So once again, we face the impossible-to-answer question: what makes a Pro? --nealdt 22:57, October 19, 2006 (GMT)
- I think the question should be taken up, if at all, by the Back Room. -- Bean 01:08, December 5, 2006 (GMT)
Is there any way that this can be moved to Category:Professionals? -Delphiki
I agree on cleaning up this topic. Should we simply limit it to whoever is currently on the Smash Power Rankings? 25 people sounds good to me. -EmeraldAngel
- No, because the gap between pro and non-pro is a lot larger than the gap between 25 and the person who would have been ranked 26th if the list was a bit longer. Are you going to tell me that 26th person is not pro? -Delphiki
I think we should make this category have nothing to do with skill level. The people included in this category should be ANYONE who is sponsored and gets payed to play, regardless of skill. Other people can be in the character specfic and famous categories. That's what I think. -OMNIVECTOR
Well, whatever solution there is to solve this, hopefully it comes soon. More and more people are being added to this section, and it's debatable whether some of them should be considered a pro. The question is, who has the authority to do so? Should we, as Bean said, leave it up to the Back Room? Will they even have the time to debate over it? -EmeraldAngel
I've never been in the SBR myself, but the consensus seems either that they wouldn't get it done in a reasonable amount of time or that they aren't qualified. However I think that leaving this page only to people who get payed to play does not do the connotations (in the Smash community) justice. Simna, you yourself believe you're a pro. But yet you're not sponsored. How do you justify the two? -- Bean 19:40, January 27, 2007 (GMT)
"Payed to play" is a silly criterion. It's uninteresting and it doesn't include very many people. And because that's really what Professional means, I think the name should be changed. Listing current top players leaves out players from the old days, and that doesn't seem right either. I take the list to be "skilled or important" players, and I think that's much more interesting than simply listing current top players--I was an important contributor to the metagame back in my day, and I hope I'm not the only person who thinks I should be on SOME sort of list, but by today's standards I am about as skilled as a brick. And per se Andy 14:51, February 22, 2007 (GMT)