Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

If you're new to the project, you may want to read the FAQ for an introduction.

Oatpaw -- Silver Nomination
I think he looks good. But, I might be missing something <3 βειιϛοʉπɗ  ding-a-ling! 01:09, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

He's complete, but he's right on that fuzzy borderline of whether a character is major enough to be silver. The only thing I really don't think should be silver is a character that only appears in the allegiances and never in the plot, but I feel like this could go either way. What do you guys think?  i nsaneular  The original Hazelnut spread 01:14, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

So..... βειιϛοʉπɗ  ding-a-ling! 23:44, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

See my comment below at the Very Minor Characters; I don't know if we even need a separate article. Helixtalk 09:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone believe he really deserves silver, or shall I archive this? His article's as good as it can be but it's still so short...  i nsaneular  The original Hazelnut spread 22:07, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I do! (Lol :D) Jöhn lënnön  Imagine 19:39, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Swiftfoot -- SIlver Nomination
I myself don't own Code of the Clans but for a minor character, he seems ok.-- Moonflight A Star In Her Own Mind... 01:53, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think he's ready for silver. Raven flight 92 17:04, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Comments before the vote goes up?  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 22:11, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

The vote is up now.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 00:28, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

SkyClan and ShadowClan
You know how some cats have the Clan abbreviation after the names of their pages because there are different cats with the same name? Like Ashfur (TC) and Ashfur (SC)? Well, since ShadowClan's and SkyClan's names begin with the same letter, I suggest that the abbreviation for SkyClan be (SkC). Using the Robinwings as an example:

Robinwing (TC)

Robinwing (WC)

Robinwing (SkC)

Robinwing (RC)

Get it? I hope so XD Raven flight 92 22:49, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that works. Anyone oppose of this?-- Moonflight A Star In Her Own Mind... 22:58, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

The reason only some of the pages have (SkC) or (ShC) is because only one or two names have cats in both Clans, such as Oakpaw. For others like Robinwing, there's no need to add an extra letter. It would add some clarification, so it's not a bad idea. It would throw me out of whack when linking for a while but if you guys think it's worth it then it's cool :)  i nsaneular  The original Hazelnut spread 00:39, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should use the 'SkC' or 'SkC' for now, since there is no Robinwing in ShadowClan or any other cats with the same name in shadowclan or skyclan. -- Icestorm Peace 14:27, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree Ice. I think that a generic system would be better as it avoids any confusion over whether 'SC' means 'ShadowClan' or 'SkyClan' for any individual cat - at the moment you need to actually go and look at the page and see which it is. I think a system that can be used for all cats no matter whether there is both a ShadowClan and SkyClan cat with that name or not would be better, with 'SkC' meaning SkyClan and 'SC' being used only for ShadowClan cats. (or 'ShC' if it's preferable; I just have in my head the abbreviations I've always used) ✐Sa  NdY  18:51, May 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me, Sandy. I doubt we need the (ShC) because ShadowClan is more common and thus people will assume it when they see (SC). For SkyClan, which is less common, we can make the extra distinguishing factor.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 00:28, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Charcat: auto-hide unused sections
Many cats (rogues, loners, minor characters) have no Family or Education info, and these sections just take up space in the charcat box (sometimes the box is much longer than the TOC + article itself). Should I make those sections hidden when there is no info entered? (the articles do not have to be changed, just the template) Helixtalk 09:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

That would be just swell. There's really no point in having those sections there if it's just to say 'Unknown' or 'None'. A question, though; we would have to alter the articles that already have the family and education sections, once you change the coding to allow those sections to be omitted, right? Or are you able to alter the coding so that those respective articles will omit the family and education sections if they have the words 'unknown' or 'none' in them? To my mind, that'd be fairly tricky... just wondering. -- Bram ble  01:59, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

The articles do not have to be modified, just the template. I will work on it when I find some time. Helixtalk 06:52, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea. For the coding, would it be something like you put in a parameter to hide the sections, or if you simple don't put anything for those parameters, those parts wouldn't show up? (ie, if you didn't add the "|mentor= |apps=", the education section would not be there)  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 21:57, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I will make it to hide for any of the following arguments: This way, the existing Character articles do not have to be modified. Helixtalk 15:18, May 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * (empty)
 * None
 * None Known
 * Unknown
 * (other suggestions?)

That sounds great, but could you also make it disappear for a single asterisk? (*) The reason being, when a character has no known family, we put an asterisk for the familyt and then None Known on the familyl.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 20:32, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

That would be already triggered by the None Known argument (but i can add the * too, just to make it more error-proof). Helixtalk 04:23, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Very minor characters
We have lots of articles about characters who... Do we need separate articles for each of those? I guess in the past the wiki operated under the concept of "We know a name, we must make an article for it" - but it does not necessarily have to be so. We should rather make pages of "Minor Characters in (bookname)", and list them there (including with chararts and all). Helixtalk 09:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not appear at all in any book, just listed in the allegiances (such as Foxclaw, Sloefur...)
 * Only fleetingly mentioned in one line (such as Dewstar, Scree...)

I agree that if the characters added nothing to the plot, then they shouldn't get a separate article. Raven flight 92 15:55, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

But they are still characters, nevertheless, so they are deserving of a page, in my opinion. Mo   us    et    al    on    !!   00:16, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea. It would keep people from clicking on the article in the hope of finding lots of information, and instead finding one sentence saying they were only mentioned in the allegiances or dialogue. If the character links to another page, we can put Dewstar, for those of you who don't know. I'm assuming this 'Minor Characters' page would be categorized in Characters, and would resemble something of this sort: Link. Would we add the chararts in like how we do on the PCA talk page? I'm assuming there won't be room for the full Charcat template. We'll also need specific guidelines on what a character has to be in order to be considered a minor enough character to be added on the page, e.g: Only mentioned in allegiances or mentioned once in entire book. There's also the possibility we could put important nameless characters on this page; what does everyone think about that? Though there would have to also be guidelines on what an important nameless character is, as well. Okay, done rambling. -- Bram ble  02:17, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

We can add the chararts (if present) in right-aligned boxes. The charcat template is of course not necessary, it usually contains nothing for these cats (except book appearance, but that can be included in the description). The criteria can be "Does not formally appear in any book" (i.e. only others talking about it, or only appearing in Allegiances). About the nameless characters... well, these also should be decided by importance and not by name; anyway, we have only one "important" nameless character (and we talked it through) :) Helixtalk 07:23, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

This point was actually brought up before (see here) and I still feel against it. I see where you're coming from, but since we are an encyclopedia on Warriors, I feel that the bare minimum requirement for that is to have articles on every character. Lumping them into a list feels sort of... I don't know. The real point of being a Wiki devoted only to warriors is that we can have articles for minor cats, as opposed to that link Bramble pointed out that can list only some major characters, and all on the same page. I understand your point with this, but it's a direction I'd really rather not go in for the project...  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 10:46, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see that there had been a consensus on this already. So I take back the proposal. (Although I must point out that a change in layout does not affect the encyclopedic value) Helixtalk 16:09, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I didn't expect you to check all the archives to make sure it hadn't been brought up; I was just pointing it out.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 00:28, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Overview
Especially for major characters, we should have an "Overview" section describing the major milestones and actions in about 10-20 paragraphs, so users unfamiliar with the character could readily see who it was and what did it do (instead of browsing through lengthy History sections listing all events without focusing on their importance). Helixtalk 09:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, all information is necessary for it, and I liked the history layout when I was new to Warriors. Mo   us    et    al    on    !!   00:17, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not suggest removing the History section; only adding a section that summarizes it. Helixtalk 07:27, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

That would make sense, but my only objection to it is that if a user is 'unfamiliar with the cat' they probably don't want major spoilers of everything that cat did in the course of the whole series... by sorting it by book it allows people to avoid the sections of books they haven't read and minimize spoilers for everyone while still offering comprehensive information.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 01:08, May 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a valid concern... Helixtalk 07:27, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

What if we put it after the history, and divide it into the Series? For example, here's how the wikicode would look. ===Overview===

In the Original Series
(overview of what the did in the Original series, if applicable)

In the New Prophecy Series
(overview of what they did in the New Prophecy, if applicable)</PRE>

Would that work? → •Maple  fern•  ←  11:04, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Played around a bit, check here. The spoilered section is auto-hidden, click on Show (next to the description). However, I guess it'd overcomplicate things, and I see that not many users are interested in the feature, so we can leave it as it is for now. Helixtalk 12:22, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

That hidden section actually looks pretty nice. My only concern which does not directly affect this idea's implementation, is that we might have to discuss page layout... for major characters like Firestar the pages have a lot going on and it's less organized that I'd like it to be. But of course that separate issue doesn't have to do with this... ah I tend to ramble a lot XD  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 00:28, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Splash
I knoticed that Splash is currently a kittypet, so should his article be renamed from "Splash (Lo)" to "Splash (KP)" (since he's not a loner anymore)? -- Ŧ ∆ ķ მ ♰ § Ʊ ო Σ         ö 19:25, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Splash actually was a loner... I don't know why it said Kittypet on his Charcat but he did not live with the Twolegs, he lived in the barn.  i nsaneular  The original Hazelnut spread 20:32, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well actually, we don't know if he stayed a loner or became a kittypet. Quailflight 06:39, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, never mind then^-^ And Insane, Splash, Husker, and Moss did live with Twolegs once before, so being a kittypet should be listed in their charcats. -- Ŧ ∆ ķ მ ♰ § Ʊ ო Σ        ö 19:47, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, my fault, I had forgotten that, i will add it back as a past affiliation. In any case though, they were loners in the end, so the title can stay :)  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 00:09, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Cats changing appearance
We know that many cats change eye color (Mothwing), pelt color (Tigerheart) or even name (Thunderstar-Thunder) throughout the series. How should we deal with these in the articles? Kind regards, Helixtalk 04:21, May 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mention only the most probable version (as it is now)
 * Mention both, e.g. Fluffy is a fluffy cat with blue eyes[1], though he is sometimes described with green ones[2] (encyclopedic)
 * Mention the most probable version in the description, and the other one in a trivia section
 * Have a separate article on continuity errors

I like the third option. Mo   us    et    al    on    !!   22:45, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm split between #2 and #3. <font color="#50c878">Raven <font color="#6495ed">flight <font color="#9966cc">92 22:48, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards either one or three, simply because the Erins make description mistakes so often that listing them all in the formal description would make it very long and possibly confusing. (For Crowfeather, imagine if it said, "Crowfeather is a smoky gray tom with blue eyes, but he was once described with amber eyes, and another time with green eyes." It seems unnecessary considering that they were mistakes, anyways). Number 3 makes sense, although we do need to sort out some guidelines for Trivia sections in general - I've been meaning to start a discussion about it for a while. As of now, all mistakes (including description ones) are listed informally here, but that's obviously not easy for people to find, so listing them in a Trivia section would make more sense, in my opinion.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 00:03, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never noticed that page. So I added a 4th option - make an article listing the things gathered there. As for me, I'd go with either option 2 or 3. Helixtalk 06:32, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

I like option two, but as Insane pointed out, this could become confusing with characters who have had their description changed numerous times (eg. Dovepaw's eyes). Therefore option three is looking the best in my view; this is exactly the type of thing that the Trivia sections should be used for. ✐Sa NdY  16:02, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Nominations?
I've been looking around, and I don't know if one article was featured or not. Can we organize that better? Quailflight 06:48, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

You will know if an article was featured or not based on whether it has the FA or FA/p template on the top of its page, or you can find a whole list of featured articles here.  i nsaneular The original Hazelnut spread 00:08, May 13, 2010 (UTC)

Family Members
I took Cherrykit and Molekit off of Mistystar's cousins list, but then it got added back on there with the explanation of - ''Descendents of cousins are still cousins. ''I mean no offense to the user who posted that, but is that possible? I would think them too distant. ''' Mo    us    et    al    on    !!   Here comesSUMMER! ''' 02:02, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Fox, Badger, Wolf
What project would these articles be? Characters or World? Because they're not specifically mentioned as characters, but as species in my opinion. Perseuς | Perseus ,  Thou art not the hero | Thou art not the hero  11:38, May 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * World, I'd say, as they do not refer to specific characters (e.g. Midnight > Character, Badger > World). Helixtalk 14:20, May 14, 2010 (UTC)