Talk:Antpelt (SC)/Archive 1

Inconsistency
Like, I'm sorry but sometimes I don't get your logic staff. You separate this Antpelt from the WindClan warrior, saying it's a new ShadowClan tom - which is fine, even though personally I disagree with this. Yet still on Whitetail's page it says she was mistakenly called a ShadowClan warrior despite appearing in Battles of the Clans the same way Antpelt does. Please make up your mind on whether you're going to treat this as a mistake or as two whole new cats with the exact same names and - at least for Antpelt - the same fur color which happens to exist at the same time as two WindClan warriors (which I find more than unlikely but that's beside the point right now). So please if you could just bring some consistency into this that would be great. Thanks 12:54, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to be hostile? If there's something that proves Whitetail and the one from Battles of the Clans are the same, then it stays. As it stands with Antpelt, there is nothing that links them besides a name, and we can't assume that they're both the same. We try and stay as consistent as we can, and your comment is actually borderline offensive. Our logic is perfectly sound; just because you don't agree with it does not give you the right to go "I don't get your logic". They were seperated due to nothing linking them. I haven't seen the thing with Whitetail, but if there's nothing saying that they're the same cat (descriptions are not an indicator of anything), then they should be separated.


 * Now where in my statement do you read that I order to have this Ant and the other to be together? I don't seem to have enunciated myself well enough there it seems. So let me put it in other words: My opionion on the topic of keeping the articles separated or together is not the reason why I wrote this and it was not my intention to let it look like I'm one of those guys who thinks fur color alone (or in this case: fur color and name) makes evidence enough to just assume it's the same cat. I was not speaking in favor of putting them toether, especially not with a puny argument like pelt color.


 * I will try to put it differently: I personally disagree with having them separated but that does not mean I expect you to change it purely on my opionion.


 * What I was trying to get at is the inconsistency in the way Whitetail and Antpelt were treated and that is what I meant with not getting your logic. It is not the why (the arguments that speak for/against a separation) but rather the way you apply those "rules" that determine separation or not to the characters.


 * If you say Whitetail hasn't been looked at (yet) to determine if she's the same (which she wouldn't as far as I can tell btw.) then that's fine. But as someone who is not involved with the way you handle things, someone who does not know what you have decided on those articles, it just looks like you separated the Antpelts because of no direct evidence but kept the Whitetails together for seemingly no reason. So when I wrote "could [you] just bring some consistency into this" I meant that either there should be only one Antpelt or there should be another Whitetail. I'm not saying "put them back together" and I'm not saying "separate those two". I said do one or the other but don't to it for the one half and the opposite for the other.


 * Also ... sorry that you find my critism offensive just because my way of writing is not smarming and sorry for trying to point things out that could damage the reliability of this wikia I guess? 13:48, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if the Whitetail mentioned in BotC and the one from WindClan are the same, because I didn't even know about the mistake until you pointed it out (I haven't read that book in literal years, and even then, it's not really a favorite of mine), and if there isn't anything linking the two, then they need to be split. I honestly haven't even had the chance to check; I know this Antpelt was split not too long ago when it was brought up, so if Whitetail is the same case, then so be it. It honestly may have gone unnoticed, and it's not that we're intentionally neglecting one article; it was probably added by someone and deemed a mistake (by them), and since there was a proper cite, it wasn't double-checked as clearly as it should have been. Perhaps they do need to be split- whether they do or don't isn't something that I can fully decide without checking the book, and I am in no way, shape, or form, coherent enough to do so. So, if you'd like, you can bring this entire discussion to PC, and see what's decided there.