Talk:Archetype

Arguments on keeping the article

I have three main arguments:

1.Specific archetypes are mentioned in several other places in this wiki, so a place that describes all of them would be warranted.

2.As mentioned in the article, archetypes are dubiously applicable on purpose. they come from an era where characters were very limited in movesets and had polarizing playstyles. While they still exist today, characters have so many more options that they could reasonably fit into multiple archetypes.

3.Archetypes are in the same camp as tiers. While they are ultimately subjective and anyone can simply wave them off as not applicable, they do exist and tangibly affect gameplay. Archetypes do the same thing. They partially dictate how a character should be played by encouraging the player to use the moves the archetype excels in.The Other Jared (talk) 19:29, June 21, 2021 (EDT)

1: That's not exactly a strong point for this article's existence, I would question the usage of such terms throughout the rest of the wiki, and even then at most it shouldn't merit more than certain terms having an entry in the Smash Glossary.

2:When this point admits that the application is dubious and that characters can't be cleanly crammed into "archtypes", it just contradicts this article's existence and supports the deletion reason.

3:Comparing archtypes to tiers is dubious, when they're not at all the same thing, and when the latter's concept is a lot simpler and agreeable, when it's simply a measure of a character's viability. Tier coverage on the wiki doesn't invite people to make up their own tiers, such as you did with making up the "space animal" and "Mishima" archtypes, and when coverage about tier placement have direct sources to go off with empirical standing, whereas saying which character "fits" into which archtype is highly subjective and there's nothing like a community-accepted tier list equivalent to point to with which to categorize characters under. Omega Tyrant 21:14, June 21, 2021 (EDT)