Ragnarok Online character tag cleanup

priest returns 382 posts.
priest -ragnarok_online returns 26 posts.

Clearly a distinction is needed here.

Proposal: Either make a new priest_(person) (or such) general tag, or change priest to general and make a new priest_(ro) character tag.

By the way, "priest" totally does not look like a word anymore.

I vote for the latter, priest_(ro), both for consistency with the other classes and out of deference of the general noun.

I do think that some of these "class" tags should be clarified and cleared out, especially when the name of the class is the same as a real life role/job/position that has a common or stereotypical appearance that is different from the appearance of the game class.

I do believe it was actually discussed to move the ro classes to their own tags but nobody did it.

I don't think adding a qualifier to all of the 40+ classes would be entirely necessary, but I guess if someone had the time to it then it'd be nice to have for consistency's sake. The biggest offenders are the common generic name ones like knight, priest, hunter, etc.

Also, the _(ragnarok_online) qualifier is in a bit more use than the _(ro) one, so I'd probably recommend going that route.

Yes, as a rule let's qualify classes of this sort. No one property should be granted the use of a base paladin, wizard, sorceress, priest, rogue or other tag.

Bumpity.

Now that I can access tag scripts, I guess I'll get around to doing this. Need some clarification, though:

-Should the general tag be left on the posts or removed? I'll leave them for now, but I suggest it be done on a case-by-case basis. For instance, post #439445 has priestly raiment, so it gets the tag. But its child, post #439447 would not.

-Some of the class names seem to warrant their own unqualified tags. Either they're sufficiently specific/unique (like taekwon) or otherwise not something that would seem to show up in Danbooru tags (such as high_priest). Since I am not very familiar with RO, it would be nice if someone could list the classes that would warrant a qualifier (that do not already have one).

wizard, to start with.

theadonicus said: -Should the general tag be left on the posts or removed?

Mmm... leave it, I guess?

It's going to depend though. If the character in question looks like they are the occupation in question, then tag it. With witches or wizards that likely isn't too hard to tell but with something like priest, I'm not so sure. What does a typical priest look like? Priests in which tradition? Which culture?

It's not really clear.

But the important part is that we get the char: tags qualified. How we apply the general tags is less pressing right now.

So, I looked up a list of classes, and here's what I've done.

The following are now qualified, and the corresponding posts have been edited:
thief_(ragnarok_online)
merchant_(ragnarok_online)
archer_(ragnarok_online) (Already done, thanks to FSN I guess)
ninja_(ragnarok_online)
knight_(ragnarok_online)
priest_(ragnarok_online)
monk_(ragnarok_online)
wizard_(ragnarok_online)
sage_(ragnarok_online)
assassin_(ragnarok_online)
rogue_(ragnarok_online)
hunter_(ragnarok_online)
bard_(ragnarok_online)
dancer_(ragnarok_online)
paladin_(ragnarok_online)
professor_(ragnarok_online)
sorcerer_(ragnarok_online)
mechanic_(ragnarok_online)
ranger_(ragnarok_online)
blacksmith_(ragnarok_online)
mage_(ragnarok_online)

Many of the rest have been left unqualified, for one reason or another. I'm still not so sure about about this one:

EDIT: finished blacksmith_(ragnarok_online) and mage_(ragnarok_online)

I'd say yes to having to qualify the blacksmith as well, as the RO class's depiction beyond the name shares nothing in common with non-RO blacksmiths.

Blacksmith is done. I guess that's all she wrote, unless someone can point out something else. At least until I get around to cleaning up the general "job" tags, anyway.

Also, changed the title of the thread to something more relevant.

Looks good to me.

Mage should be qualified it looks sloppy if 15 character (classes) for a series are qualified and one isn't.

Mage (ragnarok online) is online.. As previously mentioned, mage as a general tag is pretty ambiguous. Does anybody have a problem with me changing general-mage-tagged items to something more specific (sorcerer, witch or wizard, as appropriate)?

Oh, right, mage needed to be qualified, yes.

theadonicus said: Does anybody have a problem with me changing general-mage-tagged items to something more specific (sorcerer, witch or wizard, as appropriate)?

If you have clear guidelines on what you'd put into each. Preferably with wiki entries if we don't already have them.

Somehow didn't notice that a lot of these magic-users already have their own wiki entries (which link to sorcerer, which doesn't have its own yet). So far the guidelines look like:

Wizard: I put on my robe and wizard hat
Witch: Storybook witch

I'll tighten up the graphics on the preexisting magic-user wiki entries before I go anywhere. On the subject of guidelines, I guess that what I'm looking for in a sorcerer is casting magic without the clear use of magical implements, but there's also a certain aesthetic I have in mind. post #496855 is exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.

However, I'm starting to think that I might be thinking about it too much, and that such a distinction is unnecessary.