Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

Willowbreeze - kittypet
I think Willowbreeze needs a kittypet rank. It was clear that she lived the life of a kittypet for sometime. If Tallstar got a kittypet rank for staying with the twolegs for a little time, she should too. *shrugs* 09:48, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, but let's see what others think. 23:05, March 8, 2015 (UTC)

I think both of them shouldn't be kittypets, I mean, none of them were really kittypets, they were just prisoners and Tallstar only ever got into the house because he needed medical attention. 00:44, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Tallstar stayed inside the house for a fairly decent period of time, accepted their help, and basically lived there with Jake for a bit. If we gave Jake a loner/rogue image for living the life of a loner and rogue, then what makes Tallstar any different?

I disagree. Willowbreeze did not willingly stay with Twolegs. Qualify how long she "lived the life of a kittypet", because from my understanding, it was maybe a day if not less. 02:06, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Tallstar did not willingly stay with the twolegs either, the twolegs only ever captured him to cure his bellyache, if he gets his kittypet rank, then Willowbreeze should, since the twoleg's intention there was clearly to capture her and keep her as their house cat. However, I don't think any of them should get their ranks, because they were never kittypets. 02:54, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

Graystripe nevet stayed willingly. He got the KP image because of how long he stayed, I think.

Graystripe was considered their house cat, and he lived the life as a kittypet and was considered one. Tallstar didn't, all he did was to recieve care from a Twoleg and sleep in a kittypet bed, for the whole time, he wanted to escape, and wasn't really considered a kittypet by anyone. It's basically repeating Willowbreeze, she was captured, and lived the life of a kittypet too for a short while. If Tallstar gets his rank, then she should, because the situation she was in fits Tallstar's situation perfectly. I don't think either should get their ranks, because they were never actually kittypets. 03:53, March 9, 2015 (UTC)

do we even know the twolegs intended to make her a kittypet? all they did was put her in a cage. they werent even in a house or anything, and they could have intended to euthanise her for all we know. i cant speak for tllstar because i never read his SE, but for willowbreeze i dont think she should get one.

If Willowbreeze gets one for Twolegs capturing her/caring for her briefly, then Leafpool, Brightheart, Owl Eyes, Pebble Heart, and Sparrow Fur would get them as well, but they were never official kittypets and so should not receive a kittypet rank. 20:32 Mon Mar 9 2015

Official or unofficial, they're treated as kittypets, I think they get it. 06:32, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

how on earth is being stuffed into a cage being treated as a kittypet? 06:37, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Neither Tall or Willow should get it, imho. 07:45, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... If she doesn't get this rank, I think Tall shouldn't have either, tbh. I agree with burnt. 10:29, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt she'd be considered a kittypet. Like Skt said- stuffed into a cage isn't being a kittypet. Also, she didn't stay there for very long. Idk about Tall, however. 15:27, March 11, 2015 (UTC)

Tallstar got it, I believe, because he fits the qualifications for a kittypet- it's not that he is one, it's because he fit it. I think there's a list somewhere (not sure where it is off the top of my head) that determines this.. I'll see if I can find it.

Well then basically Willow should get it- she was living as one too. She ate kittypet food and played with their house folk. I'm sorry, but I still don't think Tall should get it, just because he slept in a kittypet bed one night and got stuck in the house because they wanted to treat his bellyache doesn't mean he should get the rank. 00:07, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Being held captive isn't the same thing as being kittypet, though? She was forced to do those things, and unlike Graystripe, wasn't there for an extended period of time.

Okay, I just checked CP...and she was with them for maybe a day, if that. Sorry, but I really don't think that's long enough to be considered a kittypet.

If Tall gets it, she should, imo. Tall was forced to do those things too, and he still got it. Regardless, I still think none of them should get it. They were never kittypets. 00:33, March 12, 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with Burnt. 00:23, March 26, 2015 (UTC)

Is it agreed or not? 04:54, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Tallstar was treated like a kittypet, he was kept after he recovered from that food poisoning, and the Twoleg definitely planned to keep him longer. Didn't it say in a guide book that RiverClan cats are sometimes taken by Twolegs to become kittypets? That sounds like Willowbreeze's case, it's just she was rescued. 05:29, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Do we know that? We don't know what the twoleg was thinking. Being captured for medical care isn't a kittypet. 06:20, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with Burntclaw. We can't just assume the Twolegs wanted them to become kittypets. Neither of them should get the rank. Being captured for a day or two doesn't make you a kittypet. 12:38, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

Is it agreed that they both don't get kittypet ranks or something? 07:57, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, we ned more opinions. 11:56, April 22, 2015 (UTC)

I think they both get kittypet ranks. They were treated like kittypets, (kept in a house, fed food, Talltail using the litterbox) so they were kittypets. 22:04, April 26, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly- they fit the qualifications. It didn't matter if they were considered actual kittypets or not. They lived as such (even for a brief period of time), and even Leafstar got one, despite not considering herself a kittypet in the least.

Uh Leafstar was called a kittypet, but they weren't- they were just shut up in a house for a day or two... 08:15, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

willowbreeze was never seen with food or anything else, if I remember correctly. she was only seen in a cage, therefore she at the least shouldn't get an image. 08:21, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the Twoleg's intentions were, she lived the life of a kittypet for a bit. I think that counts. 20:36, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

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)

Descriptions alongside toggles
ok this has been bugging me for a while now, but since we use toggles for characters like brackenfur and mapleshade, I don't get why we don't list the secondary description alongside it? it's not that hard to have the second description below the normal one just saying 'brackenfur is also frequently described as a ginger tom'. it saves the confusion of having to bloody look everywhere for the reason for the toggle, too. 15:04, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

It would make loads of sense, especially in Mapleshade's case- she's called ginger-and-white and a tortie multiple times; Mapleshade's Vengeance has her as ginger-and-white. Might prove useful to add the alternate descriptions.

hi can we get some input on this 03:03, March 29, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. It avoids any confusion and such. Just make sure if we do that, have the main charart image switch between the official and alt images. 00:01, March 31, 2015 (UTC)

Is anyone else going to comment on this?

I guess it'd be safe to go ahead and do that 00:47, April 27, 2015 (UTC)

How would we do it is my question. Do we put the secondary description below the official one of something? And what sort of coding are we looking at? If we are anyway. 20:36, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

We could put "Mapleshade is a [insert ginger-and-white description]. She is also very frequently described as a [insert tortiseshell-and-white description here]." What order it goes in doesn't quite matter, I think, since with Mapleshade's description, it's fairly equal for either description. There's no extra coding or anything- the toggle is already built into the charcat template.

Not a bad idea, maybe right under the formal description? 00:27, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Mmhmm, sounds good to me. It's right there at the top of the page- since the toggle is there, the alt description should be as well.

im fine with characters like mapleshade having frequently described as such as such, while characters like longtail can maybe have something like 'He is alternatively described as a silver tabby tom' or something similar, since his pelt colour is just never really mentioned unlike mapleshade and brackenfur. 09:36, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion
I think since the amount of articles to nominate is winding down, perhaps more articles with unwritten sections could be brought to attention? Perhaps people could collaborate together to write it out. What do y'all think? 01:00, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

A lot of silver/gold pages do have uncompleted sections. How would we do this? 05:38, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

Demote them. I think that would bring them to attention. 11:41, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

No, don't demote them. .-. Make a list or something along those lines of the ones that need completeing, and then tackle it from there. I have off work until Saturday, so I'm gonna crack down a bit later today and get to writing some of the ones from Dawn of the Clans.

That sounds fair enough to me 11:58, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think the list on the front page is becoming unreliable... I'll go ahead and update it when I'm done with the spoiler tags. 22:35, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Demotion is a last-ditch/last-resort effort. The list on the front page would be a decent attention grabber, but you could also change the content drive to those in desperate need of more content. Simultaneously, using the Stub-section template would be a huge indicator too. 04:54, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the front page. I think it's nearing time to change the content drive anyway. Waspwhisker and Harveymoon look good and Cherrytail just needs Firestar's Quest expanded. I'm about to work on Sharpclaw next for silver nomination so I'll be fixing his page. 05:18, May 15, 2015 (UTC)

I think that like, every month, per say, we could pick about 5-10 articles who need a certain section expanded on and work on them. I think it wouldn't be hard to do that because a month gives us a lot of time to work on 'em, time permitting. 11:15, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

I'm regaining interest in Warriors, so I'm overly willing to crack down on articles. Plus, I don't have school anymore (I was removed early) so.. -- Nachtide  The  Wikian   Squad 07:00, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Sharpclaw (SC) ~ Silver Nomination
Finally done! Quite happy with this. Comments? 08:47, May 16, 2015 (UTC)


 * This is wonderful, Stealthfire! Could you go through the article and eliminate unprofessional phrases such as "is shown", "is seen", "is mentioned", etc. and the like. Similarly, you should probably try to keep the entire article in one tense. 04:01, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

Revised 05:37, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

Descriptions / Synonyms
I've been going through the descriptions as of late, and I've noticed that there are a lot of double words in them. I know we're supposed to make sure the descriptions are in-depth and all, but would it be too much to ask that users go through and make sure what's in there should even be in there to begin with? I recently did this with Sharpclaw's page, just because it was the first page that came up on the activity feed. The word brilliant also means sharp and clear, so we wouldn't need one word when the other is already mentioned. idk, it's a huge pet peeve of mine to see so many synonyms in one description.

The word sleek is also the same way- it means smooth and glossy, therefore we wouldn't need all three in the description. I'm not saying to not add anything like that, but perhaps we could start to really use a dictionary, and crawl through the descriptions to weed out the extra wording? Not everything belongs in a description. Say if Hawkfrost is called sleek, but then glossy a couple pages later. We wouldn't add glossy, since sleek already covers it.

tldr; please please please start to use a dictionary when adding things to character pages. I cannot stress this enough- while it's important, what's even more important is making sure our descriptions make sense. Not just to us (it'll make sense to us because we wrote it), but to the average, every day, wiki-browsing user who just wants to know what eye color Firestar has or something like that.

Honestly, I think intense could be kept. Intense (color) = Deep in color. Otherwise, I agree with you. 11:56, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. We don't need a bunch of the same things. I always wondered why they listed "sleek" and "glossy" and stuff like that next to each other. It just makes descriptions really unnecessarily long. I'm all for you removing that stuff 14:26, May 16, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe we can make a reference page. Like "Sleek also means glossy" and etc. I know it seems a little bit cliche but it is a bit difficult for people who's native language isn't UK english and that. And I'm not perfect with word definitions either. It would stop it also happening in the future too. 01:24, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea! Thank you for bringing it to attention, Skye. I do believe there should be a reference page on what are synonyms, though! 11:14, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

If you question a synonym, you should ask. A reference page for synonyms would become obsolete real quick. Using google or an online thesaurus/dictionary is quicker than trying to track down a "personalized" thesaurus on the wiki. If you want help compiling a personal list real quick, I can always help, but the reasons aren't very convincing to me to make it wiki-wide in my opinion. There are plenty of quick resources you can use to confirm a word's meaning and the majority of our userbase speaks English. 04:19, May 18, 2015 (UTC)

What's becoming a more prominent issue as we reorganize descriptions is what should be included in the description. A general rule is: if they're named for it, add it. However, many of the components to descriptions are pretty useless, like we're basically describing that they're cats (e.g. "clear eyes", "delicate noses", "furry tails", etc.). Yet, many other components are rather questionable as to whether they should be included such as the shape of the head (as Jayie points out). What do you think? 03:12, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for in-depth and clarity in descriptions, but adding "furry tails", "round eyes" (unless their eyes are specifically mentioned that way; ie: Rose and Lily), and other things like "sharp claws" seems so pointless. We know they're cats, the readers know they're cats, and mentioning half of it seems so pointless. I have the same issue with the broad shoulder thing, especially in the cases of Tigerstar and Bramblestar- it's mentioned so many times, and it's so redundant, that calling them "big" or "massive" or even broad in general would be a bit more fitting. You can only have "broad shoulders" or "broad [insert body part]" in there so many times before it becomes unreadable.

Also, the white teeth thing. While it's uncommon for feral cats, let's all be reminded that these are cats who live in groups, practice medicine, and have their own religion. Having white teeth seems totally legit compared to that.

I think it's okay for the sharp claws part, like that means they take care of their claws and are healthy. The clear eyes also represents how healthy they are too. The well-shaped means they have a good shaped body. I think we need to interpret the descriptions a bit more and what they represent, like broad shoulders means they are naturally a strong cat. 03:38, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

People, can we please finish discussing this before making changes? I'm seeing people going around and taking away 'sharp claws' and 'brilliant eyes' can we please stop until we've sorted this out? 22:14, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

I already started doing that before it got brought to PC- some of it doesn't make sense and really isn't needed. We don't need PC's permission to remove some of the stuff.

Alright, almost two years ago, when I joined, I was the citation machine, as some people lovingly called it. I, personally, think that the further details of characters are needed. When I was little, and wanted to draw the cats, I used WWiki's descriptions of the cats (i.e. 'brilliant eyes' and 'fluffy tail'). I personally think that by removing the further details (synonyms are completely irrelevant- remove those if they're redundant -shrug-), we are chopping off our own feet. Because while it may not seem useful for us, it surely is helpful for the users who like to draw and want to be as detailed as possible. That's just me. -- Nachtide  The  Wikian   Squad 04:13, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point. I used to do the same. I think especially when no one has thought much about the synonyms, has this only been brought up now? Cause I know Warriors wiki have been around for a few years and there didn't seem to be any problems until now. I still think we should discuss this more, because some great and reasonable descriptions are being deleted, so we need to sort out if we are doing this, then if we are, what are we removing. So can we please halt it for now? 04:50, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

But brilliant eyes and fluffy tails doesn't make that much sense. Who cares if their eyes are brilliant and piercing? Half of the cites for "round" or "wide" eyes aren't even legitimate cites- no one bothers to check the context. We only just started adding some of this, because when I joined, the descriptions were much simpler. We are here to compile a database, not to describe Cinderheart's delicate nose or something like that. =\

i agree the eyes are usually out of context but fluffy tails do make sense, because obviously not every cat is the fluffiest thing you've ever met, they might only be of around medium fur length rather than long, but still quite fluffy. while some descriptions need some pruning, not everything needs to be removed, especially since it helps people imagine a cat more easily. so im with synonyms being removed but other things (like white teeth honestly) staying. 06:01, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

Rainswept Flower ~ Silver Nomination
Comments? I don't think she'll be making anymore major appearances. 01:24, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

CBA? 04:07, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think three days is ample enough waiting time when you CBV/CBA a section like this... anyways, is there any way you could try and tweak the section for A Forest Divided? It seems the names are used a bit too much, and it looks more focused on Clear Sky, instead of Rainswept Flower? Some of the sentences also appear a bit too simple, for lack of a better word? Perhaps be a bit more descriptive and use other ways to describe cats like Quiet Rain and Clear Sky?

Revised What do you mean? Like bigger articles I would wait four or five days for CBA or something? 04:29, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

The size of the article doesn't mean much of anything- both Sharpclaw and Rainswept Flower are important characters (or at least Rainswept Flower was, before she died) in their own rights. Regardless, PC isn't as active as the other content projects, so I don't think three days is an appropriate timeframe, unless the project is super active and the article's had tons of comments or something like that. PC isn't PCA- we go with three days in PCA because the activity calls for it, while here, five days on almost all articles would be more appropriate. The only ones that can pretty much be instantly CBV'd are probably ones like Flowerpaw, or the allegiance only characters, where there isn't much of anything to work on.

With articles like these, anyone could find something to fix, tweak, add, removed, whatever have you. And given that some people (using Atelda as an example here) are busy sometimes, three days doesn't quite give them enough time to really sit, read the article, and give you a well-thought out critique or perhaps discover some grammar/tense issues. Given that you should only nominate...umm... I think it's three articles at a time (or at least it used to be, did we change that??), these being nominated without any form of comments (with some of them being three days between a posting and a CBV), it seems like now they're just being pushed through. It's nothing against you, Stealth, and you're doing a phenomenal job as deputy, I just think you should slow it down just a tiny bit. =)

Alright, I think I'll give articles five days for CBA. That gives it ten days minimum through the process for people to read. 05:13, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Cricket ~ Silver Nomination
Poor Cricket, Credit to Fox Girl for the history. Comments? 07:37, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Could u plz give credit to me for writing the history? ._. otherwise this looks good. 10:17, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! Completely forgot to check. 21:55, May 17, 2015 (UTC)

CBA? 04:07, May 20, 2015 (UTC)

Ages of Whitewing and Squirrelflight/Leafpool
Hey, while I was browsing through the Wiki, I noticed that Leafpool and Squirrelflight are older than Whitewing as seen here http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Squirrelflight#cite_note-np113-1 and here http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Whitewing#cite_note-fq509-1, when in actuality Whitewing was born before them in Firestar's Quest. Should this be changed or stay as it is?--Songheart (talk) 16:54, May 18, 2015 (UTC)Songheart

Join Request
Eheh. May I join? -- Nachtide  The  Wikian   Squad 05:49, May 21, 2015 (UTC)

"Kate's Blog" - Elaboration
Lately, I've been seeing a lot of citations being removed (and justifiably so) for not having a given description in their source. However, I think some of them are difficult to find, so I was thinking: why not place a note (at the bottom with the source) that states what blog comment or paragraph to find it in? -- Nachtide  The  Wikian   Squad 07:09, May 21, 2015 (UTC)