Talk:Final Fantasy character jobs/Archive 1

Archive 1

Incomplete

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Note: this comment is outdated.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)

Table Knights?

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)

Thanks for fixing it. I corrected the minor misspelling. - Nickoten

Opps, typo. Thanks for fixing that, too. MythSearcher 00:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Was that a confusion of Knights of the Round Table with the Knights Templar? ---Retrospectre 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most likely. FFT isn't exactly known for its stellar translation, after all. Nickoten 18:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A question of clarity

I made some rather major edits to the page, most notably removing the lists of games in which a specific class has appeared. My rationale is that this information is, by and large, extremely tricky, because the classes change quite a bit depending on the specific game. Is it misleading to identify Minwu (from Final Fantasy II) as a White Mage, for instance, despite the fact that he was never explicitly referred to as such? Certainly, Umaro (Final Fantasy VI) very closely resembles a Berserker, but that term is never used (the Japanese version of the game, which did have class names for all of the characters, called him a "Sasquatch"). And the whole Fighter/Knight situation is perhaps the biggest: depending on the game, the terms are treated somewhat synonymously. The Knight in Final Fantasy V, for instance, bears as much in common with the Fighter from earlier games as it does with the Knight. And the problem only gets worse as we bring in more specialized classes: the Warrior from Final Fantasy X-2 is more like the Magic Swordsman from FFV, but is more often identified with the Knight. The Chemist in FFV is nothing like the Chemists from the Final Fantasy Tactics games, and so on. And I don't think it's exactly fair to identify characters in games without enumerated classes (Final Fantasy II, Final Fantasy VII through Final Fantasy X) with a specific class for a similar reason.

This kind of information can be dealt with in prose, as I have attempted to do, but making a straight-up "list" is trickier, and I'm not sure it's really possible to summarize in such a fashion without being misleading. Does anyone else have any thoughts? – Seancdaug 20:33, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...

Well, in truth, I really only created this as a first stab at Wikipedia, and my rationing has changed quite a bit now, almost to the point of wanting to discontinue the whole thing. But seeing as it does have a bit of potential, your reasoning seems fine with me, and I intend to expand. However, if we're going to keep the whole "melee/magic/blah/blah" categorizations, "major classes" should be "melee classes" right now, and I would still like notes about some of the classes I had before. (paladin, dark knight, etc) -- the creator, who still doesn't have a wikipedia account...thing. June 01, 2005.

Oh, don't get me wrong: I do think this page should be here. I do have concerns about organizing the information contained within, but that's a question of presentation, really. As for the whole "major classes" name: at the time, yes, it was only melee classes, but that was simply a matter of updating: the only classes in the entire article were, at that point, melee fighters... I can see dividing it into melee/magic, but I'm not sure the "stealth" category is particularly valid: the games themselves really don't differentiate in that manner. I think most of the classes that would fall into that category could probably be folded into a generic "physical fighters" category, and various magic users (broadly concieved) could fit into a "magic users" category. This does present a problem with a very few classes (Beastmaster/Mediators, Mimes, etc.), but when we start to introduce them, we can create a "miscellaneous" category. As it is, though, I personally don't like creating empty headings: there's no reason they can't be added in when someone is ready to throw that info onto the page.

The problem with some of the classes you mention in your note above is that they're too game-specific: the Paladin and Dark Knight classes really don't appear outside of Final Fantasy IV in any meaningful capacity. While that doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned anywhere, they should be kept to the games to which they are relevant (or, really, even the characters to which they are relevant, namely Cecil). By simply saying "Final Fantasy" in the article title, that implies something more or less universal to the series, which many specialized classes are not (the same goes for jobs like Calculator, or Mascot, or Gunner). – Seancdaug 00:51, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The Paladin class is also in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, the Dark Knight class also appears in Final Fantasy X-2 and both classes appear in Final Fantasy Online. I also think the Blue Mage class should be included, since even though the class has only appearen in two Final Fantasy games, the class did introduce Blue Magic, which has been in every game in the main Final Fantasy series from FF5 to FF10 in one form or another. What's a good threshold for inclusion in the class list? I'm thinking three games, with a special exception for Blue Mages because of how many games Blue Magic and its variants have appeared in. Should classes that don't meet the minimum go into a minor classes section at the bottom?

My knowledge of some of the more recent installments in the series is incomplete (I've only gotten a short ways into Final Fantasy X-2 and have not played Final Fantasy XI, so I am more than willing to be correct on that front. My criteria, if I remember correctly, was three games, by which standards the Blue Mage would apply (FF5, FFTA, Strago in Final Fantasy VI, and Quina from Final Fantasy IX in the "almost" category, much like Umaro and the Berserker class). In any case, as we have an entire article on Blue magic, it would be silly to exclude the Blue Mage from our list of classes. It was just never gotten around to. In general, if a class has only appeared in one or two games, I think that class should be be covered in the games in which it appears. This article is not a list of every class, and should, IMO, remain simply as a list of the most notable and recognizable examples.

That being said, I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. The Berserker only barely squeaks by the three game rule if we include Umaro. The Chemist passes the three game rule, but I didn't include it because it really is an entirely different class in FF5 than it is in FFT, and the same can be said of Dark Knights in FF4 and FFT. And many of the later games tend to defy easy categorization (Quistis and Kimahri both use blue magic, but I'm not sure I'd classify them as Blue Mages; is Relm a Monster Trainer because she can use "Command," etc.). Personally, I'd like a class to appear in at least two games as a selectable job, with at least one additional appearance in some form or another, but there are probably some obvious problems with this as a general rule, so I wouldn't necessarily put it forward as a guideline.

Though it's not helpful as I'd like, I'd say we should go for a solidly representative sample from the entire series, and avoiding showing favoritism to any one title. Specific write-ups of the Gunner, for instance, belong in the Final Fantasy X-2 article. And they should go there: a lot of the gameplay information in the individual FF articles is very lacking, and I think we should focus on individual games over and above all-encompassing articles like this one more often than not. But that's not to say that there aren't classes that can still be added to this article (the Blue Mage is the big one, but there may be others) – Seancdaug 13:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

New Proposal

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)

FFX Characters

Some characters such as Yuna and Tidus have parts from two classes. Yuna is a summoner and white mage while Tidus is a fast, time/space mage and fighter mixed together. Auron isn't even mentioned and neither is Wakka who has an unamed class.

Other classes

• Beastmaster/Morpher - Similar to Blue Mage. Should it be incorporated into that article or create a seperate one
• Ranger/Hunter/Archer - Possible new article

Gambler?!

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)

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)

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)

I agree with Hogtree. It even said that in the description. Put it back up. Ryu Ematsu

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)

This article isnt particularly about battle attacks but if a certain class appears in several FFX games then they are worth making them classes, ourselves. Your reference to FFVIIs'Cid is not really revelant for this discussion for the simple fact that Dragon Knights were officially placed under the class system of Dragoon which is what Cid is. The terms are synonymous. But the thing is there is a class for Dragoons(such as Cid) but there is one official class for Gamblers(such as Cait Sith). So if Cait Sith has no class what is it classified as (i.e FFVII's Cait Sith has no definite class, which is why it's a necessity to use the Gambler class for him.) CredibleLegend

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)

That idea's nice. We could make a separate one with every single Final Fantasy class. But who would start on it? Ryu Ematsu

As there are no limitations on spell/ability learning, FFVII does not have a true class system. The game never states the classes of a character and therefore(for our intents) characters have no class. If people are SOO worried about having a gamble class, it should be inserted as a paragraph in the "thief class" section as both share similar stats. For now i will remove the gambler class as it is only EXPLICITLY stated as a class in one Final Fantasy game and therfore is not important enough to the whole series to get its own section. Afterthough: Maybe there should be a section for classes appearing in only one FF game

I was the one who put the Gambler up. I think it should be there. Not all FF games name their classes. Nobody created a class. From who I've talked to, Gambler, albeit uncommon in FF games, is generally accepted as an FF character class. ---Retrospectre 19:28, 15 July 2006

I agree with what was said earlier about combining the class with thiefs and therfore have taken the liberty to do so. 03:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

While I can understand keeping the Gambler, it should not be combined with Thief. They really aren't the same class; Ninja is far closer to Thief than Gambler is, and they have grown quite different, and they are seperate. Hmm... I'm not sure what to do... 24.42.246.206 14:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm now inclining towards Seancdaug's idea, posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Character classes, that we prosify this article, similarly to Final Fantasy magic, and add a section discussing certain traits that show up across characters in FF games that are not necessarily classes - such as "gambling" or "luck" traits. I still firmly disagree that Gambler has appeared as a specific class in enough FF games to make it notable enough for an entry here, because any "so-and-so could be considered a Gambler" comes dangerously close to original research if it isn't specifically stated in game literature. Thoughts? -RaCha'ar 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Merging Gambler with Thief makes no sense. None of the Gambler-like characters share anything in common with Thief. I'm willing to compromise on Seancdaug's idea though. But I'll comtinue to think of Gambler as a FF class. ---Retrospectre 22:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)Retrospectre

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)

Um... I just said I'm willing to compromise on Seancdaug's idea. I only seperated it from Thief because it definitely doesn't belong there. By the way, it does defintely appear in 2 games: X-2 and XI. At any rate, I won't add it, and I'm not going to argue it anymore. I'm just closing by saying I thoroughly disagree. ---Retrospectre 23:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Done. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Final Fantasy#Character classes. -RaCha'ar 22:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Another idea...

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)

Other Classes for inclusion?

• 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)

I wouldn't include Corsair as a Gunner. They use guns, but there focus is mainly on party buffs. The guns they use, and more, can also be used by Rangers and Thiefs. ---Retrospectre 22:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Image

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)

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)

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)

Calculator

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)

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)

Too many slashes.

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)

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)

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)

Inclusion of infrequent classes in the article

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)

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)

Class Image Continuity

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)

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)

Weasel words/OR stuff

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)

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)

What to include in this article

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)

Cid Highwind

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)

Cait Sith

The person who added in the info about Cait Sith is almost passing muster, since he's not actually calling Cait Sith a gambler, and he's certainly describing the similarities to the Gambler class. However... I vote this information is still better for the FFVII or Cait Sith articles than here. Thoughts? -RaCha'ar 21:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

You should be a little more ruthless in preening this article to remove speculation and original research. If it's unsure, be bold and just remove it without question since it's probably just OR or speculation anyway. Axem Titanium 22:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of including Garnet and Aiko from FFIX as White Mages, then? The game identifies them only as summoners.

Also, I question whether Locke and Zidane can actually be classified as thieves. There is a difference between being a thief as your "career," so to speak, and being the thief job class. I know Locke and Zidane are both called thieves within the game but that doesn't make them that job class. -RaCha'ar 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since the Japanese version of Final Fantasy VI does identify each character's job class on the status screen (in much the same way as Final Fantasy IV did), there's a pretty good argument that Locke qualifies. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A (joking) point: If Locke is not considered a Thief, his pic should get removed from the Thief section. Afterdeath 03:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I just had this conversation with my fiance. I've never played FFVI so I was just showing my ignorance. :) Still, as for FFIX, I'd still argue that it does not have character classes (although everyone is pretty clearly a tribute to a classic FF class) and Zidane's being a thief by trade is not an argument for his being a thief by character class. -RaCha'ar 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, based on this, it would be incorrect to classify Leon as a Dark Knight, because even though he is referred to in the game as "The Dark Knight," he does not use any abilities unique to himself which allows him to be considered as such (the other characters could be customised to anything he could do). In FFIX, Zidane should be considered a Thief, Dagger/Eiko as a White Mage/Summoner, Freya as a Dragoon, Vivi as a Black Mage, and Quina as a Blue mage, because they each use specific abilities unique to that character, and these abilities are defined to be the ability of the said class. For Steiner/Amarant, their abilities are more ambiguous to classify, i.e. just because a character uses sword techs, it does not define him to be a fighter per se (because the sword techs in each game are defined rather loosely, and usually different), but if a character uses White Magic (w/o using Black Magic), he/she should be considered a White Mage.Afterdeath 03:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say if there's any doubt, just remove it. I haven't personally gone through the entire article so I can't talk about specific cases though. I think that if the game colloquially refers to characters as say "thief" or "black mage", like Zidane and Vivi, they should be included since it's pretty obvious that they are. But on the other hand, if say Steiner's Magic Sword attacks resemble Magic Knights, don't include it since he is not called a Magic Knight ever. He would fall only under the Knight class. Axem Titanium 05:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I think from now on we should be referring to SE's official website for each of the games and the characters within them to see what they say each character's job class is. No character in FFIX is given a job class there; therefore, I would say that none of them should really be listed here. This may be too pedantic, however. The one thing I will say is that we should never use "should be considered" as legitimate justification for calling any character a specific job class. That phrase is weasel words and does not fly in an encyclopedia. We cannot draw any conclusions on our own in writing articles here. If it isn't in the game documentation then it isn't true, period. -RaCha'ar 22:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Organisation XIII members

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)

They are not included in the article because they are not from Final Fantasy. -RaCha'ar 16:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

I'm not even certain that Xaldin belongs under Dragoon. --Daedalus 16:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

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).

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)

Puppetmaster

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)

When is Puppetmaster ever used as a defined class? Axem Titanium 15:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Questions for cleanup

1. Should Berserker be removed from the list, seeing as it only appeared in two games?
2. Should we remove the reference to Tidus from the Time Mage section? While it's true that he has some time magic-ish abilities, this still uses the ever-popular "can be considered" to justify his inclusion under that heading and is a bit weaselly.
3. Should Gadgeteer appear under "Gambler"? I go both ways on this one - it certainly is using chance for its abilities but calling it a gambler straight-out is a bit of a stretch. -RaCha'ar 22:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. Gadgeteer shouldn't appear at all since it only appears in FFTA and is so tangentially related to Gambler that any comparison drawn between them would be original research. Axem Titanium 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've made the changes accordingly. -RaCha'ar 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Lulu for similar reasons, due to all Final Fantasy X characters being not limited to a single class. Afterdeath 02:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Mog (FFVI) - Dancer or Geomancer?

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)

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)

In FFVI, his class is neither Bard nor Dancer...it is "Moogle." His special ability is "Dance" but how it works is more similar to Geomancer magic. Afterdeath 10:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. MythSearcher^talk 19:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology over vandalism of Dark Knight page

I would like to apoligize on behalf of my fellow high school peers who decided to vandalize the dark knight page for their own amusement. They deleted everything that was there and just typed in "really bad person." I managed to copy and paste the revision before the "really bad person" edit. I would just like it if someone could just reformat some aesthetic things such as adding bold letters to dark knight and any links that originaly existed there. Thank you in advance.

edit:It appears that this was already fixed. After looking at the talk page for people using the IP adress of the school computer, this is not the only time dumb edits like this has been done for student's amusement, especially in articles relating to the current curriculum. Thank you RaCha'ar!

Wakka

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).

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)

Remaining articles to be merged

• 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)

When you merged Black Mage you created a few double redirects, which I just fixed. Please be sure to check for these when you merge the rest of these articles.--Dycedarg ж 21:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I forgot that a user created a bunch of redirects to Black Mage the other day. — Deckiller 21:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have merged White Mage. See my talk page for the new version that will be added once it's been determined that nothing important was left out or forgotten. Feel free to contribute as well. --Daedalus 22:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have now merged Dragoon. I am leaving Dragoon (Final Fantasy) where it is for now so that other people can double check to see that nothing important was missed. Also, since I'm fairly new to WP, I don't exactly have any experience with cleaning up double redirects. If someone else wants to redirect the old Main Article and clean that up, feel free. Or if you prefer, share some pointers with me and I'm willing to give the process a shot. --Daedalus 00:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now merged Summoner. Eliminated in-universe trivia of summoners for individual games. Eliminated redundant summon magic section that mirrors information in Final Fantasy magic. Eliminated Notable summoners section that was just bursting with in-universe trivia specific to individual games. After all that, there was surprisingly little meat to the article left. --Daedalus 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Explicit job classes

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)

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)

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)

And there's the source: Looks like it's fine now once the source is put in. — Deckiller 04:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I added it in then.--Dycedarg ж 04:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Abused picture

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)

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)

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)

Very good points, I replaced Strago with Bartz as Blue Mage. --Daedalus 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

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)

Referencing campaign

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)

Sources needed

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)

Black Mage/Odin and Geomancer/Santa Claus

I'd really like to see a discussion of why these comparisons aren't original research and why they're relevant to the article. Whether it's true or not, why does it matter whether black mages maybe kind of call a connotation to Odin, and ditto with geomancers and Santa Claus? I really don't think this information belongs in this article and there seems to be a mini-edit war going on about it. -RaCha'ar 12:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be in the article, because they aren't obvious connections. We can only synthesize ideas if they are obvious, or stated in primary/secondary sources. Therefore, the Odin and Santa refs should be removed. That'll also consolidate the information well. If we can find some developers information, then we can re-include them. I'll get the axe out. — Deckiller 17:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. Good riddance. It's a shame I had to come up with this silly Santa connection to make people realize that the Odin connection was equally silly and baseless. Kariteh 20:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The Odin connection is not that silly, and not that Baseless. One could either say that Black Mages are directly related to Odin, or are related to the stereotypical image of a wizard which in turn is derived from Odin. One of the most iconic wizards, Gandalf, was directly based off of Odin. In fact, Tolkein himself described Gandalf as an "Odinic wanderer", the only detail that differs is that Odin had one eye. And there is an obvious connection between a Black Mage's appearance and the appearance of a typical wizard motif, even when you discount the obscured face. If there is an obvious connection between the appearance of a Black Mage and a typically iconic wizard, and an established connection between the appearance of a typically iconic wizard and Odin, then why can't we establish a connection between Black Mage and Odin? In both math and logic: if A=B and B=C, then A=C. Equally if 'A' is derived from 'B' and 'B' is derived from 'C', then 'A' is derived from 'C'. We're not playing 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon here, it's an established connection. --Daedalus 21:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with Daedalus. The iconic status of Odin as legend does have merit.

On a different point, the fact that Kariteh is admitting that he was deliberately inserting facetious items into this article smacks of violations of Wikipedia's policies. We're all supposed to be editing with the idea that it's "in good faith". The editors who have found the derivation of Odin's appearance to be noteable have indeed been operating in that fashion, but Kariteh apparently believes (by his own admission) that it's appropriate to vandalize the article rather than enage in actually discussing the issue. Even if the Odin reference is removed by and by, there is no excuse for breaking Wikipedia's rules just to prove a point. Being that I am involved in the dispute, I don't feel it would be appropriate for me to seek action, but something ought to be done. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

None of that changes that saying that Black Mages look like Odin is WP:OR. We are an encyclopedia. We cannot make such A=C jumps ourselves. If the information cannot be sourced, then it does not belong here.

That said, I agree that Kariteh should not have introduced something baseless into the article to make a point; in fact, it specifically violates a guidelines of Wikipedia: WP:POINT. Please use the talk page for such discussion in the future, Kariteh. -RaCha'ar 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

But we aren't making any jumps. The similarity between Black Mage and a typical Wizard is obvious, it's like saying a Katana is similar to a Wakizashi, it's obvious, factual, and self-verifying. The iconic appearance of a Wizard is established to be from Gandalf onward. And Gandalf is established to be directly based on Odin. These origins are already established for us, we don't have to make any conclusions to string them together. It is factual to say "Wizards are based on Gandalf, and he's based on Odin", but it's OR to say "Wizards are based on Odin"? I'd like to compare this with Name Etymology. Denny is a pet form of Denis, Denis is a medieval form of Dionysius, Dionysius is the Latin form of Dionysios, Dionysios is a Greek name derived from the God Dionysos. Is it OR to say that Denny derives from Dionysos? If that's the case then I suggest we ignore the rule in this situation. But bearing that in mind anyway (although I disagree), I've reinserted the Odin reference, but modified it so that it is more factual and less conclusion-forcing. I think the origins of the outfit are a worthy topic of discussion in the article, it certainly adds more out-of-universe information and gives this article some more real substance. --Daedalus 00:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I really think we need a source for this statement. It's great and all that Gandalf is based on Odin, but do we have a source that says that black mages are based on Gandalf? They come from the same wizard archetype, but in order for your logic to hold water, we have to have a credible, factual source that states that Final Fantasy black mages are based on Gandalf. I think it's more true that they come from the wizard archetype, descended more directly from Merlin than from Gandalf. I do not think we can make the Black Mage = Odin jump. -RaCha'ar 00:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Then we can't say that the Dwarves are based on Norse Mythology, because FF dwarves are based on typical fantasy dwarves, and they are in turn based on Tolkein's dwarves who in turn are based on Dvergar from Norse Mythology. According to your logic, that's also OR. And by the way, Merlin did not wear a pointy hat until after Gandalf. If you read Merlin, you'll find that he's closer to a Bard or a Woodwose. Plus, it's already established that the Wizard Archetype comes from Gandalf. Also it's important to make the distinction between Black Mage is Odin and Black Mage is derived from Odin. --Daedalus 00:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I really do not think this information should be included without a source to back it up. I do not believe that we can confidently make any assertion that Black Mages are based on Gandalf, therefore are intended to reflect Odin. I'd really like to see a source that says that the FF designers intended this comparison. -RaCha'ar 04:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While I did "admit" that I introduced a "baseless" Santa comparison, I said it was baseless only because I think the Odin comparison is equally baseless. If you think that the Odin comparison isn't OR, then the Santa comparison isn't OR either. I just want to article to be coherent. I'm going to put this Santa stuff back in the article. It's not claiming that Geomancers are derived or anything fancy, it's just describing that Geomancers are wearing the same kind of hat as the pre-Coca Cola Santa Claus. There's even less guesses and suppositions than with the Odin stuff. Kariteh 11:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the source used in turn uses Wikipedia as a source. — Deckiller 17:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

True. I guess it's going to be removed again then. I'll try to find a better source eventually (or not). Kariteh 19:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Name a specific black mage in the FF series that is inspired by Odin? The only black mage character I know is Vivi in FF9, and he's certainly not very Odinic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Invisible Queen (talk • contribs) 18:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

<-- reset indent

ALL of them. Let's do a quick clarification:

Odin (a shapeshifter, but as described when he wanders the Earth)

1. Old Man with a grey beard
2. One eye
3. God of Magic (among other things)
4. Uses a staff, but wields a sword
5. Pointy, wide-brimmed hat
6. Blue Coat

Gandalf (who is "an Odinic Wanderer" according to Tolkien himself)

1. Old Man with a grey beard (same as Odin)
2. User of Magic (similar to Odin)
3. Uses a staff, but wields a sword (same as Odin)
4. Pointy, wide-brimmed hat (same as Odin)
5. Baggy robes

Typical Wizards (post-Gandalf only, no universal appearance exists pre-Gandalf)

1. Old Man with a grey beard (same as Gandalf and Odin)
2. User of Magic (same as Gandalf, similar to Odin)
3. Uses a staff, either wields the staff or a dagger (similar to Gandalf and Odin)
4. Pointy, wide-brimmed hat (same as Gandalf and Odin)
5. Baggy robes, usually blue (same as Gandalf, similar to Odin)

Black Mages

1. Face is obscured by the shadow of the hat in the original FF and revealed to be a normal human when promoted to Black Wizard, so the Black Face is nothing more than a shadow in it's original context.
2. Users of Magic (same as Wizard and Gandalf, similar to Odin)
3. Wields a staff (same as Wizard, similar to Gandalf and Odin)
4. Pointy, wide-brimmed hat (same as Wizard, Gandalf and Odin)
5. Blue baggy robes (same as Wizard, similar to Gandalf and Odin. Vivi has a Blue Coat, same as Odin)

Merlin (pre-Gandalf)

1. Half human, half Incubus
2. Has supernatural ability as a result of being half-demon, does not use magic in the same sense. In fact, his powers are more prophetic than wizardly. (similar to Wizard, Gandalf and Odin)
3. No mention of a staff
4. Does not wear a pointy hat
5. Does not wear baggy robes or a blue coat
6. In fact, does not wear anything, he runs naked through the forest

Hopefully this dispels any myths like "Black mages aren't very Odinic" or "The wizard archetype is descended from Merlin". The similarities between Black Mages and typical wizards are obvious, as are the similarities directly between Black Mages and Odin, and the derivation of wizard archetypes coming from Odin is confirmed. Why is this not clear? --Daedalus 20:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for these researches. That was very original. Kariteh 20:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it OR? Every connection is confirmed. --Daedalus 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The source you provided covers only about 10% of what you're stating here. Blue coat, etc. Kariteh 21:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If by "the source [I'm] providing" you mean my links, then you need to check again. It's all there. The only thing that isn't is my addition that Typical Wizards sometimes wield daggers, and that's a valid observation and comparable to the Athame of ritual practices that started showing up for the first time in the 1950's, the use of daggers as a primary weapon for mages in dungeons and dragons, the use of daggers by sorcerers and sorceresses in movies, etc. --Daedalus 21:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By it I mean the source you provided in the article. There's nothing about blue coat. Kariteh 22:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"He is said to travel Earth as an old man with a staff, one-eyed, grey-bearded, and wearing a wide-brimmed hat, with a blue traveling coat." from Odin#Characteristics, accessed as of the date of my timestamp. Next time read the article I link to before trying to refute me. --Daedalus 22:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

"Buzz, I loose"? Wow, keep in mind that it's a talk page dude, you're not playing Galaga or Street Fighter. This Odin article is far from reliable. The only source you provided in this article, the one that I refered to twice already, says nothing about a blue coat, and nothing about several other points that you described on this talk page. Kariteh 22:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I deleted that comment because I realized it was immature, and that I deleted it before you posted. And yes, the article says something about a blue coat, I just quoted it and pointed directly to it, it's in the last paragraph of Odin#Characteristics. And if you doubt the reliability of a blue coat, bring it up there. Besides, even without the blue coat, the similarities are still remarkably obvious, and your nitpicking at individual details and making broad generalizations does not refute that. (Before you accuse me of Ad Hominem, I am referring to you saying that only 10% of my list is sourced when you only challenged one detail, and your picking at said detail and trying to use that to say the entire comparison is dubious). --Daedalus 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Daedalus, I'm very sorry, but I agree that this is all original research. I am extremely uncomfortable claiming the resemblance between Black Mages and Odin without a third-party source to back it up. If you can find a source so we can cite it that would be wonderful so we can keep it in the article. On another note, I would like to urge everyone here to please be calm and be civil. We're all working for the betterment of the article, and of Wikipedia, here. -RaCha'ar 23:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Black Mage shares obvious direct similarities with all of the following: Typical Wizard, Gandalf, and Odin. I fail to see how pointing out these similarities is OR. Besides, the current wording of the article mentions the similarities but does not actually say that Black Mage is derived from Odin, nor does it say that the Final Fantasy designers had Odin in mind when they designed the Black Mage. Where is the OR? --Daedalus 23:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Let's keep this from turning into an edit war. Based on the original research policy, it might qualify as synthesis. But it doesn't matter, because it needs a reliable source related to the topic, whether it be an developer interview, magazine article etc. If we can find one of those, then we can include it. I personally don't necessarily mind it, but the community is split as to whether it's OR or not, so the best thing to do is find a reliable source of the variety mentioned above, or just drop the subject and continue editing. You three are some of the most promising members of this community right now, and a lot of people are counting on us elevating these articles to modern standards. Let's keep our cool. — Deckiller 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It took longer than I thought, but I found a source that directly links the generic wizard archetype directly to Odin. Being that Black Mage is a typical member of said archetype, it should now be valid to say that Black Mage's roots trace to Odin. It's taken from a dissertation that in turn cites David Day, author of Tolkien's Ring. I'm not very good with formatting citations, so maybe someone can help clean it up? --Daedalus 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I am really, really not trying to be pedantic or to make life hard on you, so please don't take this personally. I don't question the wizard archetype's descent from Odin. I question whether there is a relationship to be claimed between the Black Mage and Odin. I would like to see a third-party source making that comparison. That's what I've been opposing this on all this time - not the question of whether wizards relate back to Odin or not - whether the game's designers intended for that comparison to be made. -RaCha'ar 01:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries, not taken personally at all. That being said, please explain to me how the Black Mage's appearance is not considered to be inline with the archetypal wizard? He carries all of the hallmarks that define a typical wizard save the beard, does he not? Also please note, that the current wording does not say that the designers intended Black Mage to be a reference to Odin, it says that he is similar to a typical wizard, and that a typical wizard is derived from Odin. --Daedalus 16:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's get back to the article as a whole

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)

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)

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)

• I'd say we're about 60 percent done with the referencing. What's left are more sources for:
  • Final Fantasy III
  • Final Fantasy VI (a couple)
  • Final Fantasy VII (hopefully official strategy guide)
  • Final Fantasy VIII (only a couple)
  • Final Fantasy IX (examples used need to be cited)
  • Final Fantasy X
  • Final Fantasy XI (again, only a couple)
  • Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced

— Deckiller 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Newly added graphics

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)

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)

Agreed. Those two need to be changed to reflect the classic and most common style. — Deckiller 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sage and Engineer

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)

I'll take no response as a reason to remove these classes though; any ideas? — Deckiller 04:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Title of the article

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)

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)

I've checked all the official websites I could find, and here's the results:

• Job: FFIII, FFV (Anthology), FFV Advance, FFXI, FFTA
• Character class: FFI (Origins), FFI (Dawn of Souls), FFIV (Chronicles), FFIX
• The FFT website says both "Jobs" and "fighting classes". "Job" is written with a capital J, so it may be the actual term (plus it's the one used in the game) while "fighting class" may be a paraphrase, a description.
• The FFXII website says FFXII "moves past any notion of class."

The results are relatively even, but there seems to be a logic. When the characters of a game can change [class] at will, the term "Job" is used. When the characters of a game have a fixed [class], the term "character class" is used instead. Basically, the term "Job" is used only when there's an actual Job-changing system.

So in the end, I think the title of this article is correct with "character classes", since it's more generic and isn't as restrictive as Job. Kariteh 14:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

FF spin-offs

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Okay, this is taken care of. -RaCha'ar 23:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm even wondering if those too should be listed in a general location. --Daedalus 15:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thank You. I did warn you I might be blind...:DQuatreryukami 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Focusing above topics into one: the future of this page

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)

• I agree wholeheartedly. We should not only obtain an out of universe perspective, we should look for a general consensus on which classes are "notable", then try to find as many sources as possible.

I'm Probibaly just repeating what has been previously said...but its true. I will put as much of my own knowlege and perspective as posssible. AND lets shoot for better than GA! Quatreryukami 15:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon 2's mystery

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)

See above arguements on FF Spinoffs Quatreryukami 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Red Wizards

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)

Why is a D&D arguement on a FF pages? Quatreryukami 16:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comparison to Dragonlance and Bard's Tale

A paragraph was just added that compares the Black, White and Red Mage to the Black, White, and Red Mages of Dragonlance, and between Geomancer and Time Mage and Bard's Tale. This looks suspiciously like OR to me. Especially since the Wizards of Dragonlance are based upon an alignment of either Good, Evil, and Neutral, and FF does not distinguish White and Black Magic as good or evil. The basic philosophy that differentiates the colors are completely unrelated in the two systems. Can we be certain that they are related? We know that they were aware of D&D, but can we even be certain that FF designers were aware of Dragonlance? Bard's tale, on the other hand, is a bit of a stretch. Can we source these statements, please? And if we can't, I think we should remove the entire paragraph. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 02:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone can ref the manual or strategy guide, it might fly, although I've never played the Dragonlance and Bard games. — Deckiller 02:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bard's Tale is hardly a stretch. The term and concept of "Geomancer" as a role-playing game character class first appeared in Bard's Tale III. Same thing for the time-manipulating mage (called Chronomancer in Bard's Tale III). They didn't exist before. And then some years later, Geomancers and Time Mages suddenly appear in another game, Final Fantasy V... How suspicious indeed. As for the Black/White/Red Mages, there are definitely similarities despite Dragonlance putting more emphasis on the Good/Evil alignment stuff (where else is there such a Black/White/Red classification of mages?). In Final Fantasy (and most other console RPGs), you can't be evil, you're always the good guy. Nevertheless, Good and Evil are often related to the notions of healing and destruction, and that's the thing in Final Fantasy (notice how "Holy" is a white magic). And there's the Red Mage who uses both kinds of magic. Also, in 1987 you didn't really see any red-robed mage other than in Dragonlance. Hiromichi Tanaka also stated in interviews that he and Sakaguchi were huge fans of Western RPGs in their university years, and that it's what inspired them to join Square and create their own RPG in the first place.

In any case, the paragraph that I wrote in the article doesn't even state that these things were related or were inspirations. As said, we can't be sure. That's why the paragraph is simply noting the similarities without asserting anything definite. If the Black Mage/Odin comparison can appear in this article, then I don't see why these general classes comparisons couldn't. Kariteh 13:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please remember WP:POINT, your actions with the geomancer/santa clause in the past has already made your motives suspect. As far as the Dragonlance comparison goes, it's OR. Plain and simple. We know that they were big fans of western RPG's, I'm not arguing you on that point, this is established. But we don't know that they were based off of Dragonlance without a source. It could just as easily be that a White Mage is based off of a Cleric, and Black Mage is based off of a Mage, and Red Mage is Based off of a Bard. That scenario is even more likely, as White Mage looks and casts like a priest, and Black Mage looks and casts like a Mage, and Red Mage not only looks and casts like a Bard, but has other characteristics of a Bard (ie, varied use of weapons and armor that doesn't compare with a fighter, he is even most versatile with fencing blades that are characteristic of Bards, etc.). And going even farther, it's possible that they were given the Colors Black and White to differentiate them as Yin/Yang to each other (NOT the same as Good/Evil), while the Red Mage just happened to be red by design, and they needed a third color. On the other hand, the only similarity they have with the three colors of Mages in Dragonlance is only their names. To equate healing magic with good and destructive magic with evil is a very western concept, making it an unlikely intention of the eastern minds that created it. Let's not forget that not even their Taijitu (Yin/Yang symbol) represents Good/Evil, that is a western interpretation inspired by the dichotomy of good and evil, and is not a correct interpretation for the eastern symbol. Is Dragonlance the inspiration behind their names, while the base classes are the inspiration behind their motifs? Maybe, but we need sources to say this. The Black Mage/Odin reference is completely different. For one thing, it has sources. For another, Black Mage is clearly a figure of an archetypal mage. The archetypal mage is verified and sourced to be derived from Odin. No such relationship and sourcing is provided between the three FF Mages and Dragonlance. The Geomancer and Chronomancer is a stretch. You are going to need to provide sources. There is no obvious similarity, and it could easily be coincidence. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please reread my post, I never said these FF classes were based on the DL/BT classes. They may or may not, we don't know. I only noted some striking similarities (red-robed mages are globally uncommon, so their appearances in DL and FF are noticeable). The Black Mage/Odin comparison is the exact same thing, we don't know if he's based on Odin, but we can still note the similarities the class has with him. The Black Mage is clearly an archetypal mage? The Geomancer is also a typical geomancer class, and the Time Mage a time-manipulating mage class. Odin has inspired the archetypal mage type without necessarily directly inspiring the Black Mage? The real-life Geomancers and Chinese Chronomancers have also inspired RPG character classes, which first appeared in BT3, without necessarily directly inspiring the FF Geomancers and Time Mages. The only difference I see as of now, is that these Mages/Geo statements are unsourced. I will thus search for some and provide them as soon as possible.

As for my motives being "suspect," I have already expressed my view on that. My view is that I originally thought that all these sorts of comparisons, whether on Odin, Dragonlance, anything, are all original researches. But the Odin issue has been discussed above and the consensus, accepted by all of us, is that that case isn't OR. So, my only motive now is to find other similar and pertinent comparisons to add to the article to make it more complete and less in-universe-focused. What's so suspect about that? you think I have a secret masterplan to ruin Wikipedia or something? Kariteh 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Woa... let's not get uber defensive, I'm not attacking you! The closest I came to attacking you was to point out that this addition in light of your post appears similar to your addition of santa clause in geomancer, which you admitted to adding for the sole purpose of making a point about Black Mage/Odin. Since you admitted to it, there is no slander in my words, just fact. Please note that after I made that statement, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and continued to debate your points.

Moving on... Please reread my post. I made it quite clear that they are different for only two reasons: 1) Black Mage/Odin is sourced, and 2) Black Mage/Archetypal Wizard is a striking similarity. As I pointed out, R/W/B Mages of FF share only the same name as R/W/B Mages of DL, nothing else is similar. These types of comparisons are often comparison-cruft. It's no good trying to compare one thing to another based on one attribute alone (i.e. Black Mage is similar to Marvin the Martian, 'cause they both have black faces), that is comparison-cruft, unless it has a source. Black Mage shares almost ALL the same attributes as an archetypal mage, this is striking and not comparison-cruft. The comparisons have to be either striking or sourced, and Black Mage/Odin is both, and currently the Dragonlance comparison is neither. That is why they are different. But yes, this will be a moot point once sourcing is provided.

To say that Geomancers as this class appears were inspired by real-life geomancers is innaccurate, since geomancy is a form of divination, not terrain control. This also means that the FF Geomancer is not a typical geomancer, in function or motif. The comment about Geomancers and Chronomancers first appearing in BTIII is not incorrect as I now understand it more fully (your posts have made it more clear than the prose does), but it does need to be reworded as the current phrasing implies that they are related, when we don't know that they are.

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmh, can't find sources for the colored mages. So I unfortunately have to remove it from the article. It's a shame, it wasn't just names, the Red-Robed Mages wear the same long red robes as the FF Red Mages (although they lack the feathered hat). Anyway, I found the manual for Bard's Tales III [1], but the problem is that without the colored mages sentence, the Geomancer/Time Mage sentence becomes a little "orphaned" and doesn't fit well in the prose of the History and Development section.

So I went ahead and just replaced the sentence by some "seealso" links in the Geomancer and Time Mage sections (I also added a seealso for the Ranger by the way). This way, I think the sourcing is not even needed, since we're making no explicite comparisons and just put a link for those "homonyms."

Oh and I removed the Santa Claus comparison too. Was never able to find a source... I guess there are Santas with red Santa hat, and Santas with green clothes, but no Santas with green Santa hats. Kariteh 09:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit and reference tags

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)

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)

Kingdom Hearts 2

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)

Agreed; no source can be found. — Deckiller 03:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanding Classes

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).

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)

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. MythSearcher^talk 04:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Calculator

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)

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)

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)

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)

How about modification of the article such that it only contains classes unique to or introduced in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance? ShiraShira 21:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)