Fire Emblem Wiki talk:Project Classes
Hey guys. Sorry for bringing up a minor thing, but I didn't know where else to put this, and I didn't know how to make the edits myself. But basically, there a few mistakes I noticed in Category:Base classes, Category:Advanced classes, and Category:Enemy-exclusive classes.
In Category:Base classes the Brigand, Pirate, Cleric, and Dancer classes are missing, and Ballista, Iron Ballista, Great Ballista, Killer Ballista, Poison Ballista, and Corsair classes should be removed since they are enemy-exclusives and have no class changes.
In Category:Advanced classes the Axe General, Sword General, and Lance General classes are missing.
In Category:Third-tier advanced classes Vanguard should be removed since it was never a third-tier advanced class.
And finally, in Category:Enemy-exclusive classes the Draco Zombie and Stoneborn classes should be removed since they are monster classes, and the Knights class should also be removed since it was never enemy-exclusive. Also, the Ballista, Iron Ballista, Great Ballista, Killer Ballista, Poison Ballista classes are missing Darkenraul1 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- "In Category:Third-tier advanced classes Vanguard should be removed since it was never a third-tier advanced class."
- False. It has stat caps and skill capacity on par with the third-tiers, it has a mastery skill, it becomes available around the same time as all the other third-tiers, and in terms of exp it behaves exactly like a third-tier. Hero is also pretty clearly second-tier both for similar stat reasons and for the years of precedent. If it looks like a third tier and it quacks like a third tier, it's a third tier, and the lack of a first-tier counterpart to the line doesn't mean a class is suddenly in a tier below where everything else points to it being.
- "and the Knights class should also be removed since it was never enemy-exclusive."
- It is in FE4. --PA (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
"If it looks like a third tier and it quacks like a third tier, it's a third tier"
Fair enough. I didn't know stats were factored into the criteria and just assumed that lack of a first-tier class meant it should only be considered a second-tier class.
"It is in FE4."
Honestly never knew that. But I was going off of the page for knight which never stated it was an enemy exclusive like all the other classes in Category:Enemy-exclusive classes/the ones I pointed out are missing from there (so that should probably be fixed at some point lol).
More sections for class pages
Should we perhaps add an overview and role section to class pages? These two sections could go into more detail on what the class is used for. Currently most of our clas articles provide stat data, but not much in-world/in-game context... L95 (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)