Talk:Tier list

'Tl;dr version of the below: Don't edit this page unless you have something to contribute about what'' the SBR said. We don't care if you disagree with them or tiers in general; that's for the forums. '''

'''We understand that tiers are a point of contention among members of the Smash community. However, this page discusses the tier-lists that the Smash Back Room (for Melee and Brawl) and the GameFAQs forums (for the original) have posted. These are accepted by almost every high level player and as such are important and notable content to this wiki. Discussion on this talk page should be limited to the content of the page, not a debate on the existence or ordering of tiers. Those should both be addressed in the Forums (Forum for Brawl, forum for Melee).

Oscuritaforze's Edits?
Don't worry, I'm not here to argue about the existence of tiers or anything. In fact, I came to this wiki specifically to read about them, as I didn't know much of what they were.

One thing I noticed was that the tone of the "Controversy" section was a little off putting. Aggressive, perhaps. I came to the talk page to find that sure enough, there was a discussion here about the article's tone. In it, a user called Oscuritaforze made a good edit to the article that gave it a much more neutral and professional tone, as can be seen here.

Though the consensus seemed to be that these edits were better, the current version of the page is not this one. Is there a reason for this? I feel that the article would be much improved if Oscuritaforze's version was in place.

Also, tell me if I'm doing something wrong. I'm new to wikia. Jehtt (talk) 23:28, July 29, 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm having a bit of a déjá vu at the moment. I also got here with a few issues. However, what the discussion was about was not the tone per se, although I can see where that is coming from, but the implied bias. On another note, you are comparing the version to a version that has also changed thanks to the discussion you should see directly above. I never saw an edit with "illogical, common misconception" in it, so that had been fixed for some time. While I believe the version you refer to had problems, I honestly prefer the newer one to Oscuritaforze's. That edit neglected the other side of the controversy, though it took until recently for that to happen, so that's probably not an answer.


 * But I digress. Like I said, I'm fairly new as well so I don't know the reason. I think TheSMASHFan would be more able to elaborate. Soulephant (talk) 19:36, July 31, 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this page has gone through quite a few improvements since the discussion I participated in above. My concern back in September was that the page used to have author commentary like the aforementioned "common, illogical misconception" statement which made it unnecessarily inflammatory, but that no longer seems to be the case. In fact, [ comparing the version from my edit with the current version], I think the latter does a much better job explaining both sides of the issue, while minimizing the tonal issues I had a problem with back then. They may still be there to a minor extent (as evidenced by this section existing in the first place), but they used to be [ quite a bit worse].


 * Long story short, I actually prefer the current version of the page as well. Oscuritaforze (talk) 20:44, July 31, 2014 (UTC)