Talk:Mates

Style Concerns

 * Complete lack of citation of any of the facts displayed
 * Dispute concerning the meaning of the word (See discussion below)
 * General treatment of "mates" to imply love as a mandatory component (See Discussion below

Necessary?
Is this article really necessary? I think everyone has a basic understanding of what a mate is, but I want to know what everyone thinks. → Sky feather  20:57, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. If it offered good information, I would say keep it, but it seems to be fairly obvious that mates love each other and have kits. Unless there are objections, I think we should delete this.  insaneular    Talk  21:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think eather way but if we expanded this, added signs of affections, secret mates, wishing you were mates, and a list of mates, we could have a really great article.-- Artimas Hunter Warning! This user is reasonably insane! 21:12, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am against deleting this. The purpose of a wiki is to provide information on every aspect of its subject, even the most basic concepts. You must never assume that "everyone" knows what a concept is - the wiki is also read by people who have little knowledge of the Warriors world, and come here to get info. Mate is sort of Clan terminology that needs to be explained. It's unclear even to me when can two cats be considered as mates. After some sort of agreement / confession? After spending lot of time together? After trying for kits? I'd say this article will be a valuable piece of info once it is expanded. Helixtalk 21:25, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair point, but if we're going to make an article about it all of us need to be in agreement about those fuzzy lines between friend and mate, as you pointed out. Are cats considered mates only if they have kits? Refer to themselves or have other cats refer to them as mates? Or, just spending a lot of time together with clear affection for each other?  insaneular    Talk  21:28, March 24, 2010 (UTC)




 * I just want to point out in an argument for another deletion (on StarClan page) the argument was 'everyone knows what StarClan is!' the sysop (I think it was Eu or Kitsu) said, 'we still need an article on it because though people know what it is, we still have to explain it' or something lik that. the discussion is in the StarClan archives. Anyways, this could be confusing like Insane said so it might be to much trouble to keep. But as I said, I could go either way, I'm just here to help. (LOL: that sounds strange!) ^^ -- Artimas Hunter Warning! This user is reasonably insane! 21:32, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to delete this article then. I wasn't going to throw a delete tag on it, but I wanted to be sure that we needed it. We just need to make sure all the information is properly recorded then. → Sky feather  21:38, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for being so considerate Sky, a lot of people would have just deleted it (or attempt to) instead of asking us. That was nice of you.


 * Anyway, like Insane said, there can be a thin line. We should really try to look for evidence. I was thinking we could also have a former mates category (Gray|x| Silver, Feather|x|Crow,etc.) and maybe times when the she-cat or tom liked the other cat but they found another mate (Thrush|x|Blue, Ash|x|Squirrel, Breeze|x|Heather,etc.)-- Artimas Hunter Warning! This user is reasonably insane! 21:42, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for not deleting this, guys. I was the maker of this article. I agree, we should have two different sections for List of Mates, current mates and former mates. Echostar 21:28, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Awkwardness....
Um..this article is really awkward...I dunno but I really dont think its that neccessary. it seems just like a little creepy to me.. Cl a  ra  18:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Leopardstar & Whiteclaw - add or not?
The Erins have stated in chats that Whiteclaw was Leopardstar's mate, and that's why she was so upset when he was killed. Since we don't have a category for Former Mates yet, should I add this to the list or hold off until we have a space for pairings which do not exist anymore? (Graystripe/Silverstream, Crowfeather/Leafpool, potentially Brambleclaw/Squirrelflight, etc.) ~Rainpath~ 03:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC)Rainpath~Rainpath~ 03:57, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Sure why not?--  N i g h t s h i n e     Ü     04:12, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's a wiki, add any info you consider relevant. I also suggest to break the List into sections, like Clan, Tribe, Loner / Rogue etc. Helixtalk 18:48, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Expectations.
Well. I agree this article is awkward but anyway mates dont always try 2 have kits - Daisy and Spiderleg. Spiderleg neer wanted kits and was shocked when Daisy was pregnant. Zoe27 07:34, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this article never suggests that Spiderleg wanted to have kits with Daisy. However, I don't really think we should have the "Expectations" part of the article, that's the only part of this page that I find awkward. I think we should keep this article, just delete the "Expectations" section. Nightfall Silverpelt looks beautiful! 08:27, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yup;) Expectations should be deleted. Everything else seems okay so l8er i will tell an adim-maybe Bremble. Zoe27 17:29, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Leaders?
Female Leaders can't have mates? What if they already did??-- Leopardkit SunClan Forever! 22:37, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I re-word it. They can't have kits, but the can have mates. Maplefern Carrying the torch... 22:45, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks!-- Leopardkit SunClan Forever! 22:50, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The section deals with cats who cannot have mates. It is useless to mention that leaders can have mates. About leaders having kits (or not), that is described the Queen article, but it is not related to this article. Helixtalk 11:34, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Møųş ëţą  łő  ŉ!!  15:12, April 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that nowhere in the series is it implied that female leaders/deputies cannot have kits. The popular theory that Bluestar abandoning her kits because of some unspoken rule is something I disagree with. I think she dumped her kits not because she wasn't eligible, but because there was another candidate without other commitments for their time. Treating it like an undisputed fact when it's very disputable seems inappropriate. 18:32, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning I can't comment too strongly on this, but I was told by someone who has read SkyClan's Destiny that there is a case of this in there concerning Leafstar and Billystorm where Echosong tells them they cannot be mates. Like I said, I haven't read it so don't whether the wording or circustance clarify that leaders are forbidden to have mates or not, I just thought this would be an appropriate point to bring up in this discussion. 18:39, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

In an Erin Hunter Chat, though I am not sure which one, there was a question asked about female leaders and their kits, asking if they could still be leader, and Vicky replied no, because they would speand too much time with their kits. I disagree with this completely but it is what Vicky said. I can try to find a citation, if you need me to. 18:42, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers Echosong tells Leafstar that "It could be difficult if you have kits. I know that you have a deputy and a medicine cat to look after the Clan, but what if there was a battle?" She goes on to say, "You have a different destiny, one that involves the future of the whole Clan And it is a path that you must walk alone." I strongly believe that female leaders cannot have mates. You don't have to agree with me, it's just my opinion. 18:45, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Find the citation, and we can consider it factual, Whitestorm. Right now I'm nowhere near up to date on the books (I'm working on a re-read before I catch back up)... Sandstar: We can't go off hearsay. Oblivion: I'm not sure SkyClan should be used to establish facts for all clans. We're talking about a clan that permits "Daylight Warriors". I'm also not supporting that others have to agree with me, but rather than we need to find airtight facts or display this as something theoretical. I don't consider your quote to indicate an airtight ban. More of a discouragement than an outright no... the phase "It could be" sort of... takes away the punch something needs to be the final word. The fandom at large does support "female leaders can have no kits"... But I'm not sold that any proof exists in the canon. Unless Whitestorm's citation seeking pans out. 18:51, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know we can't go on hearsay and if I owned the book I'd have found it for myself, but I think it's something worth looking into which is what the talk page is for. 18:57, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oblivion found it. OR at least remember it specifically and paragraphed it. Because this is such a sensitive topic, with strong supporters on either side, I think we have to be careful and demand empirical proof. If I get proven wrong ;) I'm gonna be proven well wrong. I don't do things by halves. *snicker* 19:06, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

I found it! It is in the fourth Erin Hunter Chat, though my stupid computer won't let me link to it. Ugh! Okay, so a user asks "Can a female leader have kits?" and Cherith Baldry replies "No- they would take up too much of their time and attention. However, a she-cat who had kits could become deputy and then leader once the kits were out of the nursery." Vicky Holmes also replies saying "She could, but it would make leading the Clan even more difficult and I can imagine some of the more traditional cats would make a bit of a fuss." So, we have conflicting answers, my opinion is to go with Cherith's answer. What do you guys think we should do? 19:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Kitsu: No, I don't have that good of a memory :P I whipped out my copy and checed inside.

Whitestorm: I, and this is just me, think we should go with Cherith's answer. Even though Vicky is right (most of the time), I'd go with Cherith on this. 19:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we get to pick or choose which author we go with. I think, because even the authors haven't settled this one, we have to document it accordingly: As an item of debate. When even the masters of the fandom don't agree I think it would be dishonest reporting to pretend there's a correct answer. I think we stick the facts. And the facts are : No one knows, because no one agrees. Makes me wonder if the IC situation is just as diverse. 19:39, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, that makes sense. 20:40, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * But Leafstar thought in SkyClan's destiny, It's ok if I have to step down to nurse a litter of kits for awhile. Am I right? 'Splashpelt -Luvs Hopflight 19:40, December 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The context of that statement would be helpful. and Frankly, SkyClan isn't a proper clan with proper clan traditions. They can't effectivly be used to make decisions where the clans with an unbroken chain of traditions are concerned. 17:08, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

SkyClan
I forgot. XD I'm such a beetle-brain Raven Randomness!  22:53, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking Style?
I noticed that sometimes the article changes from speaking about "some cats" to speaking to "you" I just wanted to let people know I'm gonna try and work on that Go ShadowClan! 14:34, June 16, 2010 (UTC)Dappleclaw

Disputing the Meaning of "Mates"
Currently, as I write this the article states "Mate is the Clan word for a partnership between a tom and a she-cat who love each other and plan to spend their life together" in the manner in which true facts are stated. As far as I can tell there is no formal definition of the word "mates" anywhere in the books (though keep in mind I've only read thru Dark River). I'd like to see this either cited, or changed to a statement of theory, rather than fact. But I figure it's only fair that time be given for citing to happen before restructuring the article into a statement of theory. As far as I can tell in the Warriors series there is no formal matehood. As in "Mates" are informal at best, rather than an analog for marriage. 18:28, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * This was already debated (and even the presence of the article disputed) some months ago, but we did not get to make a more thorough research on the topic yet. Regarding your observations, although I read only the first two series, I highly doubt that we can find a citation on this, i.e. a statement like "They are mates because (description)" or "Mates are who (definition)", and I guess the most we can do is theoretise, observing the formation and breakup of all couples in the books (i.e. when / by whom / after what were they described as mates, instead of just friends). It will not be an easy work because of the vague references, including the fact that the meaning of "mate" possibly and subtly changes in subsequent series as you suggested in the other section, but let us hope we can come up with something satisfactory. Also, I must point out that this is a page with quite high traffic, with people constantly changing it to reflect their own understanding on the topic, so presently it is in a quite poor state, and in need of a serious cleanup, so thanks for all your input on the matter. 16:43, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's one of those topics that everyone has an opinion on, you are right there. And I'm actually really well placed to do the research on the meaning of mates. Or at least a lot of evidence gathering. I'm about a third of the way through Into the Wild on the way to a begining-to-end re-read of the series (excluding the Manga.) so I can start jotting notes when I notice things. If nothing else I think the meaning (or meanings, if it's changed through the series) just needs to be addressed as accurately as we can. Limiting pure conjecture and supporting any conclusion that's drawn with references. Project world needs more citations. 16:48, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I'm going to be wrong, but I think that, until two cats who are mates have kits, they're technically not defined as married in the Warriors' world. Cats can be mates without having kits (as I hope Squirrelflight and Brambleclaw eventually prove), such as Brightheart and Cloudtail. They only had one kit, as compared to Dustpelt and Ferncloud, who have kits nearly every new book series, and the same applies with Firestar and Sandstorm. Again, I know I'm going to be wrong, but being mates does not mean being a kit-machine.Phoenixfeather13--Burning Bright, Even in Snow 12:39, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I'm going to be wrong, but I think that, until two cats who are mates have kits, they're technically not defined as married in the Warriors' world. Cats can be mates without having kits (as I hope Squirrelflight and Brambleclaw eventually prove), such as Brightheart and Cloudtail. They only had one kit, as compared to Dustpelt and Ferncloud, who have kits nearly every new book series, and the same applies with Firestar and Sandstorm. Again, I know I'm going to be wrong, but being mates does not mean being a kit-machine.Phoenixfeather13--Burning Bright, Even in Snow 12:39, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Mating equals Loving
Is there any proof anywhere in the series that to mate (Meaning here to "produce kits, which is the criteria used for a number of entries on the list) implies love? We've seen a handful of characters with strong, bonded relationships, but never any indication that all mating are founded on love. Is it appropriate to give the impression that begetting offspring automatically indicates a love-bond? 18:41, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

No, Kitsufox, I don't think mating=offspring. For us humans, some women are unable to have children, and the case of such applies to Squirrelflight. And yet such couples stay together, no? Being mates can be just being very close without producing offspring every other year.Phoenixfeather13--Burning Bright, Even in Snow 21:52, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Allegiances as a Revelation of Matehood?
Due to how poorly the word "mates" is defined, do allegiances really indicate a provable bond as mates? or only that the two cats in question have mated? It really comes down to discovering a formal, provable definition of mates... I'm not entirely sold on the idea that the act of mating should be equated to the idea of "being mates" in the sense of "being married" (which is the way the article is currently written). 03:09, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Cats are much different than humans, in the sense that they usually mate and move on. Yes, Warriors is different, but I don't think that "being mates" should be in the same sense of "being married". I think that - and feel free to shoot down my idea, and come up with different examples - if two cats mate and have kits - as listed in the allegiances - they should be mates. 03:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just ask the question of "Why"? We're talking about a world in which Queen's have a privacy clause that says they don't have to name a father. I certainly don't think that Spidertail and Daisy are an example of mates (the Erins have named it a one night stand, thus invalidating the idea of a "breakup" having occurred). We don't have a world that we're looking at that has a formal idea of matehood (At least at the point of Dark River, where I am in the books). This indicates that "being mates" isn't an intrinsic part of "begetting kits". I'm not sold (but am open to an explanation of why we should list cats as mates without actual empirical evidence of any mate-bond, given the current "bondy/lovey/marriagy point of view of the article) that mating = mates. At least not the way the article currently defines it. With a re-envisioning of the way the article is approached (IE: With an open differentiation of "Bonded", "Unbonded", and "Unknown"; and acknowledgment of the idea that mating happens without bonded-matehood, and the concept that we don't know everything that goes on, and thus simply don't know the details in many cases) I might be more receptive... Wowie was that wordy... 03:30, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * It was wordy but I think I get what you're saying. I agree. I don't think that mating is quite the same as being mates (compare Spiderleg and Daisy with Dustpelt and Ferncloud for instance) and this ties in with the issue of whether mating equals love, which is the topic of a discussion above. Again this comes down to the fact that this is a book for children and the Erins seem to have thought everything through from a human point of view. I think the best thing for this article would be some clarification on the idea of longterm mates who are in love, and the idea of mating for survival. As for whether the allegiances prove anything, I think they do; they state the father of a litter and that the two cats have mated. Whether or not they are longterm mates however should be cited by book evidence of their love for one another. 11:06, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wordy is pretty normal for me... I personally don't think that a "Human point of view" justifies dumbing things down to the level of Mating = Matehood. I also don't think "it's a children's book" really means we can justify making claims (x and y are bonded mates because they're listed as having had kittens in the allegiances) to facts we simply don't have. But, I think a re-write of the article (striping the specific mating = marriage connotation, and expanding the list to include indications of "Bonded, Unbonded, or Unknown") would address the fact very well. I think the allegiances prove only that cats have mated, and even then for me it's suspect information (See The Sight, Squirrelflight is listed as having had Brambleclaw's Kit), and seems to reflect what the cats claim, not what is indisputably factual. I also think we need a more... encyclopedic term for "breakup", but that can be addressed in the re-write. I am gonna wait for Oblivions opinion on re-structuring the article before I touch it, though. They seem to be a supporter of "Mating = Love", and thus they're a good counterpoint view (Sandy: You seem to lie somewhere between Oblivion and I's very polar views). 13:28, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I lie with what I think best for the article in terms of the readership and the wishy-washy way the Erins have gone about things (genetics anyone?). I agree that we shouldn't be dumbing things down in a vague way or that we can justify false claims, I was simply stating that they are two of the reasons it's so difficult for us to clarify anything. It seems my ability to communicate is up the wall recently and for that I apologise. Restructuring this page is certainly a good step forward in my eyes. 13:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest challenge will be the fact that the meaning of mates seems to have changed during the course of the series, personally. I suffer from period communication failure disturbingly frequently myself, so I understand how frustrating it is. I think the article currently just makes a bunch of stuff up (I don't think there's a solid definition for mates anywhere, so without citations it's just conjecture, and not even good conjecture yet), so the meaning will be a huge challenge. Every situation, every mention, every hint that we have will have to be scraped into a cauldron and boiled down. 13:57, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your earlier idea, Kitsu, about changing the list to include "Bonded, Unbonded, or Unknown."
 * About the whole mating = mates thing, I believe that, since the Erins are doing this from a human point of view, the two cats mating means they accept each other as mates. It's kind of hard to explain. Go ahead and shoot me down if you want. 17:12, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * On mating=mates: I don't think you're encompassing the entire "Human point of view" but rather citing a limited view from one sub-culture in having "mating=mates" be directly comparable. Casual encounters of the mating kind are preferably commonplace in human culture. There are specific sub-cultures in which such things are frowned on (A fairly large number of them, in fact), but unless we can find a reference to the Erins selecting a specific cultural point of view we simply don't have a default. You could be right, that that's the defacto logic being employed. We just have no way to verify it. We have to be careful about deciding what the Erins are thinking. Unless they say that's how they're thinking, we can't swear to it. And even then, we have to take it with a grain of salt. Because apparently we need to question the three of them and see if they actually all use the same point of view (See the SNAFU that is the "Can female leaders have kits" question). 17:31, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

LeafXBilly?
For SkyClan, it doesn't mention Leafstar and Billystorm. Should I add it on there because, at the end of SkyClan's Destiny, it looked like Leafstar was considering making Billystorm her mate?Fallowstar--Frozen Waters Still Make Ripples... 01:01, December 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Note the words "Considering" and "looked like". Facts belong in articles. Not conjecture or assumptions about what you think is happening. 17:12, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Hailstar and Echomist
I don't know about you guys but in the prievew for crookedstar's promise Hailstar and Echomist are mates. Could I add it? 23:46, June 30, 2011 (UTC)