Talk:Warrior Cats Wiki

Note: Please only discuss things having to do with the main page  'here. Any other Wiki-related discussion should be taken to the Community Portal talk page.'

Useful Links

 * Friends of the Warriors Wiki(Talk)
 * Warriors Wiki Goals(Talk)

Advertising
Click the images, the URL to use for linking to the image (which should then be linked to this site) is available in the image summary.

News Submissions
Enter in your suggestions and submissions for news items here in the case that you know something the Sysops have missed and feel should be included. Credit will be given as it is due. Feel free to write the news piece up as you would like it to be in the Newsbox. Kitsufox 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Facebook Page?
As we know, a lot of the revealed information to the warrior cats is found on Vicky's Facebook Page. Should we add a link to her facebook when we reference it? Just a question. Earth bender Tawny Style! 15:55, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you should. Some articles already have this but, it should be implemented on all articles. As well as a link to an Erin Hunter Chat if that's where the information was found. I hope this answers your question! :) 19:02, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Facebook posts expire over time. If something was said say, a year ago, it can no longer be obtained. 16:27, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

We should verify if FB posts do expire. If they don't we should start screen-shotting and uploading our proof that such things have been said. If there isn't a record of it being said, it matters as little as a statement an author makes to a person at a book signing. 19:17, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but anyways, since I don't have a FB, I don't think I can see Vicky's account unless I type it in in google, but my parents don't like it when I go on FB, even if it's just to look. >;( so someone would have to do that when it comes to links.


 * I'm a Facebook user and it does seem that Facebook posts do expire. And the expiration of a facebook post effectively invalidates any evidence they provide. Some sort of consideration needs to be given to if Facebook should be considered a valid reference source, and if it is how we go about making permeant than source and how we validate something like a screenshot of a facebook post (IE: Only accepting those uploaded by members deemed "Trustworthy", ect).
 * Kitsu! Four ~!! Remember! Tawny (Talk) 00:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Kitsu! Four ~!! Remember! Tawny (Talk) 00:42, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've been linking to the thread on Warriorswish where the questions are posted after they've been answered. -- 01:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not proof. That's not even a valid source. That's just people reporting (and potentially misreporting) on a forum. Referencing chat transcripts Blizz puts on her website is one thing... But that forum isn't anything but a mosh-pit. No order, very few rules, and no guarantee of the truth. 01:16, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a better source, then go ahead. :/ -- 02:20, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that I made a few proposals, about archiving screenshots of facebook posts and things like that. The Warriors Wish thread is, unfortunately, nothing more than hearsay. We don't take "so and so heard it from the authors" unless they provide a video. Thus it's a simple extrapolation to say that "so and so saw it on a facebook page" simply isn't good enough. Not without a picture. I just think standards like "no anons pictures will be valid" so that accountability exists would be a good policy. It doesn't take a graphic designer to font-match and put in their own text. We're in a fandom where people ship things hard and will do what they must to make their view look like the valid one (there's a whole other Wiki started by a few thugs because they didn't agree with proven facts strait out of the books and other good sources). 12:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

My last secret hope was that the Wayback Machine (a web archive) stores facebook content, but apparently it is not. It seems there is no "secure" way to record what is posted here. :( We should tell the Erins to use some more permanent solutions. 14:48, September 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only other solution I have would be for project Leaders, Deputies and Senior Warriors (IE: Those who have well and truly proven themselves to the project) to be responsible for taking and uploading screenshots of relevant facebook posts. It creates work and forces us to create our own record... But there doesn't seem to be a better solution... The thing I worry about is that if we don't do something soon the phase "it was revealed on facebook" will become the equivalent of "Erin Z said it at a book signing". And in the same vein, I think we need to use similar standards. IE: I'll believe someone about something revealed at a book signing if they show me a video/audio clip of the erin saying it. I think a screenshot from a trusted editor should be the "gold standard" when dealing with Facebook. 15:35, September 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? What few pages have Facebook links?! Scarletvixen
 * Really? What few pages have Facebook links?! Scarletvixen

I thought of this problem a while ago but didn't have the initiative to start a discussion about it. I thought of trying to take screenshots of the confirmations but by the time I heard that any questions had been answered it was too hard to find the actual post on Vicky's wall. So many fans post random discussions there that Vicky's answers get buried very fast. My gut instinct is to trust the people from WarriorsWish but using a user's post on another fansite as a citation does not look professional or reliable when it comes down to it. I think that we should get some volunteers (not necessarily project leads, but dedicated members) to check up on the facebook page regularly and screenshot any answers they see... there is still the problem of what to do for the very old ones though. Any ideas for those? 21:08, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd personally say let the old ones die due to the fact that it can't be proven. We can't let "so and so said they saw it" slide. We don't let that go on other variations of "the author said it" so we can't here. Re-asking questions would be the only possible way. 22:54, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I would like to point out that screenshots are not proof of anything. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of how to use a photo editing program and/or the Chrome dev tools can easily altar the webpage screenshot to make Vicky appear to be saying whatever they want. (If you don't believe me, leave a message on my talk page and I'll prove it to you.) Ajedi32 21:12, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why Kitsu suggested only accepting screenshots from trusted members. And despite how simple it is to make a fake facebook post, most people wouldn't go to that trouble just to fool others. Most visitors to the site probably don't even look at the citations, so if they were out to spread a rumor they'd just change the content of the article, not add a shopped citation. Having trusted members do it is really just extra precaution. 21:28, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the snapshot idea, but how should we choose who will take snapshots? Also, I don't think we should remove the citations already on the pages. I could choose a few members from PC, if needed to determine who should take the snapshots. 22:36, September 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think something simple like "Accepted Warrior, Senior Warrior, Deputy or Leader" or "Authenticity of the screenshot is verified by one of the above". Or perhaps "users with no reason for other users to question it". Specifically if a new Facebook screeny goes up, the related project "passes" it. That way questions would be able to be aired early in... Community vetting of the shots seems like a matter of greater usefulness than just limiting the users who could do it... With a "Project Vetting" system any user with Facebook would be able to double check it and we'd have a conversation recorded much like Chararts are vetted by the Charart project. 04:36, September 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes sense. So, basically everytime a new post from Vicky comes up, we take a screenshot then have it passed by Project Characters. Also, since we can't put the screenshot up on the article, I am asuuming that we wouldmake it a file? 13:11, September 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, writing up a proper policy would be in order, but that's esentially what I'm suggesting. Though it might not always go to Project Characters. It would probably be passed to whatever project the information applied to (IE: If she's talking about the world, it would go to world, if it applies to an upcoming book, it would be project books, ect). The screenshot would be a file, uploaded to the wiki. And then that file would be linked to in the reference to the facebook page. We may even want to make a Facebook "Hub" of sorts, where we list all of the various facebook released facts and track them and suchlike... 13:19, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, wait a minute! I just figured out a way to link to specific posts on Vicky's facebook page. (I KNEW there had to be a way to do that.) Just click on the date right below the post. (Directly to the left of the comment button.) Example Link Whether this link is permanent or not remains to be seen, but if it works we can have near-perfect documentation of everything revealed by the erins on Facebook. --Ajedi32 20:48, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering I see no decent record of older posts on Vicky's wall (just a smattering of useless garbage from other people) I don't think they last very long... But if you can verify how long they last, and if we can find the old posts, it'd work great and be less work in the long run. 12:09, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the posts themselves last forever. My only concern was whether the link was permanent or not. If you click the filters button near the top of the wall and select "Just Vicky Holmes: 1/3 of the Erin Hunters!" and repeatedly click "Older Posts", you can see posts from Vicky dating back all the way to November of 2008. It's too bad you can't use that feature for posts Vicky comments on too. =/ --Ajedi32 22:24, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, my example link is still working, and it's already been two weeks. I think the links ARE permanent. I imagine it will be very difficult to find the older posts, but for any new facts revealed on Vicky's page I think we should start adding links in the citations to the posts. --Ajedi32 13:22, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should screenshot in addition to link, at least until we've had a link around for a year that works, or we find proof that things archive rather than vanish. 13:27, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, but who should take the screenshots? 13:37, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * My general thought is that the screenshot could be taken by anyone, but to be added to the article the project most related to the fact would just need to verify the accuracy (IE: The screenshotter takes the screenshot and places it and the link to the post on the project page, for verification by a certain level of higher of that project). 13:40, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that could work, I can only speak for PB and PC, but I would rather have a selected group of people taking the snapshots, instead of just everybody. 13:42, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the danger in that is that group might slip. What if all of them get busy at once? The freedom for anyone who notices something to take a screenshot means we get better coverage. The process of a project verifying a fact (hence the inclusion of the screenshot AND the link in the post to the project for approval) is the insurance policy against fraud. It's unfortunate that we're in a fandom where people will do anything to make what they wish true, but we have to have caution that way. 13:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ads
When I click on the Main Page, All I see is two ads until I scroll down to the bottom. Is this just my computer's burden? 19:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

No, it's like that on mine too. We need to rearrange somehow. 20:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * That frontline ad is unreasonable.... I don't know why the second advert came back... *GRRR* I'll see what I can do, expect some kind of fix within 24 hours or so... Possibly a touch longer as I have homework and classes tomorrow... Helix: If you can come up with a fix before me, go for it. This calls for a tag-team approach to speed up the fix... 00:27, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks a bunch, Kitsu, and take as long as you want. Homework and classes come first! -- 02:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Kitsu: I added a div clear tag that moves the table up to its normal location. I don't know why the box ad is back, and I'm out of ideas. The only thing I can think of to get rid of it is to create a new main page (e.g. /wiki/Main_Page instead of the current /wiki/Warrior_Cats_Wiki), and point the wiki main page to it, hoping that when the ads are reinserted, the box one is not recreated. 03:16, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * My main plan of action was to figure out who to complain to and see if we could go down to just the banner bar ;) So you may as well give your plan a go and see if mine is necessary. 05:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I cannot as only admins can set another page as mainpage (requires editing MediaWiki:Mainpage and the sidebar as well), so I need your help. :) 13:53, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I gave it a go and it didn't work. Shall have to see if other angles work. 22:57, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if this suggestion would not be possible/is essentially the same thing as what you just tried, what if we left Warrior Cats Wiki as the mainpage on MediaWiki:Mainpage, but then made it redirect to Warriors Wiki, where we put the content? Maybe it'd move the ad too but we could try it. 23:01, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, their was no "reload". I think it's referencing some setting somewhere. It pulled the same advert configuration as we've seen previously. 23:06, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

There are ads right infront of the info can you fix it? Rainear  Let the rain guide you  13:49, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * We're working on it. In the mean time I suggest installing an ad-blocker into your browser. Most of them have high quality ones available. 15:06, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe I have a suggestion on how to fix this. When we had the old page, the ads would just push down the right hand section of the page. If we were to redesign the new main page a bit we could re-create that effect. (Which was a lot less noticeable than the way the page currently is.) Another option would be to pay to have the ads removed from the site. Wiki has a program for that now. The only problem would be raising the money to do it. I personally think the first option is better. Ajedi32 21:16, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * revising the mainpage again will take time, and folks will have to deal with it until this weekend, when I can get time to split the columns (Or helix gets time to split it, whichever comes first). I'd like to arrange a free, more permanent solution (like getting rid of the ugly box ad, since we have two for some reason, and it seems we're one of just a handful of wikis with this vile double ad configuration). It will get figured out, but recoding does take time and tweaking. Please bear with myself and the other folks who wikicode as we find the time to make better solutions available. 22:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I have started updates, I'm currently having issues, they'll be resolved as soon as I work out what's going on. Please have patience and bear with the dust from this transition. I'm aware that their are issues, and will repair them ASAP. 14:17, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay... I've "Fixed" things in the sense that, when the advertisement reverts to the Wikia standard 300 pixels in height the layout will work fine. Until this is fix, however, there will be some continued ugly. I have emailed a complaint about this advertisement to the correct location and will provide more information and further corrections to the layout as they become available to me. 16:14, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I worked out why my original fix didn't work, so things should be looking reasonable even if your looking at the advertisements. If you have further problems please let me know! 19:55, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you mean by problems, but all the featured articles are separated from the rest of the boxes and the shape of the boxes is rectangular instead of square, at least on my computer. 22:40, September 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Problem" was that the advertisements were warping the layout, kicking it way down and creating a huge blank area. To prevent that issue for those who haven't installed ad-blocking software we were forced to put that split in and break it into two tables, one for each column. Due to the fact that a double column layout will be absolutely mandatory (but more attractive) in the upcoming conversion to the "Wikia New Look", just chalk it up to a first step in preparation for the layout change Wikia will be forcing on us soon enough. (There will be come forum topics coming from me in regards to the new look and starting in on some decisions for the time when that happens). 04:10, September 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the ads are plain irritating and unreasonable. Clarr issa! ☆ My talkpage! 17:18, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently the giant ads were paid extra for and there is little we can do but hope that we don't draw that ugly SOB again. In the mean time I'm working on some tweaks that should help us get a little bit closer again to the layout we'd agreed on. I have an idea and just need a bit of time to implement it. You'll have to put up with what I have now for just a bit longer, before a more attractive fix can get dropped. 01:40, September 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * :Haha, as I stated before, I don't mind the wait. What you have already is more impressive than what I could've done. 01:37, October 2, 2010 (UTC)