7,049
edits
Talk:Professionals: Difference between revisions
m
redlink
m (redlink) |
m (redlink) |
||
| 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 [[:Category:Character | :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 professionals]] 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 [[: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 | :::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. ([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]])". :^) | ||