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)

Yeah, this article is terribly written and highly subjective. A character with high speed can be either a rushdown or hit and run character, for example, and why the hell are mishima, puppeteer, space animal, shoto, and multi-fighter even considered as categories? Delete it. 72.219.72.215 21:49, June 21, 2021 (EDT)

Some of the more widespread terms here (like "zoner") can go in the glossary, but on the whole I don't think this page being standalone is a good idea. We've had similar before (e.g. weight classes) and it's never worked very well. Toomai Glittershine The Quiet 22:02, June 21, 2021 (EDT)

I would also suggest moving most of these terms in the glossary. The definitions are actually fairly broadly accepted, the problem is who they would be applied to. Most characters in Smash are versatile enough that they can be successfully played with wildly different styles (and some of the examples brought are just dubious to begin with like Banjo & Kazooie being all-rounders). If we put character archetype definitions in the glossary I would avoid making such examples. --Rdrfc (talk) 04:33, June 22, 2021 (EDT)

Alright, it's settled. We put the definitions in the glossary without providing examples. I have this whole article backed up in my sandbox, so I will volunteer to be the proofreader. Don't be hesitant to talk to me on my user page or the discord if you want to.The Other Jared (talk) 15:45, June 22, 2021 (EDT)