Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

Spoiler Tag
I am glad that the spoiler tag has been moved up for Brightheart and Briarlight at least. I'm just noticing that a lot of main quotes, not just the these two cats, give big spoilers. Most of the time, even the name of the character is a very good spoiler. I think the spoiler tag needs to be moved up to above the main quote. 08:12, March 13, 2015 (UTC)

Mmhmm, I say move it. I'm totally up for it and would gladly help with that. Some of these quotes are really iffy and there's no point in changing the quotes tbh- they're main ones for a reason.

Schmeh, radical idea here, not really, but do we still need the spoiler tags? 17:26, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

Definitely! Spoiler tags warn that this will contain spoilers. At least the history points out which spoilers it has. 21:02, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

I'd say go for it, do you want me to start now? 07:38, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe let's wait a bit longer for other people to comment. 23:49, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure anyone else is going to comment, so I would think going ahead and moving things would be a good idea.

Alright let's do it. 06:02, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

(wow, late sorry) This entire wiki is basically spoils. Does it really warn against anything our readers don't already know? 04:59, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I say so. Like I have a family member reading the series for the first time, and I basically banned them from Warriors wiki, although I am okay with them looking at a few pages... as long as I'm there. I think others can relate, like when a new book comes out, I see a few spoilers around before I actually read the book. I think it's better to keep with the spoiler tags, it's more polite to new people anyway. I think if anyone knows warriors, they can expect to see spoilers in the name of the article, I think we can help make it easier for them. 00:27, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

tbh, Atelda's right. The entire wiki is a spoiler. While it may be polite, having chararts with injuries, descriptions that aren't in the allegiances, and even plot summaries are spoilers in their own right. The only thing that isn't a spoiler is reading the book. Having one spoiler warning on the front page, or even doing what other wikis do and stick the entire article under a "read more spoiler warning" would be good as well. The Dragon Age Wiki, does this, I believe. Or, we could implement what the Mass Effect Wiki does, and have spoilers for individual arcs. Doesn't matter if we even do anything— we'll always be a spoiler-filled website.

I honestly think putting spoiler tags at the tops of articles should be enough. If we took off all the spoiler content we wouldn't have a wiki at all. We've warned the people; if they want to read on anyway it's on them. Besides, as Atelda said, they should know already that there are spoilers 14:20, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said anything about removing the content. I said under a read-more spoiler thing- all you'd need to do is click to view it.

I think we both misunderstood each other. That wasn't what I meant; I was just saying that basically the whole wiki is a spoiler. I think I could have been more clear. 20:19, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

I understand the courtesy aspect of the spoiler warning, yet you really can't deny the nature of being a wiki intent on being the best encyclopedia on the Warriors series that we can be. Plus, is simple courtesy a strong reason to keep battling all the difficulty we have had maintaining that naive mindset that people come here not looking or expecting spoilers? Stealthfire, if you have to be there to prevent them from looking at a few pages on the wiki, then it's clear that the spoiler warnings really aren't doing much. 04:11, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

I think more for new people just putting it at the top is better. I'm not sure what the fuss is about. 04:55, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

It's not so much fuss as it is the necessity of it that is being discussed. It seems like the spoiler alert is becoming an antiquated practice that is becoming unnecessary in my opinion. 00:36, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

I actually have an idea, and I don't know if this has been brought up or not. I took a peek at what I believe to be the German Warriors wiki, and they have like drop down menus like most users have in their profiles to reduce the clutter. Maybe we could use those for each of the books they're in, their descriptions, etc.? Storm &#9835;  01:31, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

-nudges conversation- Storm  &#9835;  17:09, June 5, 2015 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean Storm? This is sounds interesting. 01:41, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

She means exactly what I suggested above. It's a show/hide thing that reduces clutter.

Yeah like how some people have on their profiles 'cats i like' and there's a hide/show thing. Maybe we could edit that and bumble it around a little bit to fit on every page. Like I know how Firestar's page is ridiculously long, and I mean really long. It would help reduce the size of the page if we put those kinds of drop down menus for every book/novella/whatever that they've been in. But in books that they're only in the allegiances and not seen in the book, we can keep those there, but still have them in the show/hide thing. I think we should make the spoiler tag thing more visible as well. Storm &#9835;  02:00, June 17, 2015 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I use the same thing for my profile, but I find that it takes longer for my computer to load so we want to be careful. 08:43, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand the rational of still having the spoiler tag let alone making it larger. Similarly, drop down boxes should probably only be used on the major characters and they should definitely not be for every single book. The extra coding is also hard to handle on loading and especially mobile. Honestly, I think it's fine as it is. 20:58, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

I think the spoiler tag is big enough, I don't get why we need to make it larger. The dropboxes are great, especially with characters that are the narrators, since that has lots of detail. Who knows? If we use dropboxes, maybe we candetail those sections a bit more too. 22:32, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

We could do like this wiki. When ever u click on a page it pops up with a warning. Emberstar  Floating in the stars of ember 05:54, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

FYI itll take like 10 seconds to load up Emberstar   Floating in the stars of ember 05:56, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

On those wikis with the spoiler warnings that pop up, it takes forever to load and sometimes don't even fully do. Putting that coding will make it hard for people to view the wiki. It's not like we don't have a spoiler warning at all. If people choose to ignore it, it's their fault. Plus, the very nature of a wiki is that it has spoilers - people should know that when they come here. Sorry, but I do not support implementing that coding but I could see maybe using dropboxes 14:44, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing here. It will take a while to load, and I look at a lot of pages sometimes in a day, it will become terribly irritating. 01:00, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we can just use tabbers for the books the cats appear in? Then instead of 'show' in the corner of it, we can put 'reveal spoiler' or something like that, but maybe for cats like briarlight and brightheart put their charart and description in a tabber as well?? 14:19, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

While I still believe the spoiler tag is a moot point, it should be enough. Like Icebreeze said, we gave them a heads up, they can do what they want with it. 01:04, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I still think the spoiler tag is enough. I still think that with some long pages we can use tabbers on the histories. 00:00, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Anymore comments? 01:40, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

I say go ahead for it, for the main characters/narrators, use a tabber, but for most other pages, it's best to stick with a spoiler tag as they usually aren't as important. 15:56, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

I've made a test page for the changes we would make if we went ahead (this also includes from other discussions). I got a major character and minor-ish character. I'm finding the history is much shorter, but the contents links are working weird. 02:30, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Those work great, Stealth! Imo the only chars who wouldn't get the boxes, are ones with few appearances and stuffs. Otherwise, these are good! 02:08, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best we do coming soon links to books, not series. I also think the see more words need to be bigger. I'll try to tweak test pages. 23:12, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Alright I made the changes. Is there anything else I should tweak before we make this official? 05:08, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

Page Numbers Idea-ish
Because of the difficulty of the translation with the page numbers between the ebooks and the prints, I was wondering if anyone thinks it would be a good effort to find the rate of change between the ebooks and the prints. It would be, for the most part, simple enough to find the equation, but I would need a lot of volunteers and it would take a bit of time, especially with the books that I don't have. It would be yield extremely accurate results (although trials would have to ensure that) and might be a good tool for everyone to use across all the projects with the potential exception of PCA. It's just a whim that I thought of and thought it might be useful, so what do you guys think? 02:11, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have been thinking about how ebooks are getting more and more popular, and the three novellas hardcopies are clashing with the ebooks. I think something does need to change, like a double cite: "Revealed on page 12 of Dovewing's Silence/page 127 of Tales from the Clans". I sometimes wonder if it also needs to display the chapter in the same way, because I don't think many ebooks display the page number. 04:24, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

Yah... ebooks dont have page numbers... Emberstar  Floating in the stars of ember 05:20, June 4, 2015 (UTC)

Or you could count the page numbers, or even just tweak the ref template so it says something like [Tales from the Clans, page number, Dovewing's Silence] or something like that.

Something like that, my ebook shows page numbers. Do we need to go three way??? Dovewing's Silence page ?, Dovewing's Silence Chapter ?, Tales From the Clans Page ?. I think there needs to be a better system for this. 09:05, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 22:32, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

How would we do this? I does seem like complicated coding a little. 01:22, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

I think we somewhat strayed from the original idea behind this, but it's actually much simpler than if/ifeq tags and template coding. 01:07, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

I think you took what I said the wrong way, Stealth. With what I said, you wouldn't need to add the chapter number for the novella- we can use references from Tales from the Clans, The Untold Stories, and now even Shadows of the Clans instead of using the novellas. If anyone questions it, then we can provide a chapter number.

Also if statements need to burn with unholy fire and lightning. I hate how annoying they are and they're too complicated...and also break quite frequently. ._.

I still think we need to do a double cite, cause I still have some novellas as e-books and it will be hard searching for a cite on there. 00:04, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

Anymore comments? 01:40, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Ebooks have no page at all, screens have different sizes, shapes and all that. You can read them horizontally or vertically and so on. It would be near to impossible to find the ratio between the number of ebook pages and the number of pages in a regular paperback book. I'd say we should just put the cite in and warn the reader that it is a cite from an ebook. 05:34, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a rare few do. (I have a kindle reader which is made to read ebooks off, and it displays page numbers) I still think we need to consider ebook anyway, especially since Mapleshade's Vengeance is not on hardcover yet. 01:34, August 17, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 00:23, August 27, 2015 (UTC)

Kinfolk
I was looking for an accurate cite for Morning Whisker, (it's kinda invalid now since the link no longer shows the proper comment) when I came across this lovely gem of information from Kate:
 * As far as I’m concerned, nieces, nephews and cousins aren’t a Warriors concept. Vicky and I have always gone to great pains to make sure that kits refer to their kin by name not familial connection. Occasionally we’ll use the words mother, father, brother or sister for emphasis or because no other word will do, but I have certainly never intentionally used the words niece, nephew or cousin because warriors simply don’t think in those terms. “Kin” is as close as they get to recognising family ties.

So... umm... what exactly do we do with this? Do we revamp the family sections with this information? Given that we are an encyclopedia, we're kinda bound by the information we're given.... I have no idea what we'll do, but it's obvious we'll need to do something.

Hmm, It is good to list all the family members we know, but we can try to change it a little. Maybe, we can just have the immediate family listed, then leave the rest as a tabber listed as 'Rest of Kin', like the see more section on Cloudstar's page. That sorta lists them as kin, but lets us know how they are kin because I think that's important. 00:30, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't think we should remove anything/add any sections. Sure, the cats don't think abut it, but we are a full encyclopedia and a niece/nephew is a proper part of a family. 08:48, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

I like Stealthfire's idea. While we do need to adapt it to match what Kate said, labeling non-immediate family as "kin", I believe we should keep their exact relationship so we can be as accurate as possible, and I think it would be useful to those using the wiki as a reference. It's important information, and there's no need to get rid of it 16:06, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

yeah theres no point just making it more complicated to tell, maybe put a disclaimer or something saying that while we organise them into cousins and whatever, the cats do not go beyond immediate family, basically. 19:39, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's a good idea. While the cats don't see each other beyond immediate family, we kind of do, so it's needed to have the relations listed and all. 00:39, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Along with Stealthfire's suggestion concerning possibly using a tabber or collapsible box, I think we should also rename the section from "Family" to "Kin". 02:06, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

Renaming "Family" to "Kin" seems like a good idea. And I don't think we need to get rid of the nieces and nephews and such as it organizes them for us, but the disclaimer would work. 20:34 Wed Jun 17 2015

I like that idea, renaming Family to kin. Makes it more warriors like. 21:51, June 22, 2015 (UTC)

Anymore comments? 01:22, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else is going to say anything- so we'd be renaming family to kin, and perhaps making a note somewhere...? We could always add I mean, I think it would work if it's put at the direct top of the section when we change it from "family" to "kin"?

I think we use the tabber like on Cloudstar's page, (just the other family members the Clans have no name for other than kin) and that warning is good too. Renaming Family to kin too, because the books use kin a lot more than family. (do they ever say the word 'family'?) 00:12, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

They rarely ever use the word family- I'm currently rereading the series, and I'm on Rising Storm...and I've only really ever seen the word "kin" used, even with references to Fireheart and Cloudkit/Cloudpaw- he's called "his sister's firstborn", "his sister's son", or "Fireheart's kin".

I fully agree with renaming family to 'kin', and I wouldn't object to using a tabber for really long family lines. However, cats with say, only a few named relatives [see; the DotC cats sans Wind's line] don't really need it, imo. Any more opinions, or is it best to get started with this? 00:44, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

I've made a test page for the changes we would make if we went ahead (this also includes from other discussions). I got a major character and minor-ish character. The side template of the page needs a little tweak, but other than that it's actually looking pretty good. Also if you look at the coding, I also tried Snowed's idea and it fits. 02:30, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Any comments before we add this to all pages? 21:59, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week, and I don't think anyone else will say thing. So, shall we get started?

Yep, go ahead. 23:12, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Mistlekit (TPB)
Is this really a 100% confirmation on her name and description? I'm starting to not agree with that... I mean, it says:
 * Then let's call her Mistlekit, since she was unnamed, and your description of her sounds perfect. :)

I don't see how that's different from some of the other cites we've had to consider invalid. Given that the description was decided by a fan, and she didn't confirm it as canon- she just said that it sounded perfect. It kinda reminds me of the "I like it- yes" thing that Kate did for Breezepelt and Nightcloud being on the run (which we know did not happen).

Description wise, if we're not going with the fan description, then the in-book description of dark tabby works. Not sure on the name, though. 13:20, July 11, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need to ask Kate what she means by 'sounds perfect'. Is that an approval that it is true or in her opinion it's a good description? 01:05, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Good idea, Stealth! Just saying but that means Flamenose's description would also be invalid as well. 02:46, July 13, 2015 (UTC)

It would be invalid to begin with, as that is not a direct confirmation of his description.

Okay I'll go and ask Kate, hopefully she will answer soon. 00:06, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

She answered but I'll quote it:

''I cannot confirm any description that does not appear in the books because I am just one of many imaginations that go into making Warriors. What I think may not be what another Erin thinks and, not matter how much I’d like to give you a definitive answer, the moment I do, I may be contradicting another Erin’s opinion.''

That doesn't really answer the question... 21:57, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 22:05, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

If she can't give an answer, then I think we need to remove it. Both Mistlekit and Flamenose's things can be called into question, and to keep it wouldn't be right.

I'm gonna have to disagree on Flamenose. Vicky was the one who wrote GC and she's the one who told us their names and that he was Larksong's mate. So I think what she says goes for this one. 22:29, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about the description for Flamenose. What she said is not confirmation of his description.

Jacob is pretty much spot on! Pretty much in my definition means almost definitely, so I would think we could at least change the description so he's a ginger cat. The darker face, legs, and tail part could be what Vicky wasn't definitive on. 22:40, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

No. We cannot take bits and pieces of a description to what we think she was talking about. It's either all or nothing. To do anything else would be an assumption.

Based on what Kate said and the wording of the cites for Mistlekit and Flamenose's descriptions, I don't think there was ever a definite confirmation of what they looked like, or in Mistlekit's case, even her name. So I think they should be removed. 23:25, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Her name was confirmed, and the fact she is a female. That's all. 01:37, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

imo only mistlekit's name and gender should be counted; her description was already in the book, technically... 02:03, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

All right I'll change Mistlekit's description, and I think adding to her description that Kate likes the idea is a good idea too. 23:12, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Character Trivia
So...while going over my userpages, I found little something I must've come up with a while ago for characters with longer trivia sections must've been during some sort of conversation about the matter, idk. Anyways, I thought perhaps I could bring that back to the surface for everyone to have a look at, just in case we ever wanted a more discreet way of taking care of long trivia sections not necessarily for just character pages, but for any pages with trivia. It obviously needs a lot of tinkering and messing with before it becomes anything official; I just thought I'd share the idea and see what everyone thought of it. hhh i sound so awkward im sorry im really not used to bringing up these sorts of things 14:50 Sun Jul 12

I think this is a great idea berry! this would make the trivia sections much neater :) 14:58, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good way to trim pages! There is a way to put cites in these boxes, correct? 16:33, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, cites can be placed in these boxes. haha ignore what i used for the example i used what came to mind first shh 17:16 Sun Jul 12

Hmm, we have been talking about using tabs for descriptions and history. I support this, but we don't want too many tabs. I think we can keep this non-collapsible and yeah sort it like you have. I've thought of another section to add: Related to other Cats or something along those lines. 21:46, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I'd also thought about the order of the trivia themselves. I think it's best to put them in order of the timeline. Yeah so called Firepaw when already a warrior first, then The Darkest Hour one. If we cannot go in timeline order (like an author mention) then we put it based on when it was released. I also suggest an author information section too, so information from the author. 22:08, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Woah woah, let's stick to the topic at hand. I think it's a good formatting tool, I'm just concerned that it might look odd with the number of trivia statements we have in correlation to the collapsible boxes. 01:14, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Is it okay for me to give this a bit of a bump? I'd like some more suggestions for how to improve this idea and want to see how many are actually in favour. 12:11 Fri Jul 24

I really like that idea, Berry. I think it'd be great to go ahead and implement that. I don'tknow if it'd be odd for the trivia statements - I think we should put it on an article, one with a lot of trivia, and one with not a lot, and see what it'd look like. We can work from there. 17:01, July 26, 2015 (UTC)

I like Icy's idea. We should try testing it out on those two kinds of trivia, and see how it'll go from there. 11:38, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing here too. I'd prefer to try it on characters that are not too major but fit the criteria, since this is just a test. I'd recommend Goldenflower as the bigger trivia test, and Whitetail as the smaller. 01:23, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Never mind that, I've made a test page for the changes we would make if we went ahead (this also includes from other discussions). I got a major character and minor-ish character. Firestar's one looks pretty good (full credit to Berry here) but Adderfang I cannot get the line in between the two trivia points >< help Berry! 02:30, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Fixed; all that was wrong was that you didn't have the correct code. The whole thing needs to be there; removing the 'mv-collapsible wikitable' thing removes a lot of what makes the table the table. It turned out well; thanks for setting out these examples, Stealth. im so proud of myself ;-; 06:33 Tue Aug 11

It looks good! However, I really can't get past the idea that it just looks excessive on minor characters. 21:12, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's why I tweaked the minor character page a little. It seems better to just have box lines without a heading to match the other trivias. 21:48, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 21:59, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

My original idea was to place it on pages of characters with a lot of trivia, like Firestar. I'd say more than three points would be where we'd put the template, while characters with, say, one wouldn't get it. If trivia is only errors or only other trivia, we'd just collect it into the one dropdown with 'Trivia'. I still have the work out how hide boxes if they aren't needed...so bear with me as I look for a way to do that. I'm glad y'all are liking this though. Makes me happy (': 11:27 Sat Aug 29

Minor characters
Since the topic was brought up again, I'd like to propose that we make a page for extremely minor characters. Here's an idea for a template, and here's an idea for a layout for the page. Opinions? 12:09 Thu Jul 30

That's not a bad idea at all. :) I like this, but what about if the character has more than one art? It's probably unlikely but what does everyone think? 20:37, July 30, 2015 (UTC)

If the character has more than one image, the character pixels gallery would work just fine. 08:03 Wed Aug 5

Is this for every single character that is mentioned in the books? 12:25, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

No, it's extremely minor characters that have some significance, or just extremely minor characters. Like some unnamed BloodClan warriors in the BloodClan battle. Some cats there appeared in more than one sentence, like the indentical gray toms recognised Barley as a former BloodClan cat. We could also look at the Dark Forest battle. I'd say unnamed characters that are mentioned in more than on sentence. 22:00, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

I've started a list of minor characters with the series. Just to say, but there is an error to the coding in the Charart template, since it goes after the main page name rather than the title. 08:05, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Err, it's way too short and doesn't list allegiances and book appereances. I think Berry's one is pretty good. 10:40, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

What??!!! I wasn't trying to take over Berry's version. That page is a page for potential minor characters and it just contains information about them. Not the actual page. Why the heck would I even try to take over Berry's page? It's rude, condescending and stupid .-. 11:26, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

???? It's just a list of unnamed characters by book and the info we have about them...? Rather than an actual template/page layout like Berry's...? Anyway, I'm not too sure we should make a page for all of them - I don't think the 'Orange WindClan warrior' who was part of a patrol or something gets a page - pages should be reserved for unnamed characters with somewhat of a significance (Dappletail's Kit, Lowbranch's Mother, etc.) Maybe for the most minor characters, we could have a page like 'minor unnamed characters' and categorize it by book, the info about the characters put in using Berry's template. Idk. 13:45, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

That...was the idea we started on. That's why I made the template. One big page for every extremely minor character too minor even for a page. That's why the page layout's there. That's what I image the page would end up looking like; lists of cats with info and the history. Also, I think Burnt's list is only there as that; a list. Not an attempt at replacing my template idea, so could we calm down a little? 13:49 Sat Aug 15

All right, my apologies. I think I missed something in the discussion, oops. 13:55, August 15, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I came across that way Brunt. It wasn't my intention. 00:55, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Anymore comments? 05:05, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to ask if everyone thinks the layout for the history sections looks okay. I could probably put everything into the template since most of the minor character's histories are short enough for it... 11:30 Sat Aug 29

There's a coding error for the charart template, it names the files after the page name rather than the character name. Is it possible to fix it? 11:38, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

I can assure you nothing like that happens in this template. I'm fixing up an example on my test wiki right now, so we'll all be able to see how it properly works then. 11:55 Sat Aug 29

Sorry, I read that wrong. Are you talking about the gallery template? We could probably create a separate template for this, or edit the one their is now to work for this page. 11:58 Sat Aug 29

Oh yeah, I was. Sorry for being unclear. 12:37, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Smoky and Coriander
In Smoky's and Coriander's articles, it said that they're both mates, which wasn't confirmed. On Smoky's family tree, it shows that Coriander is his mate. Without any proof they are mates, it shouldn't be up there. Songheart (talk) 21:59, July 30, 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it's clearly said in Bramblestar's Storm, given that not only did Smoky say that Coriander replaced Floss, he was brushing his fur up against her, and even Daisy is shocked, saying that he thought Smoky loved Floss. It's clearly obvious they're mates. Just because there's not a page number does not make a cite invalid.

I know. That's why I removed them, because I thought there wasn't anything saying they were mates. Songheart (talk) 22:12, July 30, 2015 (UTC)Songheart

It was added before I could obtain a hardbound copy of Bramblestar's Storm, and I just forgot to change it, is all. Next time, just ask instead of removing the information claiming it isn't valid. =P We allow the chapter numbers, because otherwise, most the stuff would be considered null and void... since not everyone gets a hardbound copy right when the books are released. I know I need to wait a few days, and then I go through and fix most of the cites I've added... I just happened to forget about those, is all. The cite is very clearly stated in the book and chapter specified. We do the same thing for novellas, as they do not have page numbers.

Clearly obvious =/= confirmed, though. We need an actual confirmation on that. And for 'replaced', it could also mean 'replaced Floss as a mouser' which is what the barn cats are. I'm pretty sure we've had similar cases in the past, but ones that we couldn't consider valid because it wasn't directly said. 01:24, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Well, the "I thought Smoky loved Floss" comment doesn't exactly say nothing, y'know.

That's the only comment that gives up any backing; otherwise there's nothing else, and even then it doesn't outright state it. I'm pretty we can't use assumptions as cite, can we? 21:45, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

I mean, that almost outright says that Smoky and Floss are no longer mates as he's taken in another one. You would never say something like that to anyone unless you were certain they were with someone else. 07:18 Sun Aug 9

Even if that may be the case, they could be not mates, perhaps she is just assuming. Either way, unless we get a direct confirmation, like how so many other pairings have needed to be in the past [Lionheart and Frostfur, for example], that's just an assumption, even with sufficient backing. 12:53, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

I sorta get what you mean Bbun but I kinda disagree, but since it's how we do it around here... do we even know if they are fully mates? They could be on their way to becoming mates but aren't yet. 01:50, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 23:00, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

I think their are mates because Corr seemed to be a little protective about him and all, and like what someone said before, she was so affectionate to Smoky, and he seemed to not care. Giving hint that their mates. : P 23:05, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Beebs on this one. We don't know for sure. It might be obvious, yes, but there's no statement to back it up - just Daisy's assumption. This case is similar to the debate between apprentice and warrior's names. Even if it's obvious that...for example, Cinderpelt's kit name was Cinderkit, we can't put that because we don't know for sure. It's the same case here. 22:21, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

Character Descriptions
Alright, this is becoming too major and confusing to not discuss about. Many many pages with character descriptions are being removed. Like Sharpclaw (SC) and his sharp eyes, and Clear Sky and his icy eyes. Why? We already sorted out the synonym thing and suddenly we are removing everything that describes the eyes' colours. I do not understand at all.

I think we also need a new system for this stuff, as I keep getting put in the dark with this and it is just leading to much confusion. 01:48, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Basically everything that's not a physical description, like soft paws, powerful claws, etc. You can't see those, you'd have to feel them. Physical descriptions are like something you see at first glance. 02:00, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Whoever added the Clear Sky thing didn't even check the context. It said his eyes looked like chips of ice because they were narrowed. Context is everything, and whoever wants to add things needs to read before they do. Also, powerful claws, soft paws, ect... that stuff makes no sense to have in a description.

And I saw on Pips description, the dog, that he liked to run around and sometimes chase cats. That does not need to be in a description. 02:25, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

If anything, it's best to establish what's in a description, and what's not in one. You know, to make it easier for once? Perhaps explaining certain contexts and what they mean for desc. , maybe? 00:29, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, Beebs. A description should be what you see at first glace- ie; pelt color, eye color, gender (keep in mind these are cats and scents also give away a cat's gender), size, condition of fur (ragged, sleek, fluffy, ect), and things along those lines. Claw size for cats like Bramblestar and Tigerstar too, since it's a signifigant part of their character. You can't tell if a cat's claws are sharp, if their muscles are hard or soft, or anything like that just by looking.

We should add this this little bit to the guidelines; just to clarify that descriptions are purely physical and can be seen at first glance, unless it's a major part of their character or what they were named for, and to remind users to check the context before editing. <span style="">07:16 Sun Aug 9

Actually just to add you can see if a cat's claws are sharp. just adding that in. 00:24, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

It's sorta the same with soft fur too. A cat's fur can look soft. 21:59, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Really? I don't know. My cat has pretty long, shiny fur that looks soft but when I do touch it it's really coarse and not that soft. 02:27, August 26, 2015 (UTC)

Dead Cat Talk
Firstly, I think we need to remove the post-death thing since it's not really needed anymore.

Secondly, are we giving cats of the Tribe of Endless Hunting a rank? It seems they are similar enough to StarClan, Vicky seems to think they are very similar. All other information we have on the Tribe of Endless Hunting is from the books so... 02:27, August 19, 2015 (UTC)

Well, only an admin can remove it from the template, and I'm only going to do that if we can come to a clear decision. Also, one word from Vicky doesn't automatically mean much in my eyes, imho. Regardless, if we'd do that, then we'd probably need to also shift the discussion to PCA and give them blanks. Although, I was under the impression that they kept some form of organization... I can't remember who said it, but it might have been Kate? I still don't think we know enough about the Tribe of Endless Hunting to make this decision, but that's just me.

Comments? 00:00, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Tbh, I agree with Jayce. I don't think we have enough about them... 11:29, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with Skye and Sorrel - there's just not enough information. 13:26, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Nature/personality section
We have sections like this on animal pages, so I don't see why we don't have short sections describing the personalities of the cats whose character is fleshed out enough for a clear personality to show. (Firestar, Cloudtail, Sorreltail, etc.) Other wikis do this, and it's a rather important piece of information, especially for those looking for character references for fanfics. I think this may have been discussed in the past but a clear conclusion was never decided upon...so, opinions? <span style="">11:22 Sat Aug 29

I do think this a good idea - we could all work on a personality together, throwing in personality traits and working toward a full paragraph/s of personality. Maybe we could do it like we do pages - someone nominates with their full piece, and others pitch in with their suggestions. That way, there wouldn't be many disagreements and edit wars, and the final piece wouldn't be constantly edited for different things on the page. Just suggestions. 11:27, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Personalities are opinions, people may have inconsistent opinions on different character's personality traits. Some characters don't even have specified personalities at all. I think this is unnecessary, unreliable and it's an opinion rather than a fact. There was actually a page that was made for this, but then it was decided to be deleted in the end... 11:37, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Ferncloud's general caring air or Firestar's sense of leadership are opinions; we'd probably encounter issues with cats like Thistleclaw, but there are characters that have personalities. Also, saying a personality is an opinion is doing a great disservice to the writers, and throwing a character's development out of the window, so, as an author myself, I'd appreciate it if you didn't say that. ._. <span style="">12:01 Sat Aug 29

Well, personality isn't an opinion to the authors - they know what their characters' personality is going to be. But it does become an opinion. People/cats in the book may have different views of a character, which means there could be some bias (ex: Thistleclaw, Breezepelt) plus people reading the book could interpret certain actions in different ways. But maybe for the most major characters, like Firestar, where his intended personality is very clear. 12:19, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, chill out- my comment was nowhere near to anything that offensive. Like Ice said, it's an opinion to us readers. People have different opinions on each character's personalities. We are an encyclopedia, and personalities aren't facts when we cite them- they are opinions. And as for Firestar, it is actually pretty inconsistent. Many one-star reviewers on amazon are discussing here and there about him being a struck-up arrogant and perfect stereotype instead of sense of a fair, calm and wise leader as others think. Tl;dr: Personalities are too inconsistent to be properly cited in an encyclopedia. 12:36, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm gonna have to disagree with this. Character personalities are the readers' opinion. For example, I think Thistleclaw is ambitious. Roo could say she thinks Thistleclaw is not ambitious enough. I'm not sure, I just disagree because I think that personality traits are up to the reader and the authors do have different opinions on the traits as well sometimes. I just don't think this is a great idea and maybe it should just be referenced in the history section. Even then, we wouldn't have a lot of space to fill out about personality. It'd basically just be like, "Ferncloud is caring." We can reference that in her history. That's just my take. 15:07, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

I think it will become too hectic to make, and there are some characters we don't have enough information to make it. 22:31, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Join?
Can I join?

~xXPatchfeatherXx~ (talk) 21:47, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

Sure welcome! Make sure to read through the FAQ and Guidelines. 22:47, August 30, 2015 (UTC)

Rainfur (TC) ~ Silver Nomination
i can't add anymore quotes. the two she says in the book are on her page. first GC character nomination yeee <span style="">05:42 Tue Sep 1

Do you mind moving her main quote to her quotes? A main quote is usually supposed to be representing a cat's personality. Her main quote doesn't really say much about her. I don't think every single cat needs a main quote, especially minor minor characters. 19:09, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

I think a narrator quote or two would be useful in this situation. The quotes show what Rainfur did when she took in Harepounce's kits- apparently suckling five kits is quite a feat.

Houndstar ~ Silver Nomination
Doesn't say or do much. Weird name comments? 06:24, September 1, 2015 (UTC)

Chiveclaw ~ Silver Nomination
delicious <span style="">07:22 Tue Sep 1

Littlestep - Silver Nomination
No other appearances, and I don't care for his quote enough for it to be a main quote, since it doesn't make a great deal of sense without Flashnose's comment.