Talk:Final Fantasy character jobs/Archive 1

message: Very incomplete. Feel free to add on, just use the format and don't remove information. (unless rules say this should be deleted, in which case whatever)
:Note: this comment is outdated. — Deckiller 04:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incomplete

message: I wasn't sure if this was the name in the Japanese version of Final Fantasy Tactics, but Magic Sword in the US version belongs to Beowulf, who is labelled a "Temple" Knight. I wasn't sure whether I should change this or not, so I'm putting it here first. (Forgot to tag my name, sorry) - Nickoten
:It is temple knight, I made a mistake translating that years ago and memorized the wrong wording.  I will change that right now. MythSearcher 06:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opps, typo.  Thanks for fixing that, too. MythSearcher 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table Knights? 

message: With some help from fellow Wikiproject:FFers, I hope to greatly expand this article. Instead of first make a large, lackluster edit, I want to make a preliminary series of edits and a makeshift page (perhaps at Final Fantasy character classes/temp, or I would be willing to offer a section of my user page, much more pragmatic, probably: User:Lockeownzj00/classes) that incorporates every class in every Final Fantasy. We have long articles, and I don't think this is that ridiculous.
Right now I envision something like this: a general section listing the most common classes and several images comparing those of said class in various Final Fantasy games--other info can be added here, as well as class history. Then, each new section is of a Final Fantasy and its classes. Or, rather, There can be sections for the mainly job-oriented Fantasies (like III [somebody has to do mo'fuggin research on III, dagnabbit! i'll start playing it, maybe ;P], V, tactics, tactics advance, x-2), and then a miscellaneous section for any of the non-job/class fantasies that just have classes that deviate from the norm.
thoughts? Lockeownzj00 19:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Proposal 

message: Why did anyone put gambler with the classes?! It isn't an official class, except for the ONE time it's used. I don't see any reason of it being in here. But, i will wait for your opinion until i remove it.Armor Nick 18:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Besides, it defeats the nice (if vaguely satanic <grin>) 6-6-6 subsection balance. I've taken the liberty of removing it. – Seancdaug 04:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree. The gambler class is used in at least 4 Final Fantasy games just with different names.
FF6: Setzer is a gambler.
FF7 and FF10: Albiet only Limit Breaks, used by Cait Sith and Wakka respectively.
FF10-2: Lady Luck appears as a dressphere if you beat Shinra in a Sphere Break match. Hogtree 08:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't an article about particular battle attacks that have appeared in the series, so the presence of certain attacks in games that lack a class system should not be relevant as a deciding factor, even if it might be worth mentioning in entries where notability of that class can otherwise be indicated (i.e., that Cid Highwind has a lot of Dragon Knight-like characteristics, since Dragon Knights have appeared in many games). It is not in the interest of this article to list every character class that has ever appeared in the series, and gambler simply isn't that notable a class. The presence of a slot machine-style attack as a limit break in several games might be notable at the limit break article, and the specifics of Setzer's gambler and Final Fantasy X-2's lady luck classes might well be worth mentioning in Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy X-2, respectively, but the argument for including it here stretches the definition of what constitutes a character class so far that it might as well be meaningless, IMO. – Seancdaug  22:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: We cannot "make a class." We are writing an encyclopedia: it is our job to describe that which is present in the game, and absolutely not to interpret anything beyond that. It is not "necessary" to apply classes to characters who are not assigned a class: not every game in the series has utilized the class system. If a character isn't explicitly identified as belonging to a particular class, it's beyond our scope to assign one to that character. A handful of games identify a few characters by class in dialogue (Cid Highwind being identified as a Dragon Knight/Dragoon in dialogue is an excellent example of this) but not elsewhere: these may be worth mentioning. But Cait Sith is not identified as a gambler anywhere in the game: presenting him as one in an article on character classes is tantamount to original research, and is manifestly unencyclopedic. Once more, a battle command is not the same thing as a character class: having the "jump" command doesn't mean that a character is a Dragon Knight, and have the slot command doesn't mean that a character is a gambler. There may be a case for creating a seperate article on special attacks that have appeared in multiple Final Fantasy games, but it doesn't belong here, in an article about a specifically defined and labelled concept. – Seancdaug 16:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm... I guess... I'm just worried about losing information on the major classes, that's all. I think the individual articles for the major unique classes (I'd Black Mage, White Mage, Dragon Knight, Blue Mage, Red Mage, and possibly Summoner?) should stay, and classes like Warrior, Thief, Ninja, and Monk should have parts in their general (character class)-type articles, but I have no problem with prosifying this list if it'll help. 24.42.246.206 18:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Retrospectre, you're in a minority here with regards to whether Gambler is an actual job class.  Please read Wikipedia:NOR.  Gambler as a job class cannot be sourced and as such, does not belong in an article that is specifically for character classes.  It is not a named, specified job class frequently enough for inclusion under its own heading in the article, as per Seancdaug's reasoning above, in his comment dated March 29 2006.  You thinking of Gambler as an FF class does not make it one - this is not a list of what could be considered a class in FF games, it's a list of actual classes and anything else is speculation.  In addition, since we are writing an encyclopedia, we really need to steer away from weasel words such as "could be considered," which features prominently in the Gambler description as a means of justifying its presence (for that reason, we probably want to edit out or rephrase similar instances, such as "Rikku ...could be considered a Chemist").  Once again, if we consider rewriting the article to include certain attacks and features of characters, or even create a separate article for, say, Final Fantasy attacks or something similar, I would have no problem with Gambler-like features being included in that list.  But it is not a character class without original research.  Also, please note that the intro paragraph for this article specifies that it's about the most common character classes; it would be a stretch to argue that Gambler is one of those.  I'm going to remove it one more time and ask you, please, do not re-add it until all of us come to an agreement about how this is going to be handled.  -RaCha'ar 23:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: But it's called Lady Luck in X-2 and Corsair in XI, and especially in the latter case is pretty unique, better to include in an article about the specific game than this article, which attempts to cover a lot of ground on all FF games.  Does that make sense?  I'm not arguing whether there are classes with Gambler-like traits appearing in multiple games, but whether they can really be definitively called Gamblers without jumping to conclusions, something we as encyclopedia writers are not supposed to do.  On a side note of Wikiquette, you should try to avoid starting any comment you make with "um..."  I can't seem to find the WP page where I've seen this specified, but it's considered to be a little rude. -RaCha'ar 01:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, maybe a 'Final Fantasy attacks' list would be a good idea after all. It could have things like Jump, Throw, and Slots, stuff like that.24.42.246.206 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle. The problem is that I'm not sure what the terminology should be. IMO, "Final Fantasy attacks" sounds a little too cryptic. Any suggestions? (We should probably continue this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy, BTW, at least this part of it). – Seancdaug 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Character classes. -RaCha'ar 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambler?! 

message: So what could be done, maybe, is gater all the classes, no matter what game they've been in, and put them all there. Also, note what games the classes have appeared in. Or, if it is a character with his own class, go for it. So, with the "Gunner" issue, we could mention the Gunner from FFTA, Mustadio (though technically an Engineer, he is a gunner) from FFT, and maybe Vincent from FFVII. Don't know what, if any, other games a gunner has appeared in. But anyhow, there's my two cents. —This unsigned comment was added by 71.192.227.51 (talk • contribs) .
:Such a list would consist of somewhere in the ballpark of three dozen distinct character classes, IIRC. With such a large number, it would be difficult to devote much explanation to each class: in all likelihood, we'd not have much more than a straight list of all character classes without any description. This is not likely to be interesting to anyone who hasn't played the games, and therefore unencyclopedic on its face, IMO. The sort of detailed list you're describing is probably better suited for places like the Final Fantasy Wiki. – Seancdaug 04:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another idea... 

message: * Gunner: Appears in FFX2, TA, and Tactics (as Engineer).  Not to mention that Vincent and Barret could be considered gunners. Supposed to appear in 12, too.  There's also an analogue in 11, the Corsair.
* Archer/Ranger/Hunter: Appears in 3, 5, 6, 11, and (supposedly 12).
As far as I can tell, those are the only ones that have indesputably appeared in more than one game, and don't yet have a reference in the article.
:I agree with Hunter/Archer, and it's currently there (it's also in the two Tactics, btw). Gunner, on the other hand... it has the same problem as Gambler and Machinist. There aren't enough definitive examples. As an actual class, it appears in only side games. 24.42.246.206 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Classes for inclusion? 

message: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see the note until right after I changed it.
But really, it was pretty low quality.  It's a .PNG of the FFV Butz sprite now.—ウルタプ 23:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're fine, the note was inserted for an anon user who kept replacing the Black Mage image, often unsuccessfully.  I'm removing it now since its need has since passed.  Thank you though for leaving the note here. :) -RaCha'ar 23:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, we could use a few more FFV sprites here (in particular for Hunter and Beastmaster). I know most of the sprites are from FFV, but it has a good reason to be that way. 24.42.246.206 15:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I don't have much to say about it, but I'll go ahead and say. I think that Calculator from FFT should be mentioned under Sage because it can learn and use all of the magic in the game (except for Summon Magic). I'll go ahead and add it. Delete it if you'd like. But give me a reason if you do.
---Retrospectre 23:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This and the Gambler discussion is really proving more and more the need for a debate over whether to keep this in its current list format or make it a prose article. In its current format, I really think we should avoid any "such-and-such is kind of like a such-and-such."  Is this a list of defined character classes, or character traits that may be grouped under the same heading?  If it's the former, then anything that needs to be qualified through the use of "like" or "could be" or anything similar cannot be included.  If it's the latter, then the article needs to be rewritten, because as it stands there is no room for including anything that "is like" or "could be considered" a defined class. -RaCha'ar 01:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculator 

message: Almost every paragraph heading is now "Something/Something else."  The article looks really sloppy now, not to mention that every addition to the headings ruins the wikilinks to specific parts of the article in other articles.  I propose that every article be named for just one job, the one that is the most easily recognizable category - Paladin instead of Holy Knight, Ranger instead of Hunter/Archer/Sniper/etc., and so on.  Any other jobs the class is known by can be mentioned within the text of the paragraph about the job, as it already is in most places as the article stands.  Any debate about this?  -RaCha'ar 05:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Fixing the broken links is going to be hard, though. Also, a little bit of discussion first before deciding on which name to use? Axem Titanium 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely, although in some cases I'd think/hope it wouldn't be too hard to figure out.  The one I figure will cause the most debate is Hunter/Ranger/Archer/Insert Other Name For Ranged Class Here. I'll make a table/list of options for a straw poll later, when I'm not at work. -RaCha'ar 16:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many slashes.

message: Recent additions have added classes that have appeared in three games at the most to this article.  The introduction of the article specifically notes that classes that have appeared in only a couple of games are discussed in more detail in the respective game's article.  I would personally really like to keep this article down to a list of the most frequent classes appearing in FF games.  If it isn't going to be that way the introduction needs to be rewritten to reflect it; however, I don't see any need to include classes that don't reoccur frequently in an overall review of character classes.  Thoughts? -RaCha'ar 05:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no response, I'm going to state here that since the article explicitly says that classes that appear only in one or two games are to be discussed on those games' pages, this article should only include character classes that recur frequently.  If the class is only in two games, it does not belong in this article.  Please add the information to the relevant game's page. -RaCha'ar 05:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of infrequent classes in the article

message: Going through this article, one notices that the images that have been included to represent the different character classes don't seem to have much continuity from one to the next. For a few classes, we have sprite images- then all of a sudden we're bumping into menu profile pictures, and then it cuts into using a print media picture for the Dragon Knight class, and then the Sage class... well. Can we get some agreement on how to give a more consistent reprentation of class examples? Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm honestly not picky.  You seem to have a good idea of what should be done in terms of images here, so if you have an idea go for it.  :)  I'm really not good with Wikipedia's image policies or I'd have more of an opinion.  -RaCha'ar 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Image Continuity 

message: There's a hell of a lot of "so and so could be considered a Whatever Mage" stuff in this article.  That kind of language and conclusion-drawing wouldn't fly anywhere else at Wikipedia, so I don't see why it should be able to here.  We need to figure out whether it's even necessary to list examples of every class in every game if words like "could be considered" have to come into play in order to justify it. -RaCha'ar 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree.  As I recall, someone have deleted a lot of such speculation a while ago, but they never learn when to stop and keep adding back all those original research fancruff.  Examples should only be listed when the game itself states specificly what class it is (like in FFV, you know that there is a knight class and in FFT, there is also a knight class).  The list should be kept in the shortest bulletin mode, instead of long tedious passage about why it is that class and what it does.  What it does should be moved to that game's entry instead of staying here. MythSearcher 08:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel words/OR stuff

message: I want to clear this up once and for all, and I think/hope others will agree with me.  Please only add characters to this article if their job class is explicitly defined in the game. For example, Cid of FFVII - I understand that he has some of the characteristics of a Dragoon, but nobody in FFVII is given a definitive job class.  If the character does not have a specified class in their game, concluding that they are a specific class is original research and unreferenced speculation and does not belong in this article.  Please keep that in mind when making any additions. -RaCha'ar 20:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to include in this article

message: Cid IS NOT A DRAGOON.  FFVII does not have character classes.  His official page on Squenix's site identifies his job as Pilot.  He is not a Dragoon.  Do not add him to the Dragoon list. -RaCha'ar 02:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cid Highwind

message: Should the members of Organisation XIII (Kingdom Hearts II) be listed under respective classes? This is because it is stated which form of Nobodies each member manipulates, and most of them are based on a class in Final Fantasy. Or are they not considered because they are not truly from Final Fantasy? Afterdeath 14:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not included in the article because they are not from Final Fantasy. -RaCha'ar 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently, Xaldin has been added under the "Dragoon" section. Considering that Kingdom Hearts is designed by Square Enix, and many of the different types of Nobodies (and their leaders) have been identified as a particular class (Sorceror (Xenmas), Sniper (Xigbar), Dragoon (Xladin), Berserker (Saïx), Assassin (Axel), Dancer (Demyx), Gambler (Luxord) and Samurai (Roxas)). Should these be added, or given a mention in that Kingdom Hearts uses FF classes as models for Nobodies? Afterdeath 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still firmly believe that since the title of the article is Final Fantasy character classes, only characters from Final Fantasy games should be included here.  I don't see a problem with adding a note to the effect that KH classes take inspiration from FF classes, but any information pertaining specifically to KH characters and what classes they are should be in KH articles, not here. -RaCha'ar 15:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even certain that Xaldin belongs under Dragoon.  --Daedalus 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The name for these types of Nobodies are mentioned, it could be seen that they are specifically named from Final Fantasy classes, and their leader usually have characteristics of being in that class as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AD AfterDeath (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's all well and good, and why I suppose it's OK to leave a note about the relationship to KH Nobody classes in the article (although I'm not crazy about it), but I do not think any specific mention of KH Nobodies or characters should be made in the article.  KH is not a Final Fantasy game.  -RaCha'ar 12:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation XIII members 

message: I would say the Puppetmaster class had certain aspects which were used in the past, though the examples currently used are NOT good ones. Puppet control involves the user having technical (or magical) manipulation of a lifeless puppet, which the puppetmaster could enhance or enginner to increase its power (consider the Puppetmasters in Naruto). The only good examples of puppet manipulation are Cait Sith controlling his giant moogle, and Lulu controlling her dolls to cast Black Magic.
Yuna's summoning is completely different to puppet controlling (two different techniques), and Terra's brainwashed thing is more of mind control (NOT like puppet control)...by that theory, Sephiroth is a puppetmaster as well, because he could manipulate Cloud.
Or...considering that this class is not really used often, should this section be deleted? Discuss. Afterdeath 14:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When is Puppetmaster ever used as a defined class? Axem Titanium 15:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FFXI, and that's it.  That definitely shouldn't have been in this article - there's a reason there's a separate article dealing with that game. -RaCha'ar 22:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puppetmaster 

message: The Mog of FFVI is mentioned in the section under Bard/Dancer. However, while his abilities are named "Dance," its actual effect is more similar to Geomancer magic. Should Mog be added into the Geomancer section as well? Afterdeath 12:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  If the game says he's a Bard/Dancer, then he goes under Bard.  We can only use the classes the games themselves specify, without drawing any conclusions from what kinds of abilities they have. -RaCha'ar 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It really doesn't matter.  By this logic we should take back all the other changes we've made - let Lulu be a black mage, Tidus be a time mage, Gadgeteer be a gambler, etc.  I know this seems needlessly hard-headed but for the purposes of Wikipedia, the whole adage "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck" doesn't hold true.  We can't make those conclusions. -RaCha'ar 15:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If in the game his class is given as moogle, than his class is moogle, not dance, not geomancer not any other thing.  It is that simple.  Thus, it should not be included here because class did not appear (not that I know of) in any other game and should only be mentioned in FF VI. MythSearchertalk 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mog (FFVI) - Dancer or Geomancer? 

message: Could he be considered as an archer/hunter/ranger?  He only uses ranged attacks (albeit with a ball) and has the "Aim" ability.  Plus, he's the only one who can easily hit air-based enemies by default, which comes at a trade-off for less attack power than Auron and Khimari. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Badass McGreat (talk • contribs) 23:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the question of "being considered" needs to be asked, then it must not be explicitly stated in the game, which is one of the requirements of being mentioned on this page. Axem Titanium 02:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wakka 

message: * White Mage (Final Fantasy)
* Dragoon (Final Fantasy)
* Summoner (Final Fantasy)
Summoner was recently fleshed out, but a lot of the info is already covered in other articles (making it redundant). It's a tangible objective. — Deckiller 12:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I forgot that a user created a bunch of redirects to Black Mage the other day. — Deckiller 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it a problem that the history of the articles are being broken and hidden by all those redirect and copy-pasting? ( Wikipedia:Merging_and_moving_pages ) Kariteh 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit history is still present during redirect; all users have to do is click on the redirect page and view the history. This is why I favor merge and redirects over merge and deletions, becuase edit history is necessary for GDFL, and deleting articles removes edit history. Short answer: redirects are the way to handle merges. — Deckiller 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Moreover, :Category:Redirects from merges, a rather new invetion, explains it well. Too bad we didn't have it when I did those 600+ merges before it was invented. — Deckiller 21:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remaining articles to be merged 

message: Axem Titanium and I have been doing a lot of work in this article over the last several months establishing that characters should not be listed under any job class unless the game that they are in explicitly states that they are that job class.  The example we always use is Cid Highwind from FFVII - sure, he has some similarities to a Dragoon, what with using a spear and jumping, but the game does not say he is a dragoon, ergo, he should not be listed under the Dragoon heading.  Similarly, Lulu from FFX is not a Black Mage because that game does not have character classes and anyone, with the right amount of moving around the sphere grid, could become a black mage.  I see with all the massive mergist changes in this article that the tide seems to be changing; however, I would like to ask for some discussion on it because the article has been quite firmly one way for a long time, under the rationale that if the characters are not stated to be a particular class in the game or in the game's literature, to conclude that they do belong to a particular class is original research.  I would personally prefer that we stick to that interpretation, however, as I said, the ideas seem to be changing.  Can we please discuss this here? -RaCha'ar 02:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is original research, and should only be included if we can get interview/official sources to say so. As the saying goes, Verifibility, not truth. — Deckiller 02:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official Square Enix site states that Lulu's specialty is Black Magic. The first sentence of the Black Mage section states "A Black Mage is a magic-user that specializes in attack magic, Black Magic." Ergo, unless you're going to suggest changing that definition, she is a Black Mage according to the makers of the game. If you want to add a sentence qualifying her status, something like "Lulu starts out with the attributes of a standard black mage, but due to the nature of the game's ability system can be customized to have many other abilities as well." that's fine, but by no means is the statement that she is at the very least intended to be a black mage original research.--Dycedarg ж 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And there's the source: Looks like it's fine now once the source is put in. — Deckiller 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it in then.--Dycedarg ж 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. If we can continue to get such information from the main site, then we'd have a basis to do the basic synthesis of ideas that the OR page allows. — Deckiller 04:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: When I wrote the merged pages I was unaware of such a decision.  However, I have a possible solution that only applies to FFX.  Following my examples of Dragoon and White Mage, it could be phrased "Lulu's section of the sphere grid contains skills normally associated with Black Mages."  This uses NPOV and no OR and stills says what we want it to say.  And similar phrasing could qualify other games, such as how Cid and Ward are listed under Dragoon, but not actually said to be dragoons.  --Daedalus 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say that if the creators of the game said she specializes in black magic, than she is for all intents and purposes a black mage, unless the player decides to do something weird. And I think it's simple enough to have a caveat stating that, without having to be overly round-about.--Dycedarg ж 06:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explicit job classes

message: At the section of the Blue Mage, there is an inappropriate and misleading image of an old man instead of a Blue Mage. Could someone fix this? 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue Mages do not have an iconic appearance that is common, unlike Black Mages and White Mages that have a very defined iconic appearance.  Since there is no common iconic "look" to them, all that is sufficient is a picture of just any Blue Mage.  That "old man" is Strago Magus from FFVI who is the first character in the FF series to be positively identified as a Blue Mage.  How is his image "inappropriate and misleading"?  --Daedalus 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think White Mage Cid makes a good point. While there is no real iconic appearance, the blue color is still a strong defining characteristic of the Blue Mage. Users of Blue Magic wear blue clothes in FFV, X (Kimahri's skin...), X-2, XI, and TA. That's 5 out of 8 games in which Blue Magic appears, that's the majority. So a picture of a blue Blue Mage would be more appropriate than Strago I think. Kariteh 20:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good points, I replaced Strago with Bartz as Blue Mage.  --Daedalus 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abused picture 

message: The lead section has been revamped into an overview of class systems in the series and how they have been used/what elements have been used in other games. The information, like that of most of the article, will/can be easily sourced by the game manuals and secondary walkthroughs (prima, etc). Ideally, I'd like to make a 3-4 paragraph history section, moving and expanding on the ideas from the lead. That'll keep the lead down to two paragraphs (first one breifly mentioning the history of the classes/the types of classes, second one mentioning the "see alsos" and "other games") and create a full article. — Deckiller 23:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: I'm about to begin the referencing campaign. However, if we can find some official strategy guides, we can mix those in to satisfy WP:RS. — Deckiller 23:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing campaign

message: Outside of any official strategy guides you guys have, I don't have the Final Fantasy III, Final Fantasy X, or Final Fantasy Tactics Advance manuals. If anyone has those, could you please create cites for the relevent entries? Thanks. — Deckiller 17:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources needed

message: What does everyone think of the new changes? I'm about 1/3 through the referencing, but like I said above, I don't have all the sources necessary to do this alone. — Deckiller 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're doing a great job.  I wish I could help more.  I just don't have the time I used to to devote to Wikipedia and to researching sources.  I'm sorry for that.  -RaCha'ar 00:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I'll try to finsih up tonight or tomorrow, although I have a busy weekend ahead too :) — Deckiller 03:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's get back to the article as a whole

message: New graphics have been put in for several of the classes.  I wanted to get some reactions here to the changes.  I'd personally revert the Warrior and White Mage ones just because they're so much bigger than the graphics used in the rest of the article. -RaCha'ar 16:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the old Warrior and White Mage pics were better. These new ones are big, but I think the most apparent flaw is that they're not representative of the archetypic Warriors and White Mages of the series. Paine is not dressed as a typical Warrior and this Nu Mou is a... Nu Mou >.> Kariteh 18:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Those two need to be changed to reflect the classic and most common style. — Deckiller 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded (or is it thirded?), the original pictures for White Mage and Warrior were far better than these.  --Daedalus 03:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Newly added graphics

message: Are these classes really notable? They only appear in 2-3 games, and they don't really add to the article as a whole, whose purpose is to explain final fantasy character classes in the series as a whole. Notice the key phrase: "as a whole". I don't think they're necessary for inclusion. And the more I'm looking at this article, the less I'm seeing a need for subheadings for each class. Some sections are 2-3 lines long. — Deckiller 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take no response as a reason to remove these classes though; any ideas? — Deckiller 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to remove both jobs. Sage really isn't notable. Engineer is a little more notable, but yeah not enough to be in the article, especially as it's never a generic job (it's always exclusive to some special characters) and has no real consistency. As for the subheadings, I'm not sure about them but I think the article still need work and standardization in any case (like, where are Mystic Knights called "Biskmatars"?). Kariteh 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think we need subheadings. Sections for the three categories of jobs are fine; each section is only a paragraph with a few exceptions anyway. Plus, I never see it listed in any source that these are three general classifications (physical, magic, and mix), so I'm all for alphabetizing the list under a "common classes" section. — Deckiller 10:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this does sound better. Just a note for the Engineer, I think maybe we could still mention FFT's Engineer job in the Gunner section just above. Kariteh 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little concerned with all these alternate names seperated by slashes. I think the most logical way to standardize is to go in chronological order. — Deckiller 10:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Geomancers? They are even less notable compared to Berserker/Sage/Engineer, (which appeared in more games). 124.189.85.192 06:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Why can we say what is notable? All classes should AT LEAST merit a mention, not total removal from the article. But under the theory of wikiality.......lets not go there. Quatreryukami 16:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are trivial and superfluos to educate the reader about classes in Final Fantasy as a general whole.  I say axe 'em.  EDIT:  In principal my vote is to axe them, but in practice it doesn't bother me to leave them in if only 2 classes would be axed.  --Daedalus 20:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sage and Engineer

message: Shouldn't the title of the article be "Final Fantasy jobs"? Unless I'm mistaken, it's the official term used in the series except in FFX-2 (Dresspheres). Kariteh 10:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure; I'll have to check the guides. I think it's been used as both. — Deckiller 10:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of the article

message: We're not including Kingdom Hearts II because it's technically not an FF nor even an FF spin-off but what about the Chocobo games and Mario Hoops 3-on-3? Should we include these games? I've already added mentions of Hataraku Chocobo, but actually it was before I've asked myself this question. Kariteh 13:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They should all be mentioned; to obtain an out of universe perspective, we must describe what the final fantasy character classes have influenced. That's the ticket to encyclopedic coverage and notability. People who say "it's not final fantasy" don't understand that such things need to be mentioned to keep the article above the fictional universe. So, short answer: absolutely. — Deckiller 13:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify: I don't think we should mention every class appearing in Kingdom Hearts II, but we need to make it clear what Final Fantasy character classes have influenced. I'll elaborate later. — Deckiller 14:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given this, can I go ahead and revert all the specific additions of the KH2 Nobodies that have just been added today? -RaCha'ar 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not.  It's already generally mentioned in the intro paragraph anyway, so listing each one under the associated job is sort of trivial and redundant.  --Daedalus 23:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah; it's too extreme. I'll probably give Kingdom Hearts II and others a mention/paragraph in the "history and development section" when I get around to it. — Deckiller 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this is taken care of.  -RaCha'ar 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, shouldn't we try to figure out what classes Goofy and Donald are in the game? Donald seems like a Red or Blue mage to me, but Goofy I'm not so sure. Sora, of course, has no class, because it can change depending on what the player does with him....Quatreryukami 15:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Mmhh, I think there's something strange. Races of Final Fantasy in its Moogle section mentions tons of series such as Seiken Densetsu, Chocobo, Kingdom Hearts, Mario Hoops 3-on-3, Secret of Evermore, and even webcomics, and yet in this Final Fantasy character classes article we should not mention all these series in the relevant sections? I'm having a hard time grasping the logic of all this. Kariteh 17:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me answer two questions with one response.  (to Kariteh) The simple answer is yes, we should.  All instances are worth mentioning and demonstrate FF's range of influence.  The problem is only when we try to extrapolate things that are not actually those specific classes.  (to Kariteh and Quatreryukami)  We should only mention classes (and races) in other media if they are explicitly that specific class (or race) from Final Fantasy.  For example: those many mentions of moogles, are explicitly moogles from FF, and Donald in KH is certainly a magic-user but is not explicitly a specific type of mage from FF.  So the Moogles get mentioned, and Donald doesn't.  --Daedalus 18:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a major difference between Donald/Goofy and the Nobodies, because all the different specialist Nobody classes are specifically named, and it can be seen that they are indeed influenced by FF classes.Afterdeath 10:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nobodies are already mentioned in the intro, and they are a special case.  It's not an appearance of a monster that resembles a class, it is an appearance of a type of monsters that resemble many classes.  It's hard to pin down which class they should be mentioned in in light of the fact that listing them in every class is a lot of redundancy.  It would essentially be the same setence over and over with just one word replaced for each occurance.  Let's not bog down the article with such overuse and just place one setence in a general category that covers all of them.  Hence, the mention in the intro.  --Daedalus 13:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've added mentions of Chocobo's Dungeon 2 and Hataraku Chocobo in every relevant class section and nobody complained about redundancy. Kariteh 15:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm even wondering if those too should be listed in a general location.  --Daedalus 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Daedalus, but my question still goes unanswered. Do Goofy and Donald have a class, and is it worth mentioning? I know many think Kingdom Hearts warrants no mention in the classes, as it is not in the FF canon. However, we cannot deny that SE is using viable classes in the game to represent characters. 
Furthermore, what classes are the characters in FF7 (this might be addressed in the article, and I might just be blind...) and are they worth mentioning? Quatreryukami 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: But I did answer your question: "Donald in KH is certainly a magic-user but is not explicitly a specific type of mage from FF. So the Moogles get mentioned, and Donald doesn't".  Similarly, Goofy is a warrior-type class, but he is not any of the FF warriors.  They should therefore not be mentioned.  To answer your new question: FFVII did not have classes.  They have similarities to classes (Tifa to Monk, Cait Sith to Gambler, Aerith to White Mage, etc.) based on their weapons and limit breaks (and if you want to go even more in depth, based on their starting materia as well), but they don't actually have any classes.  Therefore, they should not be mentioned.  Same applies for FFVIII, they don't have classes.  --Daedalus 16:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank You. I did warn you I might be blind...:DQuatreryukami 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But classes are not just classes, they're also a collection of abilities. Should we mention the existence of characters who have abilities which are in other games typical of particular classes? Quistis doesn't have a class, but she is explicitely stated to use Blue Magic, so why shouldn't we mention her in the Blue Mage section? After all, we go as far as regrouping a few different classes in the same sections because their abilities are more or less similar (Warrior/Fighter/etc., Mediator/Beastmaster/etc.), so why not regroup, for instance, Blue Mage and Quistis('s nameless class)? Kariteh 16:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well we already do actually, but I said that because you seem like you (Daedalus) intend to remove these mentions. Kariteh 16:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, Quistis explicitly uses Blue Magic, therefore deserves a mention.  However I am in favor of rephrasing her mention because she may well use Blue Magic, but she is not explicitly a member of the Blue Mage class.  It's hard to justify an ability as being membership into a class when you can only use the ability in a limit break.  Kihmari is different because it is stated in-game that he has "learned the fiends' way of fighting" which makes him more or less explicit (can be argued either way).  --Daedalus 16:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FF spin-offs 

message: In short, the future of this page looks bright: much of the sourcing is only temporary, but it is still reliable enough to get it to GA (it just needs more sourcing and more historical/development/influence info). The idea is to portray all aspects of classes in the final fantasy series without focusing on just one game; that is, there should be a history section showing the evolution of the class system, what is was influenced by, what it has influenced, and so on. Common specific classes should follow, and I'm starting to think that we may need to cut down that list even further — perhaps without subsections for each class. I'm also thinking that there might be enough information for a brief criticism section, as well. In short, this article will become the template for all series gameplay articles. — Deckiller 01:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Focusing above topics into one: the future of this page 

message: According to GameFAQs, Chocobo's Dungeon 2 features notably a family of enemies called Thug/Thief/Burglar. I've never played the game, so I don't know if these enemies are representative of the classic FF Thief class or not. I didn't add this to the article. Kariteh 11:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above arguements on FF Spinoffs Quatreryukami 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Kariteh is asking whether or not an ambiguous reference should be mentioned, but rather is asking if the reference is either explicit or ambiguous.  That's a largely different question and the discussion under FF Spinoffs doesn't answer it, for that we have to look at the game itself.  I can't say, not having played it myself.  --Daedalus 20:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon 2's mystery 

message: Please discuss a possible move of Red Wizards (Dungeons & Dragons) to Red Wizards at Talk:Red Wizards (Dungeons & Dragons). Cheers --Pak21 12:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is a D&D arguement on a FF pages? Quatreryukami 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a serious player of both, I can comfortably say that they don't have anything to do with each other whatsoever.  I tried to delete this unrelated topic from this talk page, but someone disagreed with me and reverted it.  I vote we remove this topic from this discussion page entirely.  And since my delete met with resistance, let's discuss why you (not you, Quatreryukami) may feel that this discussion is is appropriate for this location.  If it's disambiguation reasons, then there is no Red Wizards (Final Fantasy), so I still don't see why it concerns us.  --Daedalus 16:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion page. I proposed moving Red Wizards (Dungeons & Dragons) to Red Wizards, but this another editor thought that Red Wizard was a common term within Final Fantasy, so this might not be such a good idea. From my limited FF knowledge, I don't believe it is a particularly common term, but floated the subject here in case I was wrong as a matter of courtesy, noting that the term "Red Wizard" is used on the main Final Fantasy page. If any editors who are knowledgable about this would add their opinions to the discussion, this would make the task easier for the admin eventually has to decide whether this is a good move or not. Alternatively, you could not help. Your decision. --Pak21 17:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Red Wizards]] 

message: I can't help but note that an anon reverted the other day has come back and tagged the article for copyedit and lack of sources.  Just wanted to float this out here before I do it, but: I think it's safe to say we can remove those tags.  There's a ton of sources in the article and it really is not bad as far as copyediting goes.  Any thoughts before I go ahead and untag the article? -RaCha'ar 16:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tags have been removed. Because no reason was given and they were added to a sourced article, good faith can not be assumed. I gave the user a test warning. — Deckiller 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyedit and reference tags

message: Look, just so we are all aware, a note about Nobodies using classes was on here. I removed it, because, unless I am mistaken, we agreed that, while KH series characters are similar, they are NOT "Classes" per se. Now, I just would like to say that maybe the page should be watched a little closer. Just a thought. If I am overreacting, let me know on my talk, K? Quatreryukami 03:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed; no source can be found. — Deckiller 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom Hearts 2 

message: I've noticed that the classes have grown from including only those characters who are specifically created as a certain class, to include characters that may be of mixed class or whose class is never fully stated. Of course, this begs the question of how far this should go. If Zidane can be included in the thief class, then why shouldn't Yuffie be put in the Ninja class, or Auron in the Samurai class? Perhaps there should be two different sections- one for games that have the specific classes included in them, and one for characters that can be said to fall under a certain class, even if they're never referred to as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.202.195.43 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key is to keep everything factual. Is Auron ever stated to be a Samurai? No, so we can't say he's a Samurai. Does Zidane have the "Steal" ability? Yes, so we can state that he has that ability, an ability which is in the rest of the series typical of the Thief class. Keep it factual. If a character is never stated to belong to a particular class but has an ability which is typical of that class, then we can say he has the ability, but we still can't say he belongs to that class. Kariteh 18:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, Zidane is said to be a thief(空賊) in the beginning of FF IX, I don't know what he is called in the English version, maybe it is translated as sky pirates or something like that, but the plot does mentioned he is a thief in the Japanese version even if you have not played the game for too long.  On the other hand, Yuffie was NOT called a thief because she will steal your materia and escape in the game but none of the characters seems to have said anything about it. MythSearchertalk 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Zidane is clearly and explicitly called a thief in English FFIX.  yuffie is not called a thief, but it is mentioned that she is a ninja, though this refers to her training/backstory and has no relation to what "job class" she is.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 06:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding Classes 

message: The Calculator and other classes from Final Fantasy Tactics have been excluded. As I'd like to allude to the Calculator from the Gadgeteer (Final Fantasy Tactics Advance) article, I propose its (and perhaps eventaully others') addition. ShiraShira 17:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an article for the most common and iconic classes, not a list of every single class.  Calculator is trivial in regards to the FF series as a whole and should be left out of this article.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire List of jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance article is trivial. I can't believe it hasn't been nominated for deletion yet. We don't need a list of jobs for every game of the series. Kariteh 21:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AfD sounds like a good idea. However, redirects are usually less harsh. Perhaps we can try a redirect first, and then if it's reverted, we can go to AfD. — Deckiller 21:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's equally problematic; the problem is that the topic of job classes in a single game is not notable enough for even a subarticle. — Deckiller 21:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be rewritten from scratch, only this time write it with the intent of making it a couple of paragraphs that talk about the job class system using some jobs as illustrative examples.  And then have it merged into Final Fantasy Tactics Advance#Jobs and abilities.  I don't think it's necessary to list all of the jobs, either as a list, or as prose.  --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 00:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculator