7,049
edits
m (redlink) |
m (redlink) |
||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
:::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 [[:Category:Pros|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 Professionals|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) | :::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 [[:Category:Pros|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 Professionals|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. ( | ::::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]])". :^) | ||
::::-- [[User:Randall00|Randall00]] 16:30, February 3, 2007 (GMT) | ::::-- [[User:Randall00|Randall00]] 16:30, February 3, 2007 (GMT) |