16,276
edits
Talk:Professionals: Difference between revisions
m
Removing red links to old deleted categories
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) m (Removing red links to old deleted categorys) |
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) m (Removing red links to old deleted categories) |
||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
OK, we've all just sort of batted these ideas around for a while, but I think it is time to act on them. Let's go ahead and do both the Famous Players category and the Character Pros categories. What exactly should we name the famous players page? There are some famous community members who don't actively play, many of whom are famous for things outside of but related to Smash, such as [[Gideon]], [[nealdt]], [[ZodiakLucien]], [[SuperDoodleMan]]. "Famous Players" doesn't address that. I'll start on taking this page and splitting up the players on it into their respective Character Pro pages. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 23:52, January 15, 2007 (GMT) | OK, we've all just sort of batted these ideas around for a while, but I think it is time to act on them. Let's go ahead and do both the Famous Players category and the Character Pros categories. What exactly should we name the famous players page? There are some famous community members who don't actively play, many of whom are famous for things outside of but related to Smash, such as [[Gideon]], [[nealdt]], [[ZodiakLucien]], [[SuperDoodleMan]]. "Famous Players" doesn't address that. I'll start on taking this page and splitting up the players on it into their respective Character Pro pages. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 23:52, January 15, 2007 (GMT) | ||
:Not sure if anyone's noticed, but I've started the | :Not sure if anyone's noticed, but I've started the [:Category:Character specific players]] category and subcategories. I'm not limiting it to skill of the player, instead I'm focusing on how skilled they are when compared to other players of the same character. For this reason players like [[Kawn]], DRGN,[[Mexican]], and [[Azn_Lep]] will be included. So far I have done Bowser, CF, DK, Yoshi, Young Link, and Zelda. Let me know what you guys think. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 00:05, January 23, 2007 (GMT) | ||
::Compared to other non-casual players(players that use advanced technique) of the same characters, DRGN, SideFX, Choknater, and yourself will have a very hard time justifying being in any pro list even a character specific ones. While I can't monitor who goes in to these categories completely because I don't know all of them personally, but I do know those players I mentioned and I can safely say that they are not prepared for pro status even if that is just in comparison to other non-casual players of the same character.--[[User:OMNIVECTOR|Simna ibn Sind]] 06:24, January 31, 2007 (GMT) | ::Compared to other non-casual players(players that use advanced technique) of the same characters, DRGN, SideFX, Choknater, and yourself will have a very hard time justifying being in any pro list even a character specific ones. While I can't monitor who goes in to these categories completely because I don't know all of them personally, but I do know those players I mentioned and I can safely say that they are not prepared for pro status even if that is just in comparison to other non-casual players of the same character.--[[User:OMNIVECTOR|Simna ibn Sind]] 06:24, January 31, 2007 (GMT) | ||
:::Are you taking into account what I've said about how they advance their character's metagame? DRGN is probably the best example of this, because so few players actually use a variety of Zelda's attacks. Some players have said that DRGN surpasses Kawn in that respect (but not altogether skill). If you took this into account I'll accept your revision. And for the record I think DRGN is the most qualified of the ones you removed. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 01:10, February 1, 2007 (GMT) | :::Are you taking into account what I've said about how they advance their character's metagame? DRGN is probably the best example of this, because so few players actually use a variety of Zelda's attacks. Some players have said that DRGN surpasses Kawn in that respect (but not altogether skill). If you took this into account I'll accept your revision. And for the record I think DRGN is the most qualified of the ones you removed. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 01:10, February 1, 2007 (GMT) | ||
| Line 148: | Line 148: | ||
-- [[User:Randall00|Randall00]] 23:35, January 31, 2007 (GMT) | -- [[User:Randall00|Randall00]] 23:35, January 31, 2007 (GMT) | ||
:We've started to address this page in particular, and it will soon be done away with. The more correct pros list is in [:Category:Pros]]. For now leave this page alone, as many of the players here are being transferred into the | :We've started to address this page in particular, and it will soon be done away with. The more correct pros list is in [:Category:Pros]]. For now leave this page alone, as many of the players here are being transferred into the [:Category:Character specific players]] page. There has already been talk of limiting this to the [[Smash Panel Power Rankings]] who along with common MLG entrants can be surely said to be pros. What about the [[NorCal Power Rankings]] and [[SoCal Power Rankings]]? I personally also consider these players pros. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 23:46, February 1, 2007 (GMT) | ||
::Who are you and where is this "talk" you speak of? The Smash Back Room that they didn't let me back into for some reason? I'd just like to see someone working on this and there's so many Talk pages spread across this wiki that it's hard to keep track of what's going on. The discussion needs to be localized somewhere if any progress is to be made. | ::Who are you and where is this "talk" you speak of? The Smash Back Room that they didn't let me back into for some reason? I'd just like to see someone working on this and there's so many Talk pages spread across this wiki that it's hard to keep track of what's going on. The discussion needs to be localized somewhere if any progress is to be made. | ||
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
:::What you are saying is that although we can easily assign the label to those who fit the criteria, we still maintain the ability to make our own judgemnts outside of the criteria which will add and remove players according to the discretion of, I assume, a number of chosen community members whose opinion can be counted on. I think this is a good idea. So, who are we to choose for this group of members? The committee can then evaluate those players in the Pros Category and add and remove according to their decisions. As for this page, I have been moving many of the players here into their respective | :::What you are saying is that although we can easily assign the label to those who fit the criteria, we still maintain the ability to make our own judgemnts outside of the criteria which will add and remove players according to the discretion of, I assume, a number of chosen community members whose opinion can be counted on. I think this is a good idea. So, who are we to choose for this group of members? The committee can then evaluate those players in the Pros Category and add and remove according to their decisions. As for this page, I have been moving many of the players here into their respective [:Category:Character specific players|Character Specific Pros pages]]. Once that task is done, I will put the page up for deletion. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 23:46, February 1, 2007 (GMT) | ||
::::Well, I don't really think it's necessary to come up with all kinds of committees and decision-making groups in order to maintain a fairly accurate list of Pros. Again, because this is a community-edited compendium of information, anytime that someone whose deserving of Pro status comes into question, the issue would just be brought up on the discussion page, opened up for voting and cleared up in that fashion. Maybe I'll even make a little template we could tag on to certain pages specifying that this "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. ([discuss]])". :^) | ::::Well, I don't really think it's necessary to come up with all kinds of committees and decision-making groups in order to maintain a fairly accurate list of Pros. Again, because this is a community-edited compendium of information, anytime that someone whose deserving of Pro status comes into question, the issue would just be brought up on the discussion page, opened up for voting and cleared up in that fashion. Maybe I'll even make a little template we could tag on to certain pages specifying that this "may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. ([discuss]])". :^) | ||