Warriors Wiki talk:World

Lists
A large part of some articles are taken up by lists, sometimes only loosely related to it. For example, Nursery (births), Deputy (deputies), StarClan (deaths and residents). I suggest to split these to separate pages, for instance: List of Births, List of Deaths etc. Helixtalk 07:09, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything's loosely related there. A list of births belongs in the Nursery, and this was decided here. A list of deputies would not belong anywhere but on the deputies page, and the list of deaths and residents belongs only on the StarClan page, in my opinion. Though I am the leader of the project, I also suggest asking Bramble about this, as this is related to the format of the whole Wiki - as there are no separate pages for Lists, barring the Categories. I created a List of Books, and Eu later deleted it because the content was already covered by Category:Books. Perseus | Perseus ,  Thou art not the hero | Thou art not the hero  07:19, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

By this reasoning, we should also list all ThunderClan cats on the ThunderClan page, all warriors on the Warrior page, all cat names on the Cat Names page... :s About the List of Books, I don't see anything wrong with it, if it provides information in a comprehensive style, and the advantage of a list over a Category is that we can keep the formatting and references, and add any extra info that is needed. You should request an undeletion. Helixtalk 07:35, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference between listing the ThunderClan cats on the ThunderClan page, and the births on the nursery page (for example) is that we list the births by book and to which parents where as all thunderclan cats have their book appearances on their pages in the form of categories. I don't see why we would want to split the deputies from the deputy page... it makes no sense to have two short articles where one longer one would be perfectly adequate. As for the list of books... well I'm not sure it is needed (not to mention it would come under PB) because we have category:books which essentially is a list of books. Of course, this is just my opinion and I know I haven't explained it well; it's a hard one for me to explain from where I stand as I'm not quite sure why - it just makes logical sense in my mind. Anyway, it's not up to me so... ✐Sa NdY  11:11, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

'''I don't think we need a list of books personally, considering the Wiki's home page, but that's just me. And I agree with Lightning's above comment. Møųş ëţą  łő  ŉ!!  18:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC)'''

Actually, the advantage of the list of books is that we can put them in chronological order (however, now it would be redundant, as we have the Events Timeline). Helixtalk 05:38, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a list of books on the front page, which also have the covers and the links (A list would only have links). The one we have on the front page also them it order (unless you mean the mangas). → •Maple  fern•  ←  22:46, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Didn't I point this out already? Mo us et al on !  Hopelessly devoted to CHOCOLATE!  18:18, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Request semi-protection of Mates
I suggest the Mates article to be semi-protected. Reason: repetitive and unnecessary changes by unregistered users (see History). Thanks, Helixtalk 05:38, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

That might be best; I can imagine the kind of things IPs would want to put on that article. I know there's a way to block pages, but only admins can do it. Nightfall Silverpelt looks beautiful! 05:42, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'll protect it, but given what you've said in the above section, shouldn't we remove the list of mates anyway? As for the rest of the content of that page, I think it could be merged into Queen... the mates are already listed on Nursery too. If necessary we could have a list of mates on the page that haven't had kits, as they wouldn't be listed in the nursery tables. But altogether, I don't see the point of having a page that gives information available elsewhere and causes edit wars.  i nsaneular  The original Hazelnut spread 13:25, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think the list is needed. Møųş ëţą  łő  ŉ!!  03:34, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Me neither, I don't really see the need in it because of like Insane said, and it could be merged into Queen and Nursery... -- Ice  throat  I'm a  gullible  genious. 11:07, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's superfluous, but it should be semi-protected as long as it exists. Some IP just vandalized it. Raven Randomness!  23:01, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism doesn't really have anything to do with it, imo... they vandalised like 5 other pages as well, but we're not protecting those...  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 23:02, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Still, it seems like it would be a vandalism magnet, considering the topic, especially for non-canon shippers. Raven Randomness!  23:04, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Insane, but personally, I don't think it's needed. Ice Spring is here! 23:27, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Mates could easily be merged into Nursery, which already has a list of the nursery queens' mates. Raven Randomness!  23:29, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

The list in Mates can not be compared with the list in Nursery. In the latter, only Clan cats with kits are listed. However, the list of mates is far larger, containing loners, rogues, kittypets, ancient Clans, Tribe etc. Helixtalk 18:26, April 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I hate to disagree yet again Helix, but the Nursery page as it is currently actually does include loners, rogues, Tribe etc. There may be some missing in places, as when this page was renovated we mostly worked with the data that was there already, but I think the information there is extensive enough to act as a reference to mates in the Warriors books with the additional benefit of them being ordered by book. The gaps ca easily be filled in with the few that are missing. Perhaps we need to vote on whether to merge or not? ✐Sa  NdY  20:22, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Rogue vs Loner
Erm... what is the exact difference? I thought I knew, but when I did some research, I bumped into contradictions. OK I'm confused now. Which definition should we accept? Helixtalk 17:52, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * This wiki generally assumes that loners are friendly cats living on their own, keeping to themselves, and rogues are aggressive cats living on their own, often violating Clan territories
 * FQ calls a rogue every cat who lives on their own (even though most of them are friendly and keep to themselves)
 * Secrets calls a loner every cat who lives on their own, and a rogue is a cat who was exiled from a Clan
 * TNP calls Smoky and Daisy loners, even if they are cared for by Twolegs, and calls Sasha a rogue, even if she is not aggressive

You're right that the books have several inconsistencies in that area, but generally we call cats whatever they are called in the books, whether that fits with the general definition of them or not. I think that's the best way to not confuse people, as if we called, for instance, Leaf a loner, when she is described as rogue in the book, it would be very confusing for people reading her page.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 21:19, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I actually wanted to update the Rogue and Loner articles (they need some clean-up), and wondered if the definitions should be updated or left alone. Hmm maybe I'll leave them alone. Helixtalk 21:59, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I actually think it's not a bad idea to make a section about the debate of the definition, to clarify for some people. Not sure how it would fit in with the rest of the page but it might work :P  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 22:01, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a possibility too (that's what I did here, for example). Helixtalk 22:09, April 12, 2010 (UTC)