Player skill level classifications

[Hamada]

Correct - unless something very strange is happening, player-skill will fall on a normal-distribution (or bell) curve, with relatively few players at either end and most somewhere in the middle.
Some people seem to think intensive tuition will change this but in fact, while the skill level of players may increase generally, the curve will stay the same shape. In other words the proportion of exceptionally good and bad players will stay the same.

My main criticism of your categories is that you are using terms which are frequently used by players and developers (especially developers), not to describe player skill but the time a player has available to play.

Looking through your list, your categories seem muddled and not particularly helpful.
You seem to be working on the assumption that skill will neatly align 100% with available time and preferred activities.
For example you assume that a player who values the social aspects of the game will be low-skilled, with the implication that the more skilled a player is, the less the social aspect matters. Are we to conclude that you think all highly skilled players have little to no social skills,
or no interest in social interaction? That seems implausible since raiding and even dungeons to some extent, require good communication and team work.
I feel you are confusing player-skill with player-types.

Which brings me to my main point, why are you attempting to put players into categories according to skill?
Usually this sort of post goes along with some sort of idea about training the bad players or excluding them from certain content so the poster won't have to deal with them. While it's refreshing that you are not making any similar suggestions, there doesn't seem to be a point to this.

Exactly, I might fit in the low casual on this list, I do level jobs but I do not do much outside that. I do the current normal version of raids and the current 24 man, but likely a lot less if my friend would not ask me to come along. She asks me to go for the pure social aspect, told me before she would hardly do anything without a friend because it feels empty and joyless.

With that said she talked to me about this list and explained why she would not fit anywhere on this list. highly skilled but values social aspect most of all. Does not do endgame contentbut crafts. She can keep up on uptime while watching others, and is very good at pointing out how well others are doing, regardless of job. Every day she explains clues about how well or poor someone is doing and ends up being right every time. (Todays exmaple would be showing me a log pic of someone being "new" to the game, but saw thier good play. Asked about it and found out the player does research. So when I say this it is not just about picking out obvious bad play but average and good play as well) Some newer players will admit as such, give tips to them, other times she gets backlash and ends up kicking people purely on toxic social interactions. Someone that cares only about productivity would tell her to deal with it, it is only 15 mintues, so you are not waiting on a replacment.

So her skill level would be one of the "hard cores" on the list, and yet she fits low causal from the socal aspect, plus mainly caring about crafting over battle content. She would also fit in the midcore statments, talking about they are critical over knowing rotations and keeping uptime, while once again, not doing savage. So like you said, this is definitely unhelpful list and will not work for some people at all. Hardcore, casual, etc is only amount of time players put in a day for time spent in the game, has nothing to do with skill or what they do in the game. When you try to link 2 or 3 unreleated aspects, you are bound to run into those that can't fit on the list.