Template talk:SSB4Tiers: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
==More compact fourth tier list== | ==More compact fourth tier list== | ||
Here is a more compact fourth tier list. The upside is that it is shorter and has much less blank area, making it look neater. The downside is that it's wide and loses the distinction that the first row was top tier, second was high tier, third was mid tier, and fourth was low tier, but those groupings were subjective on the fourth tier list anyway. --[[User:Meester Tweester|Meester Tweester]] ([[User talk:Meester Tweester|talk]]) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (EST) | Here is a more compact fourth tier list. The upside is that it is shorter and has much less blank area, making it look neater. The downside is that it's wide and loses the distinction that the first row was top tier, second was high tier, third was mid tier, and fourth was low tier, but those groupings were subjective on the fourth tier list anyway. --[[User:Meester Tweester|Meester Tweester]] ([[User talk:Meester Tweester|talk]]) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (EST) | ||
{|class="wikitable" style="background:transparent;border:none;border-collapse:separate;margin:1em auto 1em auto;text-align:center" | <!--{|class="wikitable" style="background:transparent;border:none;border-collapse:separate;margin:1em auto 1em auto;text-align:center" | ||
{{TierHeaderBlock|bg=dfd3df|bd=7f4f7f|cs=20|''[[Super Smash Bros. 4]]'' Tier List [1.1.7]}} | {{TierHeaderBlock|bg=dfd3df|bd=7f4f7f|cs=20|''[[Super Smash Bros. 4]]'' Tier List [1.1.7]}} | ||
|- | |- | ||
| Line 220: | Line 220: | ||
{{TierNumberBlock|cs=3|—}} | {{TierNumberBlock|cs=3|—}} | ||
|} | |} | ||
--> | |||
''(code hidden)'' | |||
:When it comes to tables like this, width is generally regarded as more important than height (because people expect to have to scroll down, but not sideways). So I don't think this change is necessary. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Awesome 06:25, 13 December 2017 (EST) | |||
Revision as of 06:26, December 13, 2017
Can we find a less messily wide layout for this? I was thinking a 13-column layout would be a good layout for the first few tiers, but it's messier for the lower tiers... Miles (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2017 (EST)
- 17 wide, Parentheses equal fillers
- S and A: (2) + 4 + (1) + 8 + (2)
- B: (3) + 11 + (3)
- C: (3) + 11 + (3)
- D and E: 6 + 11
- F: (5) + 7 + (5)
- Try that? Miles (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2017 (EST)
- Funny, that's the same layout I had in mind. I just didn't know how to put it in.
Aidan, the Wandering Dragon Warrior
23:34, 1 March 2017 (EST) - Sounds good in theory. Let's see what it looks like. Serpent
King 23:36, 1 March 2017 (EST) - [1] Serpent King 23:59, 1 March 2017 (EST)
- I am unsure. Idk about anyone else, but I think it looks a little awkward. Not sure if there is any avoiding that though. Serpent King 00:03, 2 March 2017 (EST)
- Funny, that's the same layout I had in mind. I just didn't know how to put it in.
Ties
The SmashBoards article for the fourth tier list says:
"For the sake of placement differences between lists, we have given tied spots to characters whose average scores differed by less than 0.1."
This template needs to be changed to match the tier list. -- Ethan
(Discussion) 20:59, 11 December 2017 (EST)
- Feel free. Serpent
King 21:01, 11 December 2017 (EST)
- I'm fairly sure they only meant for those "ties" to matter when comparing placement differences between tier lists, not for rankings in the actual list itself. Otherwise it would have been made more evident that ties existed. Toomai Glittershine
The Brazen 21:42, 11 December 2017 (EST)
- I'm fairly sure they only meant for those "ties" to matter when comparing placement differences between tier lists, not for rankings in the actual list itself. Otherwise it would have been made more evident that ties existed. Toomai Glittershine
More compact fourth tier list
Here is a more compact fourth tier list. The upside is that it is shorter and has much less blank area, making it look neater. The downside is that it's wide and loses the distinction that the first row was top tier, second was high tier, third was mid tier, and fourth was low tier, but those groupings were subjective on the fourth tier list anyway. --Meester Tweester (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2017 (EST)
(code hidden)
- When it comes to tables like this, width is generally regarded as more important than height (because people expect to have to scroll down, but not sideways). So I don't think this change is necessary. Toomai Glittershine The Awesome 06:25, 13 December 2017 (EST)
