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)

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)

Have we come to a conclusion on this discussion?

-forgot I was still part of this project owo ;.;- anyways I like this idea and I agree on having a new section that mentions what books have been checked. Just a question, once all the books on an article have been checked, would we restart the book-reference check or add the dates for when the different books are checked. Because if we check the books at different times, we won't quite know which book-references need to be updated. (That doesn't really make sense, doesn't it?) 02:34, 19, 08, 2012

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)

So should we put an unknown description? 20:05, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should.

I agree.^ 17:52, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

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)

Okay, now that that is settled, let's get back to my original question. Besides Mapleshade, Thornclaw, and Brackenfur, what cats might be eligable to have the toggle used in this way? 23:29, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Lilykit is the only other one that I can think of, as shown here. 05:01, August 13, 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. Jul 23, 2012; 18:05pm 18:05, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What does everyone else think?--  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.--  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?--  Featherstorm9678   01:40, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I'll add it. If it gets removed, -shrugs- oh well.--  Featherstorm9678   01:43, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Done.--  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)

I wasn't talking about them not saying their opinion. I was talking about things being finalized without the opinions of the leaders of the project. Featherstorm was jumping the gun, and that's why I said wait. >.>

Thrushpelt wasn't playing a game with the kits. I don't remember the exact thing, but it had nothing to do with a game. o.o He said something about treating the kits as his own or something like that...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't playing a game, but there is no exact cite to support that he wasn't playing a game. And sorry, I probably misunderstood with the lead thing. 19:44, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

He was the foster father. He wasn't playing a game. Here are some quotes that prove it >.>... You know how I feel about you Bluefur, I'd do my best to make you happy, I promise.And I'll love your kits as though they were my own.-Thrushpelt BP pg. 456 another shall we,... ''I thought Thrushpelt was our father. That's what Runningkit told me.''-Stonekit BP pg. I can't remember 8D more... ''You can tell the Clan I'm the father, if you want. I mean, if it makes things easier.-Thrushpelt BP pg. 456 one more... Her faithful friend had kept her secret till the very end, only ever speaking of the kits with the fond grief of a father.-Bluestar BP pg. 505--Firnenrules9678


 * Did any of those quotes say exactly //foster// father? 07:00, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say specifically foster. I don't think that term was ever actually used. All we need is a cite that clearly says he acted as their father, not just let the Clan assume it. 06:24, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

I think there is enough information to call him their foster father. As Paleh said, we just need a cite that states that he acted like their father, and I think one of those quotes could work as one. o.e <span style="">03:45, 19, 08, 2012

Honestly I'm not sure it is.... as I said, we need a quote that says he acted as father, not just that the clan assumed he was. In all of those quotes it says nothing about him really acting as father. All of them are about other people assuming and him letting them. The closest for what we need is where he said he'd love her kits as his own. Though I'm still not sure whether that's good enough... 23:49, August 21, 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)

Supporting. 00:43, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. <span style="">04:00, 19, 08, 2012

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)

I agree. 00:44, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Agreed. 18:43, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

Mhm, agreeing. <span style="">04:44, 19, 08, 2012

If no one else has any comments on this, I'll change her description within the next day or so.

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)

Cody ~ Possible loner?
I've been wondering for a while now if Cody, from Dawn, would be classified as a loner for her time in ThunderClan, while not an official member? Comments? Thoughts? Opinions? <span style="">05:19 Sun Aug 19

I don't think she would, because she was taken against her will, she didn't want to be a loner, and she never expressed an interest in being anything besides a kittypet. I hope I made sense. 05:23, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

She couldn't have been taken from her Twoleg nest against her will. She left it willingly I think she said every night, expressing the fact that she didn't want to be just a kittypet. Obviously she didn't like being inside all the time, which is saying that she didn't like being in the nest sometimes, which shows that she obviously had the ideas of a being wild cat, but the only thing that made her leave ThunderClan was the fact that she didn't want her Twolegs worrying and that she wasn't a fan of blood and gore. <span style="">09:23 Mon Aug 20

Yes, but in the series almost every kittypet is curious, there are a lot of instances whee kittypets wander from their nests. Also, I meant she was taken from her walk against her will. owo 23:46, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

I always saw her as a kittypet temporarily in the care of ThunderClan. She's still a kittypet; just because she was taken, and lived outside of her nest for a brief amount of time, doesn't make her a loner. In fact, I think that's the same reason we didn't give the Clan cats who were captured by those same Twolegs kittypet images. They were taken against their will.

Toggle thing for Lilykit?
We used the toggle for Mapleshade, whose description contradicted from tortoiseshell to ginger and white, so should we for Lilykit? She was most recently described as tabby, but has also in TLH been called a tortie (again) So should we use it for her? 22:00, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Join Request
Hey, I'd like to join please!<span style="color:Blue;font-family:Tempus Sans ITC;background:Red;border:1px solid; -moz-border-raiuds: 1em; color: black;">Pikachushinx the power of the past 13:43, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sure, welcome to PC! Please read over the Guidelines and the Frequently Asked Questions if you have any questions. =) 14:10, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Categories for Males and Females?
Should we? We have categories for almost everything, I don't see a reason not to, especially since this is a category we even have for users. 02:26, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering this myself a while ago, and I think it's a good idea, but would we also need an unknown gender one? 15:27, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Either that or we leave them unsorted and call it a day. 16:29, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see reason why not to have a category for genders, but if we do decide to have categories for genders, then an unknown gender category would be reasonable to make too. 16:34, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

=Nominations=

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

Anymore quotes? 15:09, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Still Working? 00:06, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

This main quote is the only quote that describes him. 05:49, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

CBV? 15:27, August 24, 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

Anymore quotes, and is there anything elso you can add to the history? 15:10, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

No more quotes. The main quote is the only time when Fall actually appears (As far as we know). Added a bit to the history. <span style="">08:25 Wed Aug 8

CBV? 15:27, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

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)

Can the first paragraph of the history be detailed? 15:36, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Are there any quotes that can possibly be added? 20:27, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

There aren't anymore quotes that describe her, I believe, although I can't do any detailing/searching, since my Kindle broke and I'll need to get a new copy of Outcast tomorrow. 04:31, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Done. 13:33, August 15, 2012 (UTC)

CBV? 15:27, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Whitewhisker ~ Silver Nomination
Comments? There aren't any other quotes I can add, and I expanded as much as I could. His name is mentioned probably three or four times. ^^;;

CBV? 15:27, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Owlfur-Silver Nomination
I can't say anything other then I'm taking a risk with this nomination. Comments? 13:21, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Split up paragraph 6 in Crookedstar's Promise, it's a little big. 17:19, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Any more quotes? 00:49, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Anything else for BoTC? 04:50, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Still working? 19:07, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Can you actually split up more paragraph's than just the one Silver mentioned? <span style="">08:56, 20, 08, 2012

Rain ~ Silver Nomination
Grumpy ole' Rain ^^ Added a bit to the history. I found a quote, too, which I've added. Comments? <span style="">09:57 Tue Aug 14

Any more quotes? And is it possible to expand the history? 21:37, August 14, 2012 (UTC)

Still working? 00:09, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

Detailed/added to the history, but I couldn't find anymore quotes. <span style="">10:40 Thu Aug 23

CBV? 15:27, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Nettlesplash - Silver Nomination
I'll finish SkyClan's Destiny, and I'll add a few quotes in a bit. Beyond the Code can't be expanded anymore. Comments? 04:39, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

Expand The Rescue if you can :3 00:22, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

It can't be, I re-wrote it and expanded it to the max, and I'm sorry I haven't gotten to SkyClan's Destiny or the quotes yet I'll try to finish it tonight, if not tonight then tomorrow. 00:25, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Finished expanding SkyClan's Destiny, and I've added a few quotes. Anything else? 05:41, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Owlclaw ~ Silver Nomination
His entire history is being re-written, and I'm finding quotes as I type.

Okay, I expanded, added quotes, and rewrote everything possible. The concerns on his talk page have been crossed out as well.

Furled Bracken - Silver Nomination
I've expanded the history, there's quotes, so comments? 03:43, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Owl Feather - Silver Nomination
I cleaned up and expanded the history. I also added a few quotes. Comments? Woo, the last Ancient! 8D 05:24, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Thorntooth - Silver Nomination
First nomination in a while, hope this is right! Quite a minor character, and I'm not too sure about those quotes. I think it's good to nominate. Comments? <span style="">09:49, 22, 08, 2012

Anymore quotes? Also, can you cite his name and his affiiations in the charcat? =) 18:42, August 22, 2012 (UTC)

I cited the charcat, but I did find one quote and I don't really know if it's okay. o-o <span style="">07:15, 23, 08, 2012

Rainfur ~ Silver Nomination
God, I love this cat<333 Added a bit to the history and added a quote. Comments? <span style="">11:50 Thu Aug 23

Please cross of the remaining concern on the talk page. Also, is there anything else you can add to After The Flood or SkyClan's Destiny? =3 22:07, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Creekfeather ~ Silver Nomination
I worked on expanding and fixing up the history a bit. I understand that it's history needs to be expanded and fixed up more, but I currently don't have SD with me, and it'll be about three days until I have the book with me. So please don't tell me to expand the history. 12:49, August 23, 2012 (UTC)