16,404
edits
Talk:Professionals: Difference between revisions
m
Removing red links to old deleted categories
m (Robot: Automated text replacement (-{{unsigned +{{subst:unsigned)) |
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) m (Removing red links to old deleted categories) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
==Obselete== | ==Obselete== | ||
:: I think that we definitely need a definition of a Pro Smasher. However either with or without one, this page remains obselete, and in fact, ugly and unappealing. We already have | :: I think that we definitely need a definition of a Pro Smasher. However either with or without one, this page remains obselete, and in fact, ugly and unappealing. We already have [:Category:Pros]], and these two pages have few similarities. I think this page should be done away with, while the Back Room takes up the issue in the meantime. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 01:04, December 5, 2006 (GMT) | ||
==Clean up!== | ==Clean up!== | ||
Every time I click onto this page, I keep seeing this ugly, terribly designed page. So I plan on cleaning it up, make something easier to look at and look up for reference. Although I do believe the topic above this one is very important, I still plan on making this thing pretty. Maybe we could just slap a label on this thing. The "neutrallity of this page may be questionable" or some such thing. I'd like to talk about it in the Back Room, but I really don't go on SWF that much, so I'm really not noticed. Case in point: I will make it a project to clean up this page and make it more practical. [[User:Oddeven2002|Oddeven2002]] 04:09, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | Every time I click onto this page, I keep seeing this ugly, terribly designed page. So I plan on cleaning it up, make something easier to look at and look up for reference. Although I do believe the topic above this one is very important, I still plan on making this thing pretty. Maybe we could just slap a label on this thing. The "neutrallity of this page may be questionable" or some such thing. I'd like to talk about it in the Back Room, but I really don't go on SWF that much, so I'm really not noticed. Case in point: I will make it a project to clean up this page and make it more practical. [[User:Oddeven2002|Oddeven2002]] 04:09, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | ||
:Did you note what I said? We do not need both | :Did you note what I said? We do not need both [:Category:Pros]] and this Professionals page. I think that if this page is to be cleaned up, it should instead be deleted and merged with [:Category:Pros]]. -- [[User:Delphiki|Bean]] 09:39, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | ||
::So how do you recomend we merge pages? How can we best represent the pros in a category, easy to find by character they use, and by country like how an encyclopedia should? Or is even reference by country necissary? [[User:Oddeven2002|Oddeven2002]] 17:55, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | ::So how do you recomend we merge pages? How can we best represent the pros in a category, easy to find by character they use, and by country like how an encyclopedia should? Or is even reference by country necissary? [[User:Oddeven2002|Oddeven2002]] 17:55, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | ||
:::We could do subcategories for the character specific pros, like [[:Category:Ice Climbers Pros]. Then if enough people thought that region is important enough, we could also do things like <nowiki>[[:Category:NorCal Pros]]</nowiki> or [:Category:Europe Pros]. These would be subcategories of | :::We could do subcategories for the character specific pros, like [[:Category:Ice Climbers Pros]. Then if enough people thought that region is important enough, we could also do things like <nowiki>[[:Category:NorCal Pros]]</nowiki> or [:Category:Europe Pros]. These would be subcategories of [:Category:Pros]], that way everything would be automatically updated with the addition of new pros. | ||
::::I like the idea that the guy above said. It's sounds simple and clean.--[[User:OMNIVECTOR|Simna ibn Sind]] 21:51, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | ::::I like the idea that the guy above said. It's sounds simple and clean.--[[User:OMNIVECTOR|Simna ibn Sind]] 21:51, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | ||
:::::I think the idea sounds anything BUT simple and clean. We'll have too many categorys for a single article. Which, although by Wikipedia standards, is not out of the ordinary, I just think it's very messy and can be difficult due to the fact that actually finding the category themselves can be quite a task in itself. So I object it, but I don't deny it. Majority rules. Now, if it WERE to be put into play, would there also be a <nowiki>[[:Category:SoCal Smasher]]</nowiki> as well as <nowiki>[[:Category:SoCal Pros]]</nowiki>? [[User:Oddeven2002|Oddeven2002]] 22:03, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | :::::I think the idea sounds anything BUT simple and clean. We'll have too many categorys for a single article. Which, although by Wikipedia standards, is not out of the ordinary, I just think it's very messy and can be difficult due to the fact that actually finding the category themselves can be quite a task in itself. So I object it, but I don't deny it. Majority rules. Now, if it WERE to be put into play, would there also be a <nowiki>[[:Category:SoCal Smasher]]</nowiki> as well as <nowiki>[[:Category:SoCal Pros]]</nowiki>? [[User:Oddeven2002|Oddeven2002]] 22:03, December 17, 2006 (GMT) | ||
| 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 122: | Line 122: | ||
:Surely the top 25 European players deserve to be called professionals, and at least the top 10 in Canada and Australia. With a little coordinated effort, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to publish a proper list; there's gotta be some people outside of the US who have an expansive knowledge of what the tournament scene is like in their own country and isn't just in it to stroke their own ego. | :Surely the top 25 European players deserve to be called professionals, and at least the top 10 in Canada and Australia. With a little coordinated effort, I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to publish a proper list; there's gotta be some people outside of the US who have an expansive knowledge of what the tournament scene is like in their own country and isn't just in it to stroke their own ego. | ||
*Japanese people? | *Japanese people? | ||
:Hahahaha all of them!...no but seriously, we run into a communication barrier with the Japanese smash community. I'm pretty sure we don't have an [[ | :Hahahaha all of them!...no but seriously, we run into a communication barrier with the Japanese smash community. I'm pretty sure we don't have an [[SmashBoards]] correspondent who knows how players are ranked, seeded and paid out in Japan all the time but it's probably safe to assume that they have a much larger community than it may seem on "our internet." Therefore, I have to assume that any videos or names of Japanese smashers that make their way into the hands of the English-speaking Smash community have gotta be the pros and that's about all the criteria we can judge on for now. Besides, watching Fumi and Aniki videos...without sounding too unencyclopedic...you can just tell. :^) | ||
'''But wait...''' | '''But wait...''' | ||
| 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 | :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 | :::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]])". :^) | ||