Warriors Wiki talk:World

Citations on the Events Timeline
Alright, I need to point this out. Half of the Events Timeline is made of pure assumption.

A lot of the citations say something like "the river was icy" to proove that a cat was born in the winter, when rivers can be icy in late autumn and early spring. I see a bunch of citations without any page numbers listed.

For instance, citation #4: "Thistleclaw, Sweetpaw, and Rosetail are born two moons after Bluekit and Snowkit, making it late Newleaf when they're born" We don't know it was the first moon of Newleaf when Bluekit and Snowkit were born, and thus can't substanciate that Thistlekit and his siblings were late newleaf.

There are almost no normal citations on this page consisting of book and page number only.

I think that the citations on this page could really use some investigation and revision. Basically, the entire page needs to be revised. And that falls to this project to take care of. 20:33, June 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * At the absolute least the fact that this page is conjecture-based rather than provable fact based needs to be addressed at the top in a warning box styled thingy. Half of that page probably isn't even correct, because it's mostly guesswork, and conjecture has a tendency to be proven wrong when better information (or actual fact) comes to light. The article needs a definite review to make sure every citation has a page number that at least proves the source of the conjecture, if not conjecturing being outlawed (as it is on the /rest/ of the wiki) or rules for the exception being written and outlined on the articles talk page (to clarify that this article does not comply with "no proof-no inclusion" rules). 20:37, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

I agree it needs kind of a revision. I've been talking to teldy about that for a while and finally got the example for what I was telling her about here. I still need to make a template for the double cites so it's easier, and make a minor edit to the reflist template so it's able to have group names, but it gives you a basic idea at least. 21:26, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

Also on the topic of the Events Timeline, I'm just curious, will a new timeline be made for the next series of books? It'll be a bit far flung from the current timeline to include unless we're told specifically how many years pass between the beginning of the Clans and Crookedstar's Promise. 22:59, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

So are we going to rebuild the whole thing or try to find correct citations that actually say what season it was? Either way, I can help with that. --Starry Hawk My Talk!  23:04, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

That's a good "template" Paleh, I think it could work once it's ready. And Starry, we are basically going to revise the page and fix the citations with page numbers etc. 09:31, 04, 06, 2012

Hey, it's me. I was checking in on the wiki and I naturally came to PW. :) I would like to point out that the Detailed Events Timeline has appropriate references for Crookedstar's Promise and Bluestar's Prophecy (I hope :)) and that you could take some of the references from there for those two books. Thanks, 04:03, June 13, 2012 (UTC)

Good point Squirrel (and good to know you're doing okay :)) any correct references on either timelines could help with fixing the references for the opposite timeline. 08:59, 14, 06, 2012

So are we in agreement that the timeline should be changed? I've finished the cite in a cite template, and Lightning has helped make the reflist template work, so everything's ready to start changing the page if we all agree. 06:13, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should make a start on this. 02:38, 30, 06, 2012

I agree too. =3 06:14, July 3, 2012 (UTC)

Some parts of the article are indeed in a poor state, especially the Crookedstar / Bluestar and the OOTS sections. First of all, there should be references to the seasons (e.g. where it is revealed that it was summer when Sol returns to the clans? references to vegetation, long days etc).

Also, we agreed that the Events Timeline should list only major events (as a brief list) and major characters. No need to add lengthy descriptions, minor things, minor characters - there is the Detailed Timeline for that.

On the other hand, I wouldn't say that "only those are normal citations that contain book and page number." We should aim for those of course, but in some cases an information can be confirmed even if there is no exact statement in the book (for instance, it can be seen that Warrior's Refuge takes place in summer, even if nowhere says "it is summer"). The purpose of the article is to show the succession of major events in the Warriors saga and universe, which is a very useful information, but I doubt we can find hard references for everything, as I suspect even the authors did not pay much attention to it.

Kind regards, 19:48, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Alright Helix, we'll keep that in mind. Everyone seems to be in agreement here, so can we implement this? 01:40, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

Well with no one objecting, let's do it. :3 01:50, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, keeping in mind that things like "it's stated that the river is icy" is by no means proof that it's winter. 01:52, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

We can't only accept things clearly saying "it's greenleaf" or something. I think something like icy rivers would be a good enough cite, but saying it's warm out wouldn't. The river's only ever icy in the winter, but it's warm plenty of other times. I thought Kit said something about the no proof no inclusion rule not fully applying to this page? 02:01, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else, for cites like that we can simply make it say Implied rather than Revealed on questionable cites. 02:03, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that it never snows in early spring or late autumn? It does. It is not a valid citation for the time of year. You need something a bit more solid than that. If we're going to use citations like that, we need a big disclaimer on the page stating that the information presented is based partially on assumption, something that is not meant to be present on this website. 02:42, August 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'm for the disclaimer thing. If we keep only events with exact references, we should remove 80% of the entries, rendering the page useless. 19:07, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a disclaimer. Honestly, I thought that's what Kit mentioned before, and I'd been basically supporting it this whole time... xD 03:07, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Supporting a disclaimer. ~01:29, 22, 09, 2012~

Sorry, but I don't support the disclaimer. If a new user, or a big fan, or Kate herself came to look something up, what would they think if they saw a disclaimer, saying not everything on that page is a fact. They'd think all pages were like that, and they might never trust the wiki for facts again. Sorry, but that's just my opinion. =3 00:46, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

The Mossy Clearing ~ Silver Nomination
Comments? o3o 05:07 Sat Sep 29

(I apologies if I'm wrong, phone is being derpy) Is it possible to cite some of The Sight and Twilight, and maybe even some more of the introduction? ~19:53, 01, 10, 2012~

Can you expand the uses section? 00:41, October 3, 2012 (UTC)

Still working on this? 21:34, October 13, 2012 (UTC)

May I take this over? x3 01:52, October 23, 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. 03:48, October 23, 2012 (UTC)