Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

Family Tree
There has been some changes made to the colours of the family trees so it is colour-blind friendly.

Right now though, it seems a little wierd to have unknown-gendered cats to be in italics. It makes sense for all the "See more"'s, but not the cats. For a good example of what I mean, see Frostfur's tree and scroll right, can you quickly spot the characters with unknown genders?

Paleh and I have talked and we have come up with some ideas. We cannot change the colours as they are already, either the grey has to be significantly darker or change the pink to a completely different colour. Another colour could work but we don't know what would work right now.

Some other alternatives are using gender symbols, border changes, unique background patterns, and leaving the "See More"'s as they are and having unknown-gendered cats as both pink and blue, so one diagonal half is pink and the other diagonal half is blue.

So what do you think?Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  06:09, January 21, 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty impartial on whether or not the italics are changed to something else or not. I don't mind them changing but I don't really think they're a huge problem. Other than just removing the italic, changing it would have the benefit of differentiating the "See more" links from the cats with unknown genders though.

I made mockups for the different looks that could be used instead. See here. I can add more if anybody else has more ideas. If they are changed, personally I like either the symbol ones or the pink and blue the best.

I like the symbol ones, and perhaps use the dual symbol? I also think we could keep the italics for just the See Mores as well

I like the symbol ones. 01:02, January 26, 2019 (UTC)

i honestly like the unknown being bordered differently, just to give it a little more oomph Whiskii (talk) 14:45, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

I think we should do the symbols tbh 19:57, 02/22/2019

Any other comments?

Personality and traits
Case and point: I do not think we should use them. Although we have a personality and traits on the warriors website, perhaps we can add warriors website into the history/put it in the trivia. The reason I do not think we should have a personality and traits is because each way, it can be shown as extremely biased. Personally, I believe Needletail is toxic, manipulative, and emotionally abusive per the books I have read. However, someone else can see her as a martyr due to her sacrifice for Violetshine. Someone may see Firestar as too perfect and write that down, which could scale out into an all out edit war if someone believes Firestar is not perfect due to the fact he broke the warrior code so many times to help out.

Basically, what I am trying to say is that from whoever is writing the article, it is going to be extremely biased and I see no way on how we can do it from a non biased perspective, including the fact that the only way we see personality is from other characters or from the narrator. Thoughts? 15:01, January 23, 2019 (UTC)

I 100% agree. My little expansions on some of the personality sections have even be called biased even though they were entirely based on what was said about the character in the book. To be on the safe side and avoid more conflict, I believe we should get rid of them. However, the traits on the official wwiki site (the 4 adjectives) can be implemented in some way, since those are descriptions straight from the authors. That’s just my opinion about the whole thing. It’s far too easy to write something biased even if it was without intent. 15:25, January 23, 2019 (UTC)

Given the books are typically written in a "pro-one Clan" and "anti-another Clan" narrative (typically pro-ThunderClan), it's pretty difficult to gauge a true unbiased writing when it comes to personality and traits, imo. It's definitely even harder to write these when every person sees books and characters differently. Plus, I actually think these would have required citations (or at least Spooky's original idea did, and this entire thing was her thing), and context clues/common sense have never been valid sources. Firestar and Needletail are perfectly good examples of bias and people reading the same thing but coming up with completely different outcomes. ​

Yeah.... my original concept was for this to be basically soley clear TUG attributes (which aren’t nearly as PoV based) and things like warrior ceremonies. And completely cited, of course. They haven’t been turning out that way though, so we should not do them imo. If anything relationships with others would be much easier to cite than personality, which in and of itself will always be biased. Mainly the lack of cites is the issue here, though, because it’s easy to write something, but harder to back each phrase up, which will make it more encyclopedic.

Yeah it's really hard to gauge someone's personality as their is way too much opinion and bias, depending on who's reading it and who's perspective they are reading it. The best we could do is the website and the ultimate guide.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:41, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Any other comments? 19:29, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the consensus is to remove it. Are there any other objections? 15:36, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

yea, if like multiple wikis can have it whycant we? no matter hows its written there will alwsys be a little bias-its usually coming from other characters, whohave their own biases and such, or the authors, whodo too, but it doesnt mean we cant put it? tgats just how theyre seen intheir world, and we can still aim to do it as neutrally as possible. we could evenput them up as sectiobs to be criticised andchecked for bias like the charart pageif we have to.

the community definitely seems to want it, amd we should be appealing to that, and we also have starter points forsome characters from the wrbsite itself. 21:44, February 25, 2019 (UTC)

I think more controversial characters (like Needletail and Firestar) could be discussed, which could alleviate bias. Like Skt said, multiple wikis have these and I think they are majorly useful. I don't believe we should remove them.

I disagree with removing them. The community really wants them, and yes, we might have some bias issues, but I like the idea of having it be reviewed so it can be made unbiased as possible. 20:00, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

hmm just circling back, if we keep them, they need to be what they were originally intended in the initial concept (cited, checked, and legit) because we don't cite them now, which makes me extremely uneasy. they were always meant to be, and that will be the key to cutting out bias here. Yes, the community wants them, but we can't ever sacrifice quality for quantity; some of the other changes they've wanted we concede to and rightfully so, they're good changes, but we can't ever be factually inaccurate. If we check them, even have a forum where they cycle in and out like tweak noms, that will help a lot. (side notes, perhaps we just rename them to 'Personality' instead of 'Personality and traits', it's shorter and less unwieldy). those other wikis aren't super shining examples to argue for us doing as they do, as our books are often so pro-ThunderClan and all...

Owlfur a father?
I've been double-checking some cites for family members and have found no direct cite for Owlfur being the father of Dawnbright and Mallowtail. The most we have is he is mentioned to be mates with Softwing (Crookedstar's Promise page 405/chapter 34) and she is with her kits, but he is just kinda sitting next to them, but seemingly being protective of them.

So can we take sort of acting like a father to his mates kits as proof he is their father, or is he not their father?

Also feel free to look around and try to find a different cite that confirms he is their father, I tried my best but I have missed things in the past ><Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:51, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

I'd definitely say that's proof enough for me... do we have anything on the official tree/website that can either support or deny this? I know they hadn't totally finished the tree yet, hence why I'm asking. ​

Hmm I’m gonna be that Person and say we shouldn’t list it due to lack of proof. Even if it’s very probably true, an assumption is still an assumption. If the books or tree don’t say it, then we shouldn’t have it.

I've just discovered that Falling Rain is the same. No cite for having kits, but a clear cite over who his mate is. In fact, Dove's Wing reacts to mentioning her mother, but nothing is said about her reaction to Falling Rain's mention. So it might be more likely he's not their father.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  03:40, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Any other comments?

Me personally, I feel like Owlfur is their father, but deciding this from a wikian standpoint. . . i don't think we should list it, because there's no actual proof he's their father? He's protective of them, sure, but that doesn't mean anything. They could've been someone else's kits, but he took them in as his own when their father died. We need something saying he's the father.

Unknown Fathers?
On the Official family tree they are showing unknown fathers, such as Graystripe's, Poppydawn's, Pebblefoot's/Minnowtail's and Swiftbreeze's fathers. They are shown as Unknown with a question mark instead of their pelt colour, but are still acknowledged nonetheless.

I just assumed without asking (I'm sorry, I won't do that again!) so I'll ask now. Do these count as cites to these cats having a father? Even if they aren't named? Or should we just ignore them completely?

I do want to point out the same Unknown picture is used not just for these unknown fathers, but also a few unnamed kits we already have cites for in the series (Floss's/Smoky's kits and Blue Whisker's kits) so I honestly feel like we cannot ignore them based on that alone, but what do you guys think?Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  21:48, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

For those of us who can't get the tree to load, could we start adding screenshots of what you're talking about and for cites? I honestly have no clue what symbols you're talking about, since I can't see them myself. That tree is way too content-heavy for my laptop to load. ​

there isn't any proof they even are fathers, (don't expect those in charge of wc to care about gender stuff but whatever) plus while they obviously had to have them with someone, there's no name, pelt colour, even being alluded to in the books at all. we shouldn't add them, otherwise we may as well truly just start adding things like kit ranks to everyone because obviously they were one once, even if it's never been said or alluded to. 22:07, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry Snowed! Here's Flashnose's and Willowpelt's mates and Blue Whisker's and Floss's kits, as well as Blue Whisker's mate.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:10, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

i'm just going to add that blue whisker's kits are a different case simply because they are seen within the book, unlike any of these mates. 11:36, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

Hm, thanks, Stealth. Now that I've seen them.... I kinda feel these are just placeholders, not actual indications of anything... the only one that wouldn't make sense as a placeholder is, as David says, Blue Whisker's kits, due to the fact we saw them in Moth Flight'S Vision. ​

Oh I just spotted this. For those who cannot see the tree, Sharpclaw has no father shown at all. Really odd detail, as I think he is the only one shown like this?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  20:43, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

I think nightstar and clawface are shown without even a mother. 21:14, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

Yep, in fact there is a lot of no-parents being shown here. I think that kind of helps with my point. They achnowledge their is another parent with Swiftbreeze and the others, even if that is all they give, but these guys do not have that acknowledgement at all.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  21:24, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

i'm mostly against it because these cats arent referenced ever, and even cats like flamenose who spawned from like a facebook post or something eventualy ended up being in the books. there's just nothing to it, and adding "unknown cat" seems really pointless, because we could do that for every cat. but we don't, because those cats are never mentioned like these guys. 21:30, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

(disclaimer: my brain's not working properly rn so i might be misunderstanding the point of this discussion) I kind of feel like they should be included and cited. Only for unknown parents in the family tree though, not any other unknown parents. The reason I think that is because to some extent, them being listed as unknown on the tree has some implication that that cat is not (likely?) any of the cats that are already on the tree. If they're placeholders, it's likely that they're placeholders for cats that aren't on the tree currently, such as unknown kits that we actually know about. This seems like valuable information in some cases, such as with Graystipe since his dad was retconned and that's worth noting. In the books if the parent is unknown, we just literally don't know anything about them and they could be anybody, so there's no value in listing it in those cases.

Any other comments?

Mapleshade's Description
There has been a lot of bias over Mapleshade's description for a few years now. She has been called ginger-and-white, and also tortoiseshell. Vicky confirmed Mapleshade's a tortoiseshell, but her icon on the family tree contradicts that. Her icon depicts her as ginger-and-white. Now this brings her true description back into questioning again. So.. should we swap Mapleshade's description to ginger-and-white? We can count how many times she was cited as ginger-and-white and tortoiseshell, but should we just swap based on her tree icon, or keep Vicky's word? Thoughts?Potato&#61;) (talk) 21:55, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

no. she's far more consistently called a tortie and white than ginger. 22:00, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't keep Vicky's word. I'd be more for that than using the tree, given they've already said that it'll be updated. Not sure what it is with people and wanting to basically nullify an author's word with this fandom these days... Vicky used to work on the books, and she wrote Mapleshade's Vengeance. I think she knows what color Mapleshade is. ​

To my mind, it's 2 valid external cites against each other. I think we should do a count of each instance (like we do with Millie and Gorsetail and add those in as cites and see what it turns up.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:04, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

She’s called more tortie than the other, yeah^^ I mean we could detail the mistakes more to include exactly how much more she was mentioned as tortie in the books, for further proof, since it does rather flip flop in canon. In cases where we have conflicting external sources we should have books trump it, since one isn’t any more valid than the other

Just gonna add in this one from Vicky, which again states Mapleshade is a tortie. This wouldn't just affect Mapleshade; it would completely contradict what Vicky says about Patchkit and would nullify her statement. ​

Yeah I'm thinking we stick with tortoiseshell, but make sure to clearly point out why. It won't stop everybody trying to vandalise the page, but might stop some people. I'd say we put it in the mistakes section, but maybe also something in the main description as well (maybe extra cites? I know it could become more cluttered but having more than one cite might have people stop for a moment.)<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:22, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm.. We already sort of acknowledge the change? She's had that alt charart toggle for a long time and its plastered everywhere, and I've never seen any vandalism myself. I personally think it's fine the way it is, maybe just add the second description at the top and say like "Mapleshade is depicted as both [tortie desc] and [ginger desc]" or sonething. — ♡ <span style title="If you can believe,">you're such  <span style="style" title="you&lt;span data-rte-entity=">' re such a dream to me." data-rte-attribs=" style title=you're such a dream to me."&gt;a dream to me. (21:32, 1/28/2019) ​

Also, on Vicky's cite, we gotta stop tryna write off author statements as "noncanon." I hate this idea that the author's statements are "headcanons" - especially since Vicky created this series and worked on it for 13 years both as an editor and author. — ♡ <span style title="If you can believe,">you're such  <span style="style" title="you&lt;span data-rte-entity=">' re such a dream to me." data-rte-attribs=" style title=you're such a dream to me."&gt;a dream to me. (21:33, 1/28/2019) ​

I've thought of something maybe a bit unorthodox, but hear me out.

I'm going to talk about Doestar: her description is a little all over the place and unorthodox, but we still consider it all canon. She is mentioned as fawn-and-white, have a cream-coloured tail and cream-and-fawn quite seperately, yet we still have merged all this information together into her description and basically made her a tortoiseshell.

I'm wondering if we can do the same thing for Mapleshade. Ginger-and-white is just one added colour away from being tortoiseshell-and-white, in which she is. In fact, look at her chararts. Someone could say that cat is ginger-and-white, and still be accurate.

Heck, Vicky practically made her kit Patchkit tortoiseshell-and-white, just by adding a little bit of black fur to him, even though he is constantly mentioned to be ginger-and-white.

Tortoiseshell-and-white is basically ginger-and-white just with added black. If Doestar can have an extra colour added to her, Mapleshade can too. Tortoiseshell-and-white is basically an addition of black onto ginger-and-white, no matter how it's worded. So Mapleshade could be both, the only thing we'll need to change is remove it from her mistakes section (and maybe add an invisible note to her description). She's mentioned so much to be either that I honestly don't see why now.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:12, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we should combine ginger and white. They are clearly meant to be separate things. If they were the same thing, I would imagine Mapleshade would be described with other instances of pelt colors. 04:41, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

doestar's isn't just slapping them together though. she's called cream and fawn in the same sentence, and the cream tail and such are just expanding upon where the cream is specifically. mapleshade's ginger and white never refers to it as being part of the tortie description. 19:52, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Alrighty. I think we should list every time she is called tortoiseshell and ginger-and-white in her mistakes section, like done with Millie and Gorsetail. It works for them so it'll work for Mapleshade.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  06:29, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, actually... what's our policy on Author's word vs the books? I did a count and well, she is mentioned way more to be orange and white compared to tortoiseshell, even with author statements.

I can kind of see why there's some confusion over her description now.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  04:12, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that we should take each mention, because she appears far more in MV and CP than she does other books, and that's not fair and seems like intentionally abusing the appearances. If we count each book as one, she is mentioned as a tortoiseshell more than ginger-and-white. ​

The issue is, she is also mentioned as ginger and white in Mapleshade's Vengeance, the book she is the protagonist of, but Vicky also mentions changing Patchkit's description to match her tortoiseshell description. 21:03, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Well she is only mentioned 3 times as orange/ginger in MV... but yeah I see what you mean with CP. I'm just pointing out why there is confusion, I do agree changing Patchkit's description to match is pretty conclusively making her tortoiseshell. I think that should be addressed somewhere in the trivia is all.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  00:17, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

I'll concur with Stealth here on the trivia bit^^ Imo, she is ginger and white. Mentions + it being in the two books in which she has very major parts, and are arguably her two biggest appearances other than TLH, well. Her novella should trump all on this, since two conflicting external sources nuke each other and we can't take one over the other, so.

She's always been tortoiseshell to me, but ultimately I think in text evidence should be her novella. It is the most current book that features her, as it was released in 2015 where as Omen of the Stars ended in 2012 and Crookedstar's Promise came out in 2011. If we take how we handled the Dovewing thing, we should do most current book. — ♡ <span style title="If you can believe,">you're such  <span style="style" title="you&lt;span data-rte-entity=">' re such a dream to me." data-rte-attribs=" style title=you're such a dream to me."&gt;a dream to me. (23:39, 2/06/2019) ​

Why should we take the text over the author, though? Especially since Vicky stated Mapleshade was a tortoiseshell after Mapleshade's Vengeance was written. That in and of itself resulted in Patchkit's description being changed, and in that cite, Mapleshade was outright stated to not be ginger-and-white. While text evidence is one thing, the it's not the most current thing. Vicky's statement on Patchkit is the most recent, not the book. The fact that Patchkit was changed intentionally should support the tortiseshell thing, otherwise they don't match, and they're supposed to, as per a line in the novella itself. ​

Arguably, the family tree is the most recent thing we have. That and her statement are the two most recent things, and they contradict each other (and taking one over the other isn't a thing we've decided to do thus far, when it supports books). And I guess to flip the question - why should we take an author over the books? Yes, she said she's tortie. However, why does that alone trump her novella, along with everything else that calls her ginger and white more than tortie? Other connotations aside (Patchkit), that doesn't change what she is called, not just her look-alike cites.

shes still called tortie more than ginger in the books so i still say shes tortie, especially with the secondary author evidence and straight up changing patchkit a bit to say he looks like her tortie desc. otherwise just slap "tortie or ginger and white" so we can be done w it 09:15, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

i'd be fine with listing as both, any other comments?

Relationships Section
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before, but I think it'd be beneficial to have a characters relationship section. Unlike a personality section, the relationships section can be unbiased because evidence for their attitudes (towards other cats, etc.) can be cited via quotes. For example, "Nightcloud should trust her son to prove his own worth, without leaping in to defend him first" shows that she is overprotective of Breezepelt. I think this will be a great addition to articles because one doesn't have to read through the history to figure out who they were friends with, what their overall attitude to their family is like, etc.

Excuse the bad writing, but I think this could be how these sections are written, with points being supported by quotes/cites and all. It's sort of based off how these sections are written on other wikis. More complex relationships could be discussed and a consensus could be reached among editors, which could alleviate bias.

This sounds pretty good. I don't think it needs to be split into love interests and other relationships but otherwise I like it. <span style="">22:25 Thu Feb 28 2019

^ but also, given that that could get quite long, how about we tab it? such as we have the tabs for main article/history/kin/trivia now, we could do a personality and relationships one (assuming we keep personality); but those two go well so we can have it there and it won't lengthen the page, but then gives us the freedom to list more

I removed the categories. And tabbing it sounds like a good idea.

Second cause of death
Little thing I know, but wouldn't it appear better on the infobox if instead we put "Afterlife death"? Second cause of death imo just seems a little out of place, and would appear like they died, were brought back to life, and then died again. At least imo. thoughts? <span style="">03:15, 2/27/2019

I like where you're heading! What about spirit death? Ghobsmacka (talk) 05:38, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

You do have a point... although I'd like to keep "second cause of death" for Tigerheart/Tigerstar, just in case we happen to see whatever causes him to die for good. Other than that, I'd be up tweaking the infobox to display something other than "second cause of death", because the StarClan/Dark Forest cats are already dead.

I agree with that aspect. I honestly forgot about Tigerheart/star. But yeah, ghost cats dying is them already being dead so <span style="">18:30, 2/27/2019

sure yeah^^

Trivia
So I had a question for the new character page layout, that there should be a limit on how much trivia is too much for the main article. Should we limit it to a set amount of bullet points? If so, I believe 10 would suffice. if there are more than 10, like Firestar for example, we'd move the trivia over onto [CharacterName/Trivia]. thoughts? <span style="">18:29, 2/27/2019

I think that despite the amount they should all stay together, where that would be, I have no imput on. Ghobsmacka (talk) 18:56, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

No I mean like, on Firestar's page, his trivia section is separate from the main article. I meant like that. Sorry I didn't clarify! Like how much would be considered a lot of trivia on the main article. <span style="">19:15, 2/27/2019

I feel like 8-10 is a good ballpark range. 20:07, February 27, 2019 (UTC)

8-10 seems like a good range to me on the main article itself; anything more than that, we can delegate to a subpage, I'd think. Because otherwise we'd be cherrypicking what counts as trivia and what doesn't (not that we don't already, but you see my point).

10ish sounds good^^

Family Tree Icons
To what extent should we use these for a cat's description? (sounds like an essay question not my intention lol) We've already used these for Swiftbreeze and such. Another question is what if they've been consistently depicted in a certain way? (for example, Tawnypelt being tortie-and-white in every artwork of her)

like it was said in the discord, it should be all or nothing really, unless it's specifically contradicted. it is technically an official source after all. 15:54, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

We don't merge manga descriptions with book ones, so how's that any different tbh? If we take icons, but won't merge published mangas, then we run into the same dilemma. And if we take colors from the official tree, then we should be matching the shades to them as well, because it's a visual source and not a written one, otherwise we get into the combining tons of partials range. Tawnypelt is a notable example, she's pale and mottled in the books, but definitely not so in her art. Imo, we should be taking the official art because it's so consistent in said case, but if we do then that has to be something we do for others too. The website has also picked up a habit of... copying our errors lmao, even though we fix them it's like an accordion effect, and so when it eventually gets fixed it'll be for moot rip

I agree not to merge the descriptions. It should be seen as an alt tbh <span style="">17:26, 3/03/2019

My question is... who are we to decide what does or doesn't count? The family trees are officially released content from Working Partners. Why should it be seen as an alt? Because it "contradicts written text"? Because in the cases of Tawnypelt and Shellpaw, at least, it doesn't contradict anything- it adds onto their current description and is in no way, shape, or form a contradiction. In Tawnypelt's case, both "pale" and "mottled" were used less than the amount of times she is depicted as a "darker" tortie-and-white. Given that the designs are used across various pieces of media (The Ultimate Guide, Cats of the Clans, Battles of the Clans, and the family tree), I feel we shouldn't be regarding that instance as a mistake.

I could see merging the descriptions if it does not contradict what we have. But, that in and of itself should only apply to when a character is actually addressed as said description. For Tawnypelt, that wouldn't be merging, as she is depicted as a tortie. For others, it might be considered combining two sources that have nothing to do with one another.

Mapleshade has a good example: she was said to have a white tail while she is called ginger-and-white. We cannot and should not combine that with her tortie-and-white description, because she was not called tortie-and-white in the book where the mention occurred. Most of these can be used in some way, like changing Swiftbreeze's coloring, but we need to look at them with a close eye and probably even in a case-by-case basis to some extent. They shouldn't be added without discussing it completely here, though.

Stagleap (TR) StarClan Cite
So, when Bluestar posted Stag's Alt. Star, I noticed (after Fox gave me some advice on where to look) that when I looked in the StarClan family tree where WindClan is, he isn't there. I found a Stagleap, but that is the one from Goosefeather's Curse.. and he's gray. Which is the alt the TR Stagleap is receiving. Honestly, that's a false citation I think, unless I'm wrong. Thoughts? 14:51, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Bluestar is correct it goes to Stagleap (TR) not the GC one. The GC one is in ThunderClan while the other is in WindClan. 15:50, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

Mink, that's not what I meant. WindClan is in the bottom left corner. I click on the StarClan icon to take me to the StarClan family tree. I looked in the area where WindClan should be, and that Stagleap isn't there at all. I only see the GC Stagleap. This Stagleap, however, is listed on the main family tree, and not the StarClan family tree. That doesn't confirm he is in StarClan. I only see in the WindClan area of the StarClan tree are Brackenwing, Deadfoot, Onestar and others. But no Stagleap. There is zero proof since the Su cites that the TR Stagleap went to StarClan, and the family tree isn't showing that. 16:07, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

I looked into this the other day, forgive me. Potato is right, Stagleap (TR) does not have the gray that's the other one and I believe since the other is already gray that would be a partial. The gray starclan that's already up could be reused for a minor character or something. 21:55, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

Character Residence
I find it quite silly to list the characters' current affiliations as something that definitely isn't where they are, as they died ten books ago and just simply were never shown in Starclan or The Tribe of Endless Hunting. Take Snipkit and Jagged Rock Where Heron Sits for example, both are confirmed deceased and have a cause of death, but are still listed as currently in their original residence. If not putting them as Starclan members, I propose changing it to 'Unknown' or moving the old residence to 'former' and leaving the 'current' section empty.

Perhaps, if not that, we could add a seperate tab in the template and lable it 'last known residence', listing the clan or tribe under that instead of current.

Neither would be a very hard change and I believe either way would make the pages look much neater and, overall, easier to read and understand. It's just confusing to list them as deceased but still residing in their clan or tribe.

--Windy 15:58, March 2, 2019 (UTC)

I'd say just remove current. Simplest solution imo. <span style="">16:51 Sat Mar 2 2019

Honestly i have to agree. This would help with newer members trying to put them as in starclan when their residence is not confirmed. I think this is a great idea, just to have their past residences listed but with their "current" included in their past. For example someone like snipkit would include their birth clan in previous affiliations rather than current. <span style="">16:59, 3/02/2019

^^ for those with confirmed deaths, definitely. for those who just haven't appeared in forever (namely, DotC cats must be dead, logic dictates, and they definitely aren't still in a Clan); I also believe we could cite to the lifespan of a cat and say their current is unknown

I honestly dont know about that spooky. some new member would still come along and try to add that they're in starclan, just simply because theyve been gone for so long <span style="">17:22, 3/03/2019

Guilty as one of those new members, which is why I brought it up. But, good idea on the logics. There's no way Tallshadow, for example, could still be alive 18:08, March 5, 2019 (UTC)

Definitely not a huge fan of adding them as deceased or whatnot, regardless of how old they might be. I would be up for changing "current affiliation" to "last known affiliation" for those cats who we don't have those kinds of citations for, like Snipkit for example.

I'll have to agree on the death because there are two separate timelines with the arcs that are here and even if the DotC doesn't get a next one, we shouldn't assume they're dead but giving the deceased ones an unknown residence until their afterlife is actually confirmed would be good. 07:48, March 6, 2019 (UTC)

Unknown gender
Just a thought, but how about for characters who have a description and no gender, instead say, for example: Boulder is a gray tabby cat. instead of Boulder is a gray tabby cat with an unknown gender. honestly it just adds an unnecessary amount of text to the page when they already have the unknown gender category on their page <span style="">17:21, 3/03/2019

Cause of death
Hey sorry for so many topics lmao but I just had a thought. Like what I've been doing on my wiki, I was thinking we could transfer it to this one! When cats are seen in StarClan it's obvious they're dead right? So what I was doign on my wiki was for cause of death, I was putting Unspecified causes. Just for more information. thoughts? <span style="">17:53, 3/03/2019

Gold nominations
Couldn't put this just in PC because it affects all projects, but brought up changing the way we classify gold articles in ops; leaving a link since it affects here

Bluestar - pale?
Not putting this in cite removals because major character and all. However. We have a pale cite from CP in which, she's called just pale gray. But then, we have several mentions scattered throughout The Prophecies Begin and probably some more + BP and stuff. Mistystar, is cited to be specifically neither 'pale nor dark', and is just blue-gray. If they are so much like each other, shouldn't we be considering the pale cite a mistake? It wasn't a pale blue-gray cite either, just pale gray, and thus would be like combining silver and gray, because blue-gray is color, and combining partials etc.

Mistystar, Bluestar, and Stonefur have been said to look alike so many times, it makes no sense for Bluestar to be pale, when Mistystar has an author-cited base coloring. Having Bluestar and Stonefur as pale completely contradicts the million times that they're said to look so much alike. Make them all the same neutral blue-gray shade. It's pretty clear that's what they are, not this pale stuff.

Agreeing with Jayce^ 22:39, March 5, 2019 (UTC)

could the looking so much alike also mean their facial and bodily features? almost all the time im with my mom somewhere someone else mentions we look so much alike, but we physically are not <span style="">22:44, 3/05/2019

This is definitely not just referring to body features.

That definitely says their fur is identical. In my opinion the pale cite should be removed.

Join request
hello can I join this project. --Willowstep21 (talk) 14:03, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

Russetfur - truly a kittypet?
Right right so YS calls Russetfur a kittypet. The Clan cats call them kittypets. But was she really a kittypet? I’d argue no. Referred to as a kittypet yes because YS was just calling all non-Clans that;; I don’t believe she was a kittypet. She directly refutes this assumption herself, when she and Boulder were called as such. Anyways, I think we should remove that. Thoughts?

I'd count it as a rank error, just like when Ravenpaw was called a rogue despite him not actually being a rogue. Context made it extremely clear that they were not kittypets.

Its not rrally a rank error though thats the problem. The sc cats thought they were kittypets but they flat out denied it, so i say theyd get it removed. Now if it was a main characters thoughts in them then it wouldve been a rank error but this is something different <span style="">10:50, 3/05/2019

It definitely appears to be an error and in my opinion it should be removed. 22:37, March 5, 2019 (UTC)

Join request
Hello... can I please join this project?

 Windsong   Run with   the wind...  18:59, March 5, 2019 (UTC)