Template talk:SSB4Tiers

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)

It is a little awkward, but I don't see a better approach at the moment. The large size of the B, C, and E tiers sets a hard minimum of 11 wide, and >20 is definitely undesirably wide. This'll work. Miles (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2017 (EST)

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'll be reverting the addition of these "ties" unless someone can find evidence that they're supposed to be used beyond historical comparison. Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 06:26, 13 December 2017 (EST)

While they didn't put much emphasis on these ties, I don't know why they would only apply when comparing to other versions. Maybe I can get an answer from someone who was a part of making the tier list, if that counts. When they said "ties" (or "pairs"), I just assumed they meant ties. -- Ethan(Discussion) 14:43, 13 December 2017 (EST)

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)