Twice.  We'll see if it stays off.  I have been going through various diamond articles attempting to "clean house" and wipe out all of the commercial and promotional links to online sellers.  We need more links to articles from the GIA, AGS, and other credible gemological institutions. Malachite84 05:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricescope-BIASED vendor-Beware 

message: I propose that Fancy cut be merged into the Diamond cut#Fancy cuts section, as they are essentially duplicates. Diamond cut  is much better written, while Fancy cut would take a great deal of editing to make it encyclopedic. It would be a more profitable use of editing time to move any information from Fancy cut which can be cited to Diamond cut, and then change Fancy cut back to a redirect. AndyBQ 01:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fancy cuts

message: I restored the links to:
* The HCA's graph of the tradeoff between crown angle and pavillion angle.
* Bruce Harding's article on Faceting Limits
* Peter Yantzer's article on Indexing the Upper Girdle Facets.  
These links are to articles that cover important theoretical issues with diamond cut, in a scholarly manner.  
I did not restore the link to the Pricescope discussion of a GIA article about indexing the upper girdle facets.  It seemed to me that most of the value of this link seemed to be covered by Yantzer's more scholarly article on the subject.
-- Jasper 02:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done:  is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Anomie⚔ 00:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested article links

message: "Oddly-shaped crystals such as macles are more likely to be cut in a fancy cut (that is, a cut other than the round brilliant), which the particular crystal shape lends itself to." is the exact words on many other websites, and there are no cites to these websites.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sipslice11 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Plagiarism?  

message: Substituted at 13:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Diamond cut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060827055844/http://www.gia.edu/research/1383/2280/article_detail.cfm to http://www.gia.edu/research/1383/2280/article_detail.cfm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://gia4cs.gia.edu/cm/four-cs-of-diamonds/cut.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829204314/http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf to http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article feels a little redundant, so I was wondering if it could reasonably be reworked into this. Thoughts? - Stilistic (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point; Cut (gems) is rather thin. However, the articles are linked, and given that Cut (gems) is broader in scope I think that the structure would be more awkward within Diamond cut. So, I'd recommend keeping them separate, even though Cut (gems) is small. Klbrain (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Cut (gems) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The Eulitz Brilliant's crown height is 0.1445 of the diamond's diameter, and table (top facet) diameter 0.565 of the diameter. That means the distance from the edge of the diamond to the edge of the table facet is (1-0.565)/2, or 0.2175 of the diameter. Therefore, the crown angle is \arctan\frac{0.1445}{0.2175}, which comes out to 33.6°, not 33.36° shown in the table. This is also verified by this source: I have corrected the value. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: A similar error exists for the pavilion angle. Mathematically it comes out to 40.79°, and the source in the comment above gives it as 40.8°. I have corrected the table in the article accordingly. ~Anachronist (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected error in Eulitz Brilliant cut