Talk:List of diamonds

Gemology and Jewelry: Gemstones High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Gemstones subpage.

Lists High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge with famous diamonds category?

Why isn't the category used instead of this list? As new famous diamonds are discovered (like the Lesotho_Promise), the article can simply include a category tag to be added to the category. On the other hand, it it requires someone to directly edit this article for the new diamond to appear in the list. Is there a reason to have both a category and a list? --Dirkbike 23:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and lists are found to co-exist all over wikipedia. The list enables subjects that have not yet been written about - to be listed. Categories only detail those articles that exist in wikipedia ie a subset of the other. It took me a while to understand the rationale for both, but now I understand why. SauliH 05:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clotman Diamond

Is there such a thing as the "Clotman Diamond"? It got brought up a lot on Garfield and Friends ... also SNL.

         It's the "Klopman Diamond", which doesn't really exist.
         It's from an old Johnny Carson joke.
         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klopman_Diamond

The Spoonmaker's Diamond

I wonder if this belongs here? http://famousdiamonds.tripod.com/spoonmakersdiamond.html

Its famous, so yeah, it belongs on the list. --24.21.149.124 (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MKLKL MKBVJIKHGFT,.MHTIHJTJKOPLGLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.71.32.242 (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Colourless Diamond

According to pages for both The Centenary Diamond and The Millennium Star, the Centenary Diamond is the largest colorless (grade D), flawless diamond, however this list states that The Millennium Star is. Surely this should be made consistent with the individual pages? 87.74.128.208 07:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completing red link articles

How can we possibly complete the article with red links, if you administrators start deleting articles of stub class, is it not better to at least classify them as stubs, rather than completely deleting it. It happened to me when i started writing on Agra diamond. I was only trying to fill a void. I don't think it looks great to see a lot of red links in any article. Randhirreddy 21:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Table

I put this in a sortable table. Maybe some of the text could be altered to take out the redundancy ? I also thought a 'year of origin' would be a useful column. Wizzy…☎ 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this table sorts correctly by uncut weight, however, for cut weight it sorts by the first digit, so 10, 100, 20... Tried with two browsers and two computers, so seems to be in the table coding, didn't have time to check into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.108.226 (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Wizzy…☎ 13:27, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4th Feb diamond

https://twitter.com/hallaboutafrica/status/1174019313411473408

A better ref: the Christie's history and description from the 2017 auction.^[1] 76.119.40.77 (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4th February Diamond

^ "'The most beautiful diamond in the world'". Christie's. October 28, 2017. Retrieved September 21, 2019.

Inclusion criteria

How about we get an inclusion criteria for this thing. This would possibly also necessitate splitting out the list into diamonds that were included for different reasons. Here's an initial proposal

Diamonds notable for size
Diamonds notable for quality
Diamonds notable for ownership history
Misc: synthetic...

Dhalamh (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Order of list

I understand that this is more of just a collection than a list, but it would be nice to order it in some way? Perhaps alphabetically would be easiest, or year of first known record. 222Boarbot78 (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already alphabetical. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[

[1] "'The most beautiful diamond in the world'". Christie's. October 28, 2017. Retrieved September 21, 2019.

[1]