Gilgamesh: Enough expository banter!
This talk page is used for discussing improvements to the page "Onion Knight (job)". It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article.

When was the first appearence of the phrase "Onion Knight" or "Onion Kid"? I know it predtaes FFIII DS. Any help?

Original FFIII. Onion Kids, pshaw. --Auron Kaizer 12:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Dissidia[edit source]


Um...derp.[edit source]

Like an idiot I looked at the Articles to Move forum, saw Onion Knight apparently needed moving to have a job tag, and moved this article without actually checking the content. Now I realise that I've probably made a mistake, as has Xeno for thinking this needed a job tag, as the article only has a tiny bit on it being a job due to us already having an existing article for the job itself.

Um, so I'm gonna stop doing all this moving and relinking now. Someone might want to undo all my edits. I'm pretty embarrassed. Sorry. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 19:08, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it, what happened? Drake Clawfang (talk) 20:06, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
I think you're correct in moving it to "Onion Knight (Job)", though. I mean, there's there enemy in VI and such. --Shockstorm 20:28, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
No, all iterations of the Onion Knight are the Onion Knight. Appearing as an enemy is no reason to disambig if the enemy shares origin and traits with the job. JBed (talk) 20:43, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Evidently not. Anyways, thank you for a) conflating your personal opinion with policy and b) waiting until the page was moved instead of discussing it in the forum topic. --Shockstorm 20:50, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Nope, this has been policy for a long while. It's why Bomb (creature) can be a page: regardless of the fact that it covers appearances as an enemy, as a summon, and other miscellaneous appearances. It's the same thing so it stays on the same page. I don't care if you can find examples of where this is not followed, that's how it is.
Actually, the only thing destroying this policy is people who keep on requesting articles be disambigd when they don't need to be split, and then the users that keep actually doing it. It's against policy. And why did I wait until the page was moved? Because I didn't know it was the list. It's not my job to monitor every forum thread. But I do take an interest when things are done against policy. Because actions in mainspace are far more obvious than discussion elsewhere. And what do you think that thread is anyway? It's not a list of potential moves to discuss, it's a backlog of move requests from people who are too lazy to do it themselves. Like the staff noticeboard, it's up to the person who moves it to know if what they are doing is correct.
Take a look at the Dragoon page and look at the FFII section, or the Black Mage page and look at the IX section, or take a look at this page and see the VI and Dissidia sections. Or how about taking a look at the Cait Sith page which covers characters and enemies. Or take a look at any summon which also appears as the name of a server, heck, even Bahamut isn't disambiguated for the airship with the same name because of the clear origin.
Seriously, it's a case of no one cares, not that it's not policy.
Oh, and fuck you. JBed (talk) 21:03, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Alright...Still yourselves you two! I took a quick peek at Manual of Style and Article Creation Policy (maybe unnecesarilly, but I don't care) and I saw nothing that suggested that "Onion Knight" should be disambig'd even though it has an enemy appearance in FFVI. So like JBed says, there was no real reason for the move.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 21:15, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

...And this, ladies and gentlemen, is a fine example of why we should agree upon and write down our fucking policies. I don't know who's right (probably JBed; an Onion Knight is an Onion Knight, and like Kaimi, I haven't been able to find anything that suggests we should split the page). However. Shockstorm, lose the ego. And JBed, could you glance at the forum thread and see if there are any other incorrect move requests? It seems like having to move pages back and forth happens way more than it should <_< C A T U S E 21:30, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Right, you bunch of argumentative fools, quit it, no need to have a fight over it. Blame Xeno, not me...though partially me for not checking the article content. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 22:10, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Whatever we're supposed to do, I seem to have screwed up, and nobody's told me what to do to correct it. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 20:56, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you did screw up. Onion Knight appears in other regards unrelated to the job, so moving it to make way for a disambig was the right thing to do. Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:30, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
The problem is I've moved it to (Job) when it has sections for Onion Knights that aren't jobs, and we already have a Job article over at Onion Knight (Final Fantasy III). Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 21:38, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
We're discussing this more generally in the IRC right now, you may want to come on. C A T U S E 21:41, August 11, 2013 (UTC)
The FF3 Onion Knight in no ways conflicts with this page, it's for just the job in FF3, it appears as a job in Tactics and ATB as well.
The non-job appearances of the Onion Knight currently on the page are still for appearances of the Onion Knight's iconic design, as in FF6 and FFX. The disambig now with the FF6 enemy is the proper way to go, as it has nothing to do with the Onion Knight at all. Drake Clawfang (talk) 21:48, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think it was better as just "Onion Knight" as it was an article for the Onion Knight phenomenon overall, not just for the job. All things Onion Knight could just go here. Other job articles would probably be better off like that too, like Black Mage is a Final Fantasy icon, beyond just being a job...Keltainentoukokuu (talk) 03:40, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Chrono Cross reference[edit source]

Referring to Turnip as an allusion to the Onion Knight sounds a little stretched. Is this agreeable? - Henryacores 22:06, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Onions aren't turnips. The closest thing to a turnip is a fact I think they're the same thing. No allusion. They're not even in the same vegetable family. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 22:13, August 10, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.