Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

=Discussion=

Brokenstar being blind?
Shouldn't his description of being blind be removed as he has had his blindness restored in the Dark Forest?

 Starry  Hawk Meow... 03:27, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

No. He died blind ouo 09:30, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

So? Not like death means anything anymore. 01:33, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Good point^^. If his sight's been restored, I don't think it's considered part of the description anymore...

But isn't that his afterlife? Shouldn't his description include his description /at death/? Not after, not way before. 21:55, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail's sight was restored after he died; wasn't it? Shouldn't it be the same for Brokenstar? -- Starry  Hawk Meow... 03:36, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Did we remove blindness from Longtail's description? I see no reason to do so with Brokenstar. 23:56, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail's blindness was removed, it looks like. Should we remove it from Brokenstar, too? Jun 27, 2012; 16:04pm

I personally think we should add the blindness part back into Longtail's article, and keep it in Brokenstar's article. -- 17:54, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I thought Longtail's was removed for lack of spoilers.... but in that case, I don't know why Brokenstar's is there..... *shrugs* No clue. 23:27, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

But Brokenstar's case of being blind would also cause spoilers. 23:42, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

We got rid of it for Longtail so we should get rid of it for Brokenstar. Sincerely: ChanCharm (Talk) 07:55, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail's failing sight was removed because of spoilers, because it happened after the original series, in FQ, but Brokenstar's blindness was inflicted in Fire and Ice, so it doesn't really count as a spoiler. It's cited and non-spoiler, so I think it should stay. 08:00, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should include "formerly blind" in their Brokenstar's (and if you want to agree with me since these pages have spoiler tags, Longtail's) description? 00:10, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it...It's still in the afterlife. 18:11, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

If they're not blind anymore, then that's that. Like Shelly said, death doesn't really mean anything anymore and we see them in the afterlife, sight restored. I think it should obviously be mentioned in its respected section but when they're seen dead, state that their sight was restored. 18:22, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Should we add to the Trivia that his sight was restored? 20:08, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

ABout the whole spoiler thing, there are spoiler tags for a reason, if users don't even bother reading the spoiler tags, that's not our fault. But his description is to be kept up-to-date, right? If it is it should be added to his description than. (IMO) 19:45, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Brackenfur and Thornclaw
I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but I believe Brackenfur and Thornclaw's descriptions should change by our current standards. Both were first described as ginger, and outside of allegiances descriptions, are almost always described as ginger. Only in the allegiances and a select few times in the book are they actually called golden brown, and since ginger came first, I believe their main descriptions should be changed to that and the golden brown be moved to the trivia. 00:59, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

I've thought the same. But to be thorough we'd have to look through every book they're in and count the number of times each description is used. And, as for Thornclaw, isn't golden just a shade of ginger? I think he'd be fine as is. 14:56, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Thornclaw is golden brown. - 17:53, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're right then. He leans more towards brown. 17:57, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

So what are we gonna do? And that way of figuring it out would work for Bracken and Thorn, yes, but then that would have to be how we decided these decisions in all cases similar, and that simply won't work. Say the series was still going with these characters. We'd count the past descriptions of them and decide which is mentioned most. But if it's near equal, which I'm pretty sure it is, then every book or two it would tip the scale to the other description. We'd constantly be switching back and forth from golden-brown to ginger, and that wouldn't work. So we can't use that method in deciding these kind of cases, cause we'll have to work out one for all occasions. I'm not sure what to do, but personally, I though in these kind of cases where there's close to equal descriptions you simply used the first, which would be ginger. *shrugs* Not sure, just what I thought. 06:04, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think ginger should be used. Both were mentioned as ginger when they first appeared, and outside of the allegiances, are almost always described as ginger. But I think a better way of doing this (because if we did use "went by first", Dovewing's eyes would be blue and the authors often change their opinions after a book is published anyways) would have a user willing to look through the books and mark down each time each were called ginger. It's time consuming, yes, but I believe it's the only way to have a correct, accurate description. Unless someone has a better idea? 23:45, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my previous comment, though that would work in this situation, it's not a practical way to handle these situations from now on. If we do that when the next arch comes out, and there's a character like this, each new book the number of times described a certain color will change, and the description will likely change between the two every new book that comes out. I think we should stick by our first described rule unless there's a drastic amount of times described more than the original description, like Tawnypelt for example. Or if there's an author confirmation, like with Dovewing's eye color (which I still think should be golden cause that was first and kate said she was sure, whereas Vicky only thought, but that's another discussion). I can't think of a better way to handle this that wouldn't involve flipping back and forth between descriptions everytime a new book came out. 09:56, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me for being in this debate (I'm trying to join), but one of the two, which one is unknown, in Into the Wild was called golden-brown. Firepaw said that a golden-brown tabby kit was injured and bleeding.--  Featherstorm9678   03:37, July 22, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9679 o

Actually, I was snooping around and found Amberclaw's page. It say's ginger in his description, but his charart looks golden brown. Couldn't we just change the word golden brown to ginger, if we did it (I don't want to do it though. If you see my earlier post ^).--  Featherstorm9678   22:00, July 23, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

We go by what's in the books, not what the charart looks like, and Amberclaw was only called ginger (btw I think it looks fine). Also, please stay on the Brackenfur, Thornclaw topic, when posting in this section. =) 22:06, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I am Ducky. I was using that asa an example. =)--  Featherstorm9678   22:27, July 23, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Have we come to a conclusion on this discussion?

Reference Check
So, Paleh and I created this in order to help keep track of references on each character's page due to falsified references. How it's planned to work is when you check an article's references, you will add the current date under the "Last Checked" column next to the correct character you checked. Paleh and I also thought about having users separately join this "sub-project" because some users are unaware of how to do references, or just don't concern themselves about it, so it might be a bit iffy on how they went about it. It's pretty simple, so what does everyone think about it? 17:23, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, it'll keep everything organized, and help the wiki as a whole. -- 17:31, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

So we just check every single reference on the entire page? I still think that creating a "verified ref" template would be easiest. That way those looking at the page can see that they're verified without having to look at your subpage. 17:40, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. -- 21:34, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

References are constantly changing such as to an earlier mention or removed due to a false cite or changed to a falsified cite due to a misunderstanding or something. A template wouldn't keep up with those changes. With the subpage, users can look at what references haven't been checked in a while. Also, with a "verified ref" template, what kind of impression would that give off to those users who are looking at this wiki for information, or to Kate? 23:49, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

It would give the impression that we care about the references and want them to be as accurate as possible. 19:57, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

It would also give the impression that despite citing things, we can't always be reliable with our information. Though that's true, we're trying to fix that, and it's not a good rep to have about the site. 00:27, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

I support this idea. Jun 26, 2012; 01:17am

I love this idea, actually...well done. 14:54, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea too. 03:17, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

What about for those of us that don't own every single book? Because some pages do cite references from every book in the main story (OS, NP, PO3, OOTS), and most people don't own or have access to all of them at once. But if they want to use this table, then what are they to do? They can't say the cites are verified if they can't verify every one. It should be fair, and every cite should be checked, not every one on a page all at once. 03:55, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can have another row in the table where people can mark the books that have been checked, in case they don't have access to them all. I don't know, just an idea. 04:30, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

I also support this idea, I also like both of Loonie and Paleh's ideas. 18:56 Thu Jul 12

This is a good idea, and Paleclaw, I like your idea since some people including myself don't own every book and we can share the checking. Sincerely: ChanCharm (Talk) 08:07, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea ^^ 00:19, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

I really like Paleh's idea, it would make references even more accurate. 03:05, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to put this into action? Also, are we going to add another section to the table? 18:39, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Little Mew, Birdy, Pad, and Raindrop
Me and a couple other users in chat were talking about this. The cites from these pages are removed because they weren't mentioned specifically (only Little Mew was), however, Husker introduces them in the order they stand in on page 34 of Warrior's Refuge. (Birdy, Pad, Raindrop, Little Mew) I know it's them from their description. Should we go ahead and cite it, or should we not, since it hasn't been mentioned specifically? 18:28, June 29, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should because we don't know for a fact that they were standing in that order. =3 22:54, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

Those whose genders and descriptions were never directly stated shouldn't have chararts/descriptions on their pages. It's assuming, something we're trying to crack down on. e.e

I agree with Skye. Considering that we don't know for certain what the cats look like, we shouldn't have the chararts or descriptions. It is indeed an assumption. 20:19, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Minor - Taking Over
When people have too many nominations up, or can't work on an article they give it up, and let someone else take it. But I thought we could fix the title from "Silver Nomination" to "Up for grabs" or something like that. This is really minor but I think it owuld help than having someone say they don't want to work on it, and people not see it, so it just gets archived rather than someone taking over. So yeah, any thoughts on this? 22:09 Sun Jul 8

I think we should just change the heading to "withdrawn", if anything. Since essentially, they're withdrawing their nomination.

Maybe "Available for Others?" Just thinking of different ideas here. x3 23:53, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think withdrawn would make sense. If an artist in PCA stops working on an image or "gives up" it's title is changed to withdrawn (or at least I think so. I'm not in PCA.) I don't see why it has to be different. 23:57, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

I like the Withdraw one. (Just saying) 00:04 Mon Jul 9

How about just marking it as "Open"? It's not quite withdrawn, since that would imply the user choosing to not work on it anymore, and up for grabs, or available for others or something is a bit long. 10:47, July 11, 2012 (UTC)

This is a good idea. To add a suggestion, "available" would work too. I don't think we should remove "silver nomination" from the headers, though. Maybe just tack "open/withdrawn/available" on the end in parentheses so they say "Randomfur - Silver/Gold Nomination (Enter Favorite Term Here)"? 02:01, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think that would work wonderfully, Hollydapple. Great idea. ;3 I agree with you that the heading should remain "typed" as Silver Nomination also. 01:22 Sat Jul 14

Heh, yeah. Honestly, I still don't see this necessary. Yes, many users are "withdrawing" their nominations, but quite frankly, is it that hard to scroll down? That's why I suggested to separate the talk page and this is basically making things easier for already lazy people. Plus, I personally think that having people go through all the nominations allows (or more of forces) users to look through each nomination and also look to see if there are anymore last minute comments. My two cents. (Going along with my distaste for turning PC more into PCA) 18:23, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 'Teldy on this one. Do we really need to make things easier? It's worked fine how it is for the longest time, and no one's really said a word about it. The talk page and nomination separation makes this easy enough as it is...If you can't take the extra five seconds to scroll down...

Exactly my thoughts^, PC has been going open for five(almost six) years, why would we need it now? 05:32, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this discussion?

Lilykit or Seedkit
Now, forgive me for not knowing which exact page and which exact character was mentioned this way, but in The Last Hope, either Lilykit or Seedkit was mentioned as having a tortoiseshell pelt. Not only does that co-onside with the original description, their allegiance description was only mentioned once. Should tortoiseshell become the main description and their allegiance just be in the trivia? As an example, Kestrelflight has had a wrong allegiance description for this arc, but he's still gray-brown with white splotches, the first and most frequent description of him. 22:49, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I'll help you find the page as I have a copy at hand. If she /is/ actually described as a tortoiseshell in that book.... well, this kind of is the same thing as Thornclaw/Brackenfur discussion... seen in the allegiences as golden brown but actually called ginger in the books. So, whatever the outcome of that discussion should probably serve as the outcome for this. (Assuming this is an actual cite) I'll look for it tonight if I have time. 00:25, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

She is. I've checked it. 00:28, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Which one? 00:37, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Lilykit. 01:25, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Bear with me...
Ok. Bear with me for a moment. I may not be a member of PCA or PC, but I think Dappletail's deaf kit should have an article and charart, because Dappletail has a queen image, and the kit is mentioned and exists. We know his description, (white with blue eyes), please take this into consideration. I strongly think this should happen.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   04:30, July 18, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Also, what are the requirements for joining PC? I would like to join.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   04:42, July 18, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I think that this kit should get a charart. It could be named Dappletail's Kit or something like that. We've made article pages for Shellheart's Grandfather, so why not? 04:43, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Rowie! *huggles* Also, could you go to WCCRPW for a moment?--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   04:46, July 18, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I agree with this. Dappletail's Kit sounds like a suitable title. Also, next time please put this under the discussion area of this page. :3 18:33, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm....Is there any actual history with this character? 20:39, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

We already have a page with him. His name is Snowkit 21:41, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I thought that he was the kit of Speckletail. *Derp moment* But he does seem exactly the same as Snowkit. 21:42, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't Snowkit. Snowkit was Speckletail's kit, not Dappletail's. They were talking about being thankful that Cloudtail wasn't blind, as it's common with white cats who have blue eyes; then Dappletail's kit was mentioned.

I don't think he should get one then. I think a lot of people are assuming that he/she is white with blue eyes. It's common that they are, but not all cats that are deaf are white with blue eyes(I think). 12:31, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Hm, actually, since they are mentioned, I think they should get a page. Gender, fur colour and eye colour is said, which is enough for an article, so, yes, I personally think he should get an article. And Dappletail'sl Kit sounds good for the title. 12:46, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Here's the quote if you want proof:

Dappletail: ''White cats with blue eyes are often deaf. I remember one of my first litter...''

She did have one. 16:24, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

It didn't have a gender, did it? Then it wouldn't get a charart. But yes, I think it should get an article. 16:42, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

He did. Dappletail says that it was a he right after. Fireheart as well. 16:54, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Who made the page? It rocks! Also, could I have the requirements and regulations for joining PC?--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   02:38, July 21, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

We never decided that Dappletail's Kit would be getting a page. Just because one or two users think that he should get a page, does not represent community consensus. In fact, I personally don't think there's enough information for a page. He's got no name, and is mentioned once.

Requirements and regulations please...--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   02:52, July 21, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I don't mean to sound ignorent, Skye, but if this kit wouldn't get an article for only being mentioned once, why do Shellheart's Grandfather, Sol's Father, Leafstar's Mother and Darkfoot get articles? They've only appeared/been mentioned once, and they have articles Gah, now I sound ignorent x.x 06:42, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Sol's Father actually appeared in the graphic novels, and was a key reason as to why Cinders left her kits. Shellheart's Grandfather, although unnamed, was also a key cat in why Mapleshade went crazy. Darkfoot was mentioned in two books, Starlight and Secrets of the Clans. And I know for a fact each of them were mentioned more than once.

But Dappletail's kit is a mentioned character in the book. I also think it would stop confusion. Some of our users thought that he was Snowkit, when they are two completely different cats. 15:59, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

If we mention every single character mentioned in the series that has no impact whatsoever on the actual plot of the arc/series, then this wiki would be full of "Pinestar's Kit" or "Mapleshade's Kit"/"Mapleshade's Kit 2". Sorry, but I don't see that having a description qualifies an unknown kit to have a page. 02:25, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Teldy and Cloudy, he wasn't sigifigant to the plot. 02:33, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Requirements and regulations... He should get a page.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   03:08, July 22, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

What do you mean "requirements and regulations"? You mean the guidelines and FAQ? Because neither of those pages say anything about what qualifies and what doesn't qualify as reasons to make a character's article. And "he should get a page" is not a valid reason for why this kit should get a page as it's an opinionated statement. 03:18, July 22, 2012 (UTC) / I mean for joint the PC goofy.XDDD *flicks ear* :)--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   03:26, July 22, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I still think he should get a page. Like Rowan said, it would avoid confusion with Snowkit and he's an example as to why white cats with blue eyes are often born deaf. So, I believe he should get a page x3 03:30, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how can they be confused? They have two different mothers...... Snowkit is Speckletail's kit, not Dappletail's. e.e

I don't think anyone's going to get confused with Snowkit. Dappletail's kit was mentioned once, in passing, and if we hadn't started this discussion, I never would've remembered him. Snowkit was Brambleclaw's friend, Speckletail's kit, the one that got carried away by an eagle. Dappletail's kit is not important enough. 03:32, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Earlier, you said he should get one. After Rowan said, She did have one.. Also, would I have to have finished all the books to join (I'm only at Dawn)?--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   03:41, July 22, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

But I changed my mind. I am allowed to do that, you know. Also, if you have any questions about PC that don't have to do with this discussion, please start a new heading and ask them there. You're directing discussion away from what it should be centred on. 04:05, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think s/he should get one. Just because s/he's mentioned doesn't mean s/he should get one. I highly doubt anyone will get confused by Dappletail's kit and Snowkit, I completely forgot about her kit because it is extremely minor. I like Atelda's point about every mention having a page, think of how many pages we would have. Too many "unneeded" pages. It'll be chaotic, with everyone going "that kit is mentioned" and such. I honestly don't think we ned the page. (IMO) And Feathernose, there are no requirements to join into any project. It also seems rude going on and on about wanting them when you could just look in the guidelines and FAQ if you were to look for any. (Sorry if I sound mean and snotty, I didn't know how to put it) <span style="">17:26 Sun Jul 22

Personally, I think he should get a page. No, not for every mentioned character, such as Mapleshade's kits, because they do nothing to enhance the Wiki, but people have been getting the two cats confused despite them having different mothers, and it serves as a good point that white cats with blue eyes are often born deaf and have difficulty surviving in the wild. It is an odd case but a good example, and that's why I think he should get one. Besides, with the potential article already out there, there's already two (I think) nice paragraphs. Plus, if the kit had a name, he would get a page anyway. The name is the only thing we don't know. 17:46, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Considering we do know a fair amount about him,I agree he should get one. We knew his description, we knew he was deaf, we knew who his mother was, and we knew he died. That's a decent amount of information for an article. I think we should make it. Only for him though. 20:36, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Butting in here, because I was snooping and have a thought here. I suggest a page for characters that are mentioned casually and lack names/plot impact. They could each then be a heading on that page, and be listed with what little we do have on them each, without littering the wiki with stubs. So a page such as "Minor Unnamed Characters" would be ideal for this, providing a place to collate these stubs and collect legitimate information. It would also make it simpler to create pages for them should the day ever come when they graduate to needing actual character pages. 21:49, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a really good idea Kit... I'm in support of that. 22:14, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

I support Kit's idea as well. 22:23, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Phenomenal. I'm in full support of Kitsu's idea. 22:26, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm supporting Kit's idea too. 22:33, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

This is a brilliant idea, I fully support it 8D 00:07, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yeahhh! I'm a member now! I fully support this idea (Duh it was my idea), ill make it. Even though I'm new. I know how. Pretty please? Someone else will have to make charart though (XDD)--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   02:40, July 23, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

We don't know their gender so we can't make a charart. o.e And the page hasn't been officially decided yet Feather nose storm. (Be patient ;) ) Usually a lead makes the page because they know the templates and coding. I do like Kit's idea, except I'm still on the edge about all the cats being mentioned in that case. <span style="">02:55 Mon Jul 23

We do have his gender. He's a tom. Dappletail said so in A Dangerous Path, page 81-82 owo 02:58, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if giving them charcats is such a good idea. Because what if the history's too short and the next character overlaps? Then we'll have a bunch of charcats that don't match up with their history. 15:07, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean charart? Because articles have to have charcats. And how would that happen. If we have a pelt color, eye color, and most importantly gender, why should he not have a charart? We have enough information for a charcat. Mother, cause of death, age, book appearances, and an image.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   21:33, July 23, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

No, she means charcat. It's the information template seen on each of the pages. e.e

Not everything revolves around charart, you know. But I was just thinking that the information that would normally go in a charcat could just be mentioned in the history. 21:55, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree.^ Also, I don't think they should even have chararts if we're just having a page with all of the un-named, minor characters. =3 21:59, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines say pages have to have a charcat. And, I know Loonie >.>. And Cloudy, I know what a charcat is.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   22:09, July 23, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Well, I don't think it's a good idea to have multiple charcats on one page. it's going to end up cluttering up the page, and you really shouldn't have more than one on a page anyways...the template goes by the page name; it's not something you manually put into the template. We //can't// have multiple charcats on each page without going to change the template.

No, we shouldn't have multiple charcats on a page. Charcats are not designed for that, and they contain a lot of coding. And, Feather, why do you need to get angry at Loonie because she simply didn't know that you knew about that? Anyways, why not just make a different template, instead of using the charcat? 15:21, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this discussion?

Honestly, I think we have. (Even though I'm not a lead). I don't think were making the page... 22:39, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

The Captain
OK, so I was wondering would he get a page? Sasha lived with him and he was a very important character in all of Escape From The Forest. owo 02:36, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

If Sol's Twoleg does, why wouldn't he? Does he happen to have a name, aside from The Captain?

The buisness that he owned was called Captain Bandy's Boat Yard, but besides that no, not that I see. 02:42, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Since Ken and Jean did I don't see why he shouldn't be able to have one. <span style="">15:15 Mon Jul 23

Oh hey, on the note of Ken and Jean... this might be a bit off topic in this sense, but I forget and can't find the old conversation. Didn't we agree to split up their page into two pages? 17:59, July 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the conversation, and with little discussion, it's never been concluded. 18:04, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this?

CBV List
Honestly, this page was made for a reason and I think we should use it considering there are quite a few nominations that could be voted on, except there are five already up. I think we should start using it again, because I think we could use it again. Nominations like Cedarpelt, Bone Jacques, Willowshine, Whitetail, Ratscar, Hazeltail, Clovertail, and Darkwhiskers. (There's more but I might as well not list them because you most likely understand my point) They are all ready for CBV, and if we used the page we could have them CBV'd and ready to go when the rest of the votes are done, the last time we used it I think it went fairly well. (It was actually a while ago) Although, if we decide not to use it, why do we even have it? Like I said before, we have the page for a reason, and if we're not using it than we should delete it. It won't be useful if no one wants it. So, yeah, that's really all. I know this is minor, but I think we should decide what were going to do with it. <span style="">17:39 Sun Jul 22

Cats that May be Eligible for More Than One Main Image
Alright, this should be an ongoing thought in the heads of editors here, but I thought I'd open up a discussion first to get some of the older articles out of the way.

Since we have the toggle feature available for use in charcats now, being primarily used for cats that hold more than one rank, like Leafstar, we have a chance to display multiple descriptions for cats like Mapleshade, who have two descriptions used equally as much as each other.

I'm not saying we should list two descriptions on character articles in cases like that: the first one should always be used in this case unless an author confirms another description. But in these cases we can show two chararts at once, like with Brackenfur, who is called ginger as much as anything else.

So what I'm putting this section here to ask is, who else could have two chararts displayed? Can anyone think of other cats that have had two descriptions used equally as much? 00:27, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I thought about this. What about the description? If the charcat has a tortoiseshell image but the description says ginger-and-white, are we changing the description to "Mapleshade is a ginger-and-white she-cat,[1] but she is also sometimes described as tortoiseshell.[2]" I don't think we should do two chararts for false descriptions because of this. I get the two ranks thing, but different descriptions... That's just too much. 00:34, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but in this case it's not just sometimes. She's called or displayed as tortie as much as ginger-and-white, and technically she was described as tortie first, so you could argue for both descriptions. And so it makes sense to display both. Same for Brackenfur, who was first described as ginger in any case. 00:41, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think we just have to pick one. Because having two could really confuse people who are new to this site and may not know about the trivia. 00:42, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's why we write "alt. warrior" or whatever aboue the image and why we don't change the description. I choose not to underestimate out visitors that much. 00:46, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shelly. If we choose one or the other for their main description, then we are just assuming, and we don't assume. 01:05, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Loonie, the descriptions just seems too much, I think we should only do ranks. 02:29, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I know I'd be confused if I saw two different descriptions. I think we should stick with ranks and ranks only. Errors are what the trivia statements are for, honestly.

I disagree with adding them. It would be much too confusing to new members, as has been said, and would also mean they no longer have a set description. They'll have two, which I don't think is right. And please don't add those alts to the pages before we actually agree on this. =.= 21:16, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

First off, Paleclaw, as I've told you over and over, I do not need to ask a project's permission before I do everything. I proposed this idea in the chatroom and people agreed with me, so I just did it. No one had a problem with it until I brought it up here. PC does not exist to put red tape on articles you have to go through before editing them.

And, as I've already stated, I choose not to underestimate every person that goes through this website. And, in at least the cases of Mapleshade and Brackenfur, who are we to decide which of their descriptions is used? They were both described differently at first and are very often given that same alternate description. If anything, it's our duty to display both for the sake of thoroughness and for the sake of not making assumptions. Brackenfur is very often and was originally called ginger. Mapleshade was originally called a tortie and white by the Erins and has been shown half the time as being one. We cannot in these cases just pick one description. We can write down one on the head of the article, but if we have the power why shouldn't we just show both descriptions? 12:25, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

And really, why should we simplify articles just because it might confuse people? Have you guys gotten any human interaction lately? The world confuses people. Dumbing down our articles based on the assumption that people passing through won't know what the word "alternate" means would accomplish nothing. 12:28, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

In the end, the image in the second slot of the toggle isn't a big deal. So long as the one that automatically shows and the "correct" image is the primary one that shows automatically and everything is labled clearly what goes in that second toggle slot is largerly inconsequential. Unneeded Red Tape will hurt PC and discourage editing. That's a bad thing. In the end, if every character gets a second image, it dosne't matter (so long as they're all clearly labled and approved images!). 12:34, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

And if you guys are so dead-set on not having alts in the charcats based on the assumption that they might confuse people, why should we have alts on this website at all? Oh no, people might see the alts in the charart galleries and get confused! We can't have that, can we? Why risk it? Why not delete every single alt charart on the off chance someone passing through won't know what "alt" means and couldn't look it up and might start throuwing a hissy fit because they didn't know what a word meant? 12:39, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly agree with Shelly. When two different descriptions are mentioned, we're assuming the description by adding only one of them to the character's article. I've seen users get confused about the alternate images in the galleries - so then why have alternates? People get confused, people make mistakes, people get angry, sad, and happy. We can't change that. There's always someone bound to get confused - and we can't try to erase confusion from the wiki. Best to avoid confusion, yes, but simply having alts can confuse people. If a character (like Mapleshade) is mentioned with two different descriptions enough times, then the toggle tool should be used to display her first and second description, and as Kit said, the "correct" (assumed correct...) description's image should be shown as the image in the toggle tool automatically. 12:47, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

My opinions not changing on thinking we shouldn't add the alts to the main charcat. However, as for you "not needing permission of PC to do things" you DO need permission to do major things. Say I were to, oh I don't know, add a relationships section to character pages, like with friendships and such, and I didn't mention it once to PC until I added it to multiple pages. That wouldn't be Ok. When you're changing outright how we do things on here, and it'll affect multiple characters, and will be something permanent, you do need to consult PC. PC's not a "red tape" on editing articles, however it is here to discuss major things that should be discussed, and not just added on one user's opinion. You can argue it all you like, but you should not be adding and changing major things that were never discussed just cause you think we should. 18:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paleh on this. It changes multiple articles, and can't just be added at will just because one or two members agree...that's not what this community is about. Simply put, Paleh's example is the same thing as what you're doing. And now to avoid drama, I'm going to stay out of this. I provided my opinion, and that's what needed to be done.

Well, instead of doing this, why don't we come up with some sort of guideline as to which description really should be used? Whichever is used the most is what we use, or whatever the first mention was?

And frankly Shelly, sarcasm really isn't needed. 19:02, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Who said I was being sarcastic? If you guys think that having an alt image in the charcat will confuse someone and that's reason enough not to do it, why have alt images anywhere on the site? I'm being completely serious. 19:09, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Shelly's reasoning why we should have both. Heck, I'm confused why Ivypool was called black in TLH by the Erins. People are confused by the medicine cat blanks, saying they have green whiskers (even my own mother). While big changes do need to be discussed before being implemented, it's good that we tried out the coding for a practical usage and to see how it looks on the article. 19:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Coding could be tested and practically implemented without changing the article's layout without discussion though. =.= And I think it'd be confusing to have it in the charcat where people simply looking for their main description can see it at first glance. If you're looking in the character pixels section, right above it explains where the character was called by a difference description at each instance. Putting it in the charcat doesn't explain anything, and personally I think it's uneeded. And what about those characters who weren't even mentioned as the other commonly used description in the main rank? What will we do then? A new alt wouldn't be made, they were never mentioned like that at that rank. So what then? I think we're fine leaving the alts in the trivia, and simply deciding on guidelines for what is main description. I see no problem with using the first mention as the main description in these kind of cases. Seems that's what Kate does anyways. It was the first, and tied for most commonly used. We list the other description in the trivia, so what's the problem with keeping it like that? 19:30, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Though yes, for major changes to an article's layout, it needs to be discussed, but seriously, I feel that editing is being restricted for even minor changes to the article unless discussed. Somewhere on a wikia policy article it states something along the lines of don't be shy to edit. In my opinion, it feels uncomfortable to make some changes to an article now. And did Shelly ever change an article to having two images for two descriptions? No. Not at all. So then why are you guys getting worked up over something she did not do? And frankly, if confusion is such a big problem and is the reason why this idea is not put into action, then it would be easy to say that every time someone gets confused over something in an article, you should remove it. I get confused fifty times a day - when reading, when listening to someone, and doing anything else. But, when I read something in a book that confuses me, that doesn't mean I should just close up to book and never read it again. People get confused literally by everything. But eventually, after confusion, there can always come realization. 20:02, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

and I'm personally getting worked up because she changed the layout without discussing at all. It wasn't just something small, or even something big that would only affect one character. It was major, and would affect many characters. So therefore, it should have been discussed before adding. Not added and discussed whether to remove it or not. Anybody's welcome to make changes to articles, they shouldn't be discouraged, but when they're outright changing how we do things in the future, yes, it needs to be discussed. As for the confusion thing, I still stand by my opinion. I don't think it's needed. It'll cause unneeded confusion since there's no explanation for the alts until way down on the page. And the alts are already listed with explanation later in the page, so why list them twice? Just cause they're described that way more often than other alts doesn't mean it has to be listed at the top of the page. I think it's fine the way it is if we simply have a set in stone guideline on what becomes the main description, and the whole first mentioned thing works fine for that in my opinion. 20:14, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the layout was changed other than the addition of an option to have a second image that you click a button to see. The idea of it being avalible for characters with strong contender alts (that are just as likly as the description we support to be the correct description) was something I suggested to Shelly while I was writing the code for the toggle into the Charcat. There's honestly no guideline on this page that says a character article /can't/ have a section discussing the friendships a character has. If the editor can defend it as brining valid information not adiquatly covered in the rest of the article, there shouldn't be an inquisition by PC about it. PC should look at it (and make sure it's formatting looks consistent with the rest of the article) and then say "It's diffrent, but that was certainly a reasonable way to deal with that information that wasn't well covered otherwise". Not project needs to discuss every change to an article. In some cases, if there are questions as to a variation in formatting, it is apprirate to discuss it at the project level, but the phrase "you should have asked PC" shouldn't come up. The thing you should be asking is "Is there a better way to deal with this? Maybe we should take it to PC for a dicussion. Someone else might have an even better way!" Editors are not required to ask the project for permission to edit. In fact, editing an article to see how it works out before a discussion is generally a great way to deal with things. If things have to be undone, well. That's what history is for. PC's purpose is not to create red tape to discourage editing. 00:52, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think it's the toggle anyone has a problem with, because I quite like that myself. I do believe it's deciding what that toggle is used for. I know it's for characters who hold two ranks at once, like Leafstar, but the disagreement comes from the alts, like Brackenfur and Mapleshade.


 * Yes, but adding a second image to the charcat is not changing the layout. In the template, there's image 2 and option 2 parameters, which means that a second image is defiantly allowed and doesn't need to be brought up to project before adding it. Because it was already decided in PC to put the toggle tool in action, and it doesn't need to be discussed again (Each time you put the toggle tool into action). 07:15, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

No, it was decided to use the toggle for characters that had two ranks, like Leafstar. We never decided it should be used for alternates. 03:31, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Alright. I'm sorry I didn't beg you guys for permission before I edited, but that's not what this is about. How about we stop this bickering and move on to being productive about it? We've all stated our cases. Very thoroughly. Why not just have a vote about whether or not to use the toggle for cases when a cat has a very strong alternate contender for their description? If someone agrees, I'll start up a voting page on this topic and we can settle this once and for all, agreeing that we all accept the results of that vote without protest. 17:55, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a vote put up for this. Honestly, the toggle isn't going to get a whole lot of use if it's only for two ranks, I think it could be used for alts too.

Mmkay, the vote is here. 18:41, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thrushpelt (TC) and foster family
He was, after all, a foster father to Bluestar's kits and I feel that it should be listed that he was. <span style="">Jul 23, 2012; 18:05pm 18:05, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What does everyone else think?--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   22:03, July 23, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

We did it for her, did we not? Thrushpelt was indeed a foster father to Bluefur's kits, I would say.

Yep, I think it should be added. 18:00, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Was it actually confirmed that Thrushpelt was a foster father by say Bluestar herself? I thought everyone in ThunderClan assumed that Thrushpelt was their father but was it ever confirmed? 18:26, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thrushpelt said that he would act as their father, and to the reader, I think that counts as being a foster father. But to the rest of ThunderClan, he would be acting like a normal father..

Yes, he should. 15:20, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If we do it, I want to do it. I've added to charcats, erased from charcats, and fixed charcats.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   06:12, July 26, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Feather, adding something to an article isn't something you can claim -.- There's five articles that need to be changed; I'm sure we'll be able to handle it. 03:26, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

So, are we adding him as a foster father? 22:34, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Do we?--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   01:40, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I'll add it. If it gets removed, -shrugs- oh well.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   01:43, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Done.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   01:54, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I think we should have an "okay" on this before we start adding this, that's why I removed it. (IMO) 02:01, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

You've got an okay from me. Let's see what the other project leads think. Duck, Holly? What about you guys?

You guys have got an OK from me, too. =3 02:06, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

So, can I add it back?--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   02:19, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Please wait until all the project leads have given their okay.

Firnen (me), says OK. =3--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   02:22, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Firnenrules9678

Firnen, your not a project lead. Just wait until Hollydapple leaves her opinion. 19:54, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are the project leads the one who make decisions for a project? Just because something doesn't get their "okay", does that mean that the proposed change to the project or an article of that project won't happen? Or if they say "okay", it will happen, even though the rest of the community disagrees? If you're going to make changes and it needs to be brought up, then the majority of the community must agree, not just the leads. Btw, just because one is not a lead, does not mean they can't voice their support in something. Since this needed to be brought up for the agreement of others, then at least wait until the majority of the community says their support or against comments. -.- Project leads are handed administrative duties in the project, and they also play a role in keeping sure that any arguments need to be put out, not be the ones who must say the "okay" for a proposed change to happen. But Featherstorm, don't be so quick to add something to an article without the community's support (if that proposed change to the article has been needed to be brought up).

Anyways, I don't think this should be added to the article. It was never confirmed that he was a foster father, even though he said he would act as their father. A five year-old kid can act as a father for a game, but that would not mean s/he is a foster father. Same with Thrushpelt, who knows? He might've even been playing game, for all we know. 14:31, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Citing Preceded and Succeeded
So I noticed some people have started citing the preceded and succeeded sections of leader/deputy/medicine cat's charcat. I don't recall ever agreeing on this. Yes it bothers me that much. So does everyone think we should start doing this? I'd just like to see project consensus before we start citing things willy-nilly. 17:31, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

In the original discussion, we agreed on citing everything except book appearances and family, or more specifically, we agree on citing names. The preceding and succeeding sections include names. It also includes who succeeded/preceded that character which involves that character and their rank. 17:34, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't specifically said. All I'm asking is that you agree. 17:41, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

I, personally, think that we should cite everything in the charcat, but anyways yes I agree to citing that. owo 21:18, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

As do I, Duck. Everything that isn't already cited elsewhere, like the family, or said elsewhere, like the book appearances, should probably have some form of a citation....

I think citations for preceeding and succeeding ranks should be added. If we're going to cite when a cat was called a certain name, it only seems prudent to cite the cats that came before and after them as deputies and leaders. 17:57, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of citing preceding and succeeding. 22:35, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I think we should cite everything too, (except it's already in the family section) I agree that we shoudl cite succeeding and preceeding. 02:06, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Mapleshade
Please excuse me if this has been brought up elsewhere...but this is concerning her main description. We currently have it set to ginger and white, based on what was said about her in Crookedstar's Promise, and at least one page in Night Whispers. She also has an alt for being a tortiseshell-and-white, which includes multiple mentions in Sign of the Moon, The Forgotten Warrior, and at least twice in The Last Hope. She was also first mentioned as tortie-and-white in the Erin Hunter Chat where we first heard about her. Thanks to Loonie, and my own searching, I discovered that she's not mentioned as ginger and white in ever book she's appeared in aside from Night Whispers and Crookestar's Promise. My question is, what should her main description be, when she's mentioned (and shown, in the extra graphic novel-thing in the back of Crookestar's Promise) as a tortie and white quite a lot more than her current ginger and white description? This has nothing to do with the discussion about, as it pertains to a character's main description and not what should be displayed. Personally, I think it should be the tortie and white, since she's actually shown as one, in the only picture we have of her.

Yes, I think she should be described as a tortie, if she was shown the most as that. owo 15:11, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If she was more commonly described as tortie and it was her first appearance, why shouldn't it be her main description? 15:21, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think the decision was decided when CP came out and we assumed they had made up their mind about what she should look like. But yeah it should be her main description. I don't see why not. 17:46, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Tortie is first, and most common, so I say change it. As Ivy said, we kept it as ginger and white cause when CP came out and she was called nothing but that, we assumed the description was changed as a whole. But now tortie is more common, and since it was first, I see no reason not to change it to that. 22:54, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

There haven't been any comments on this in a week. Can I get more input from the other project members, please?

I think it should be her main description. 01:53, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If she was described as a tortie when she was first mentioned, then that's the description she should get. 20:13, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Runningwind and Brackenfur
Hi. I was snooping around the page of one of my favorite cats (Runningwind), and remembered the apprentice thing. In Fire and Ice he was assigned to be temporary mentor to Brackenfur while Graystripe had a cold. Should it say on Brackenfur's page- Mentors: Runningwind (temporarily), and on Runningwind's Apprentices: Brackenfur (temporarily). Just thought I'd bring this up.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   21:24, July 26, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

If he was his temporary mentor then I don't see why not. 15:07, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I don't remember reading this, but since it's in the articles I agree. (Probably since I haven't read that book in a while xD) 17:56, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement this is going down? I've followed Runningwind and I'm ready to add it.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   19:30, July 27, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Two members' agreement is not the opinion of the project, Featherstorm. Please wait until you get the opinions of the other project members. I'm indifferent about it, since I'm not sure it really counts...but that's just me.

Featherstorm, on all discussions, you  need  to be patient, I'm kinda considering adding it and not adding it. Although many articles have the temprary mentor and apprentices. 21:41, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

We've listed temporary mentors before, I don't see why this situation is any different. 17:11, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this on other character pages and it's mentioned in the article, so I don't see why not. 17:18, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Events Timeline
Shelly asked me to bring this up, and I think she's got a good point. Anyways, the Events Timeline page is currently in the jurisdiction of PW, however, shouldn't it be changed to here in PC? After all, it covers the characters just as much as the events, if not covering the characters more. Since it covers quite a lot about the characters, like births, deaths, ect..wouldn't it make more sense to have the page in this project? I have no idea how to phrase it...so...yeah, just go with it. Hopefully you get what I mean.

I agree. The only thing that the timeline involves with PW is the time something took place. 20:45, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. I agree. 21:30, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think both projects can have jurisdiction. And this project is really good about getting things done and getting them done well, so I think that it'd be best for us to work on the events timeline because it really, really needs work. The cites on it are a joke and many are based on presumption. I brought this up with PW and nothing has been done about it. Since this article effects character articles, at least when it comes to the ages of characters, this project has every right to handle it. 21:45, July 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Dual jurisdiction is the best idea for this one. It effects both projects, so both projects get a say. 01:25, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Having it in dual jurisiction is a good idea, with both projects working on it, it'll get finished faster. 18:57, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with it being in both projects. =3 19:30, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Double Descriptions

 * In some pages, there are double descriptions. For example, Tigerstar is mentioned as a massive cat. Should we remove whatever says stuff like "massive shoulders" and "a massive head" because it was already mentioned? 21:03, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

If it's redundant, it shouldn't be in the description.

Mousefur
So this is pretty much the same issue as with Leopardfoot: Tabby or not? She's mentioned as a tabby late in the series, and, while it may be a mistake, we have no evidence in favour of her actually being solid. 03:16, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

She's mentioned once. In The Darkest Hour, and it's never seen or heard of again. Personally, I still stand by the fact it's a mistake, but because I don't want to get accused of "not trusting the source material" ( almost said materia....god, too much FFVII ), I'll only state my side and stay out of it. I'll go with whatever the project decides.

I agree with Cloudy, she was mentioned once with that, the authors make mistakes all of the time. 03:20, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned once... Squirrelflight was mentioned once with a white paw and that's in her description. Many cats are mentioned only once with things such as torn ears, scars, broad shoulders, thick fur, etc., oftentimes later on in the series. How do we know those aren't mistakes? Even Firestar was mentioned with a pale belly just once, after he becomes leader. The thing is that if a cat is called "tabby" and we don't have anything to contradict it (such as she was called solid, she's a tortie or bi-coloured, etc.) then it really should be added to her description. 03:30, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. If we did refuse to add tabby to Mousefur's description, we may as well remove Squirrelflight's white paw. But, if we've nothing to say otherwise to Mousefur, then we should add it. I myself have never seen Mousefur being called a tabby, but, if we have a cite, then it should be added in. Leopardfoot was called mottled once, her description is now mottled -shrug- I don't she why we shouldn't add this in o3o 09:24, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

I've never thought of her as a tabby (probably because of her name), but unless we can find a cite saying she's solid, we have no reason to exclude tabby from her description. I say go with it. We don't need two citations for every description. 14:48, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shelly; unless Mousefur is called solid, then we should add the tabby cite to her description. 19:49, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't any reason to keep tabby out of her description, since she's only ever called "dusky brown", and it's never said that she's solid brown. 01:20, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree /w/ Cloudeh. Nu change. I'm also still totally against Leopardfoot being mottled because of one mistake, but whatever.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   01:38, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Firnenrules9678

Feather, we don't have any evidence to state that she's actually a solid. 19:33, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

We also don't have evidence it's a mistake. But it was mentioned, and it's sourced. I strongly believe it should be added. If I remember correctly, information can be added to the description freely as long as a cite is provided. It's source material, so give a reason why source material should not be added to the articles freely, but instead be brought up to a talk page all of the time. And it's not like that it being a mistake is source material; we have no proof of that. If we can't add source material, and it always needs to be brought up, then we're discouraging editing the article directly. 14:10, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Policy Overhauls
Hey all.

As a few of you already know, I've been writing up proposed overhauls of this wiki's policies. I need as much input from as many people as possible to perfect these policies in ways that suit the entire community, so I'm posting this message in every project in the hopes that some of you will be interested in effecting the rules we live by here.

So, if you're interested in helping out, please come here and leave your thoughts.

Thanks! 15:13, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Charcats

 * I feel that in some charcats (like Firestar's, Hollyleaf's and a few others) that the cause of death and residence should be removed or moved to a different part of the article to prevent spoilers. When new fans click Firestar's page with the cause of death right in front of them, it will have ruined the whole series for them. Comments? 19:47, August 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's fine, that's what spoiler tags are for. 21:01, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Then you should've said something when we were discussion discussing adding CoD. Besides, if a "new fan" goes to an encyclopedia page and isn't expecting spoilers, that's their fault and not ours. 21:05, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

I think they're fine how they are. This should have been brought up when we were discussing the Cause of Death, not afterwards. This was discussed and agreed upon by everyone. The spoiler tags are there for a reason.

I also think they're fine. If you don't read the spoiler tag e s, than don't read the article if your expecting it to be spoiler free. 19:39, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Gorsetail
So I think this is like the Leopardfoot thing...she was mentioned as a mottled tabby. But maybe she's actually a mottled grey and white tabby? Cause I don't believe she's been called solid..so I don't know if it's actually a mistake...-sucks at this-

Oi, Skt, you need to sign, you know XP And I think it should be added, if she's not called anything but and there's a cite. So, yeah, it probably should be added :3 07:03, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

A gray and white mottled tabby? Ooookay then. I really don't think it should be added, but, that's just me.

If there's no cite to contradict it, then add it. 20:30, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

I still stick with my opinion on Leopardfoot, Mousefur, Mudfur, etc. I don't think she should get it. imho =3 03:11, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly guys, I think we can add info to the description as long it's cited, even if it was mentioned once. Anyways, I think it should be added. 14:00, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

=Nominations=

Talon - Silver Nomination
Expanded tenfold and I can promise that even Cats of The Clans can't be expanded. Plus, I added quotes. :3 17:51, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Jag - Silver Nomination
I added a trivia bit, expanded, and I feel as though the only quote worth mentioning is the main one, so comments? 20:46, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything else you could add to his history? And if there are pages that can be linked could you do that please? <span style="">17:42 Sun Jul 22

If there were anything else that could be added, I would've done so and I've gone through the links. 20:55, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Scree - Silver Nomination
Expanded Moonrise, added quotes, and made sure that Scree didn't appear in other books, so comments? 21:11, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

His name is wonderful. Anyways, split up the paragraph into two. 16:44, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Anymore quotes? 16:45, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

No quotes that portray his personality but I split the paragraph into two.

Pricklenose ~ Silver Nomination
The article looks pretty good. I expanded, detailed the history and added a quote a while ago. Comments? 04:59, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Anymore quotes? 05:02, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Still working on this? 20:57, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

The quote I found was the only one that describes her best, and actually at all. 16:10, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Toadfoot ~ Silver Nomination
Gonna expand it a bit more tomorrow, comments? 13:51, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe add another quote? 16:06, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

When you do expand the history, expand all of it. 17:39, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

When you go through expanding, take out any double links and add links for pages that haven't already been linked please. We donut want him to be an orphan. ;3 23:24, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Has the history been finished? 01:22, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, yes it has. Tell me if it needs anymore expanding, though ;3 06:31, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

I think Dawn could be expanded a bit more. 19:58, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Detail Starlight and ''Eclipse. Expand Outcast'' if you can. 00:58, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Also, can you expand/detail The Forgotten Warrior and The Last Hope anymore? 23:03, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Harley - Silver Nomination
Expanded the history and added quotes last night. Comments? 01:01, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Any more quotes? 01:04, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Is he seen after Red dies at all? LIke getting angry at Stick? *Hasn't read the book in a while* 01:29, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I added another quote(That's the last one that really says anything about him) and no, he doesn't appear after she dies, though I did detail the last paragraph. 01:39, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Whitefang - Silver Nomination
I believe that the history has been expanded to the maximum and that the page is ready for Silver Status. 17:15, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Anymore quotes? 20:58, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

I added two more. 01:16, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Does he ever appear after being assigned Leopardpaw to mentor? 19:43, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

No, he does not. 00:47, August 5, 2012 (UTC)\

When Reedfeather comes into the cmap wanting the kits does he have a reaction, because he was eating with Piketooth. When Crookedkit comes back to RiverClan, does he have a reaction? He is seen when Crookedkit comes back, he is coming out of the apprentices den with Softpaw. Is he seen after he gets out of the den, like going tto the freshkill pile or something like that? 20:19, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

No and no. I expanded history to the maximum and I included every time he was mentioned or appeared. 16:21, August 6, 2012 (UTC)

Onestar - Silver Nomination
Woah. He's been the content drive for a /year/. And you guys thought Thornclaw was long. I've expanded all of the OS sections, and right now I'm working on the NP. So don't say anything that's "Expand this book in the NP". Anyways, comments? 17:30, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Expand: The Sight, Dark River, Outcast, Long Shadows, and Code of The Clans if you can. 18:51, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Also, expand all of the Omen of The Stars books if you can. 19:40, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Slant ~ Silver Nomination
Re-wrote, added quotes, and expanded as much as I could. Comments?

Could you add the quote where Jayfeather notices Slant with Fall in the Tribe of Endless Hunting from (I think) Sign of the Moon? It's his first appearance, so I think it might be relevant enough to add. 14:50, August 2, 2012 (UTC)

Erm, yeah. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant to his personality, but, I added it. And you're correct, it's from Sign of the Moon.

Socks ~ Silver Nomination
Well, I expanded RoS and since that's the only book he appears in that's all I could do o3o 09:58, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Anymore Quotes? 19:59, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Can you try and remove the direct quotes?

Can you detail the part about when he and Ruby are playing with the yarn? Does he do anything else in tying to impress the Twolegs? 00:47, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

All done~ <span style="">10:55 Tue Aug 7

Cedarstar ~ Silver Nomination
A while ago, I expanded his history to the maximum; I believe he is ready for silver status.

22:53, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Detail the history. 22:58, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

The history is already detailed word for word. 22:59, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Any quotes?

I just added one. I'll add a few if there are any more in Bluestar's Prophecy. 23:03, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

If you can find anymore, that would be great. I know he speaks, although briefly, both in Crookedstar's Promise and in Bluestar's Prophecy. Although if you can't find a good main quote, I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot more of him in Yellowfang's Secret.

I added three more from Bluestar's Prophecy. 23:13, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Sexy Cedarstar Can you cite the succeeded by? 23:21, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

I can't; there is no page on any book that says Raggedstar became leader after him. 23:29, August 3, 2012 (UTC)

Then remove it please. I looked through BP and there's no mention of Raggedstar. Remove that section in Cedarstar's history as well. 00:26, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Removed. 00:57, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Husker ~ Silver Nomination
I added two more quotes. Comments? 18:41, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Plese remove the direct quotes from his history. 22:48, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Expand his history if you can. 00:52, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Done 14:53, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

There's still a few direct quotes in the history. 19:24, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

I only saw one, so I removed that one. 20:04, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Reedstar ~ Silver Nomination
Expanded to it's limits and I added the rest of his quotes in a couple of days ago. Comments? 01:43, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Mallowtail ~ Silver Nomination
I went through her history and that's all she appears in. Literally. She doesn't say anything else either. Comments? 01:43, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Willowshine - Silver Nomination
OK, I'm expanding what was said last time this was up right now. Comments? =3 01:43, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Reedwhisker ~ Silver Nomination
Forest of Secrets is expanded to the max. Same with the Ultimate Leader Election. I'll get started on the rest tomorrow and he doens't have anymore quotes. 01:47, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

I wanted this one. =) jk One of the quotes doesn't have a source, I'm pretty sure he says a few things in Dark River and the cites for the family need to be gone through, as stated on his talk page. owo  01:52, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

He's all mine :3 jk I'll do this all tomorrow when I'm at the library. *Is excited because it has high-speed internet* xD 03:28, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Scree (Ro) ~ Silver Nomination
I added a quote and simply spruced up his history a while ago. 09:04, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Fall ~ Silver Nomination
Fall of Pounding Rain ^^ I think his article looks good for a one-apperance character ^^ Comments? <span style="">11:15 Tue Aug 7

Twist ~ Silver Nomination
Her history's expanded as much as I could, and she doesn't appear at any other times. Comments? 14:53, August 7, 2012 (UTC)