Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

Foster Family Tree
So I think someone mentioned above we used to display foster family relations on trees. I'm wondering if we want to try to do that again. I'm pondering the different options on doing this, but I do believe it is possible for every character with a foster relation. So, what does everyone think?Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  06:11, May 30, 2017 (UTC)

Would it be a whole different tree or will it be added on the orginal tree? 02:21, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

That's part of this discussion.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  02:41, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

It would be more reasonable to make to separate trees, since there's situations were there's only one foster parent and it would be a little weird to have a stray boxes (the ones with the names in it) floating around, if you get what I'm saying. 02:45, June 4, 2017 (UTC)

I'm alright with it, but it does need to have already been cited on their articles first. Like, Lilyheart is Violetpaw's foster mother when she came to ThunderClan initially, but Snowbush wasn't their foster father, since there's nothing stating that nor did we see it in the books.

I did test family trees of Thunderstar foster family. A separate tree does seem to be best. (especially since I cannot figure out how to do those special dotted line that Brokenstar once had on Runningnose's tree :/) It'll be good if we are doing separate foster trees to put the different trees under different subheadings, like " ====Genetic Tree==== " and " ====Foster Tree==== "Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  06:48, June 6, 2017 (UTC)

Anymore comments?Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  02:00, June 16, 2017 (UTC)

I like those. =O The only question I have is this: will it be indicated somewhere on the template's page itself that the lines on certain boxes represent a fostered connection, not a direct blood connection? Like with Thunderstar, Acorn Fur, and Lightning Tail, for example.

I really tried hard to find a line, but the family tree template only supports the solid and dashed lines we already use. I went through every key on my keyboard and there is only two dotted lines keys that we could use, but those aren't enough to make a basic tree. We could do the mate lines, but we can also try the Template Chart, which is literally almost the same except you swap out 'familytree' with 'chart'. There is also some changes when it comes to keys for lines, but these are really uncommon lines we use.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  21:59, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

What does everyone want to do? Do the normal family tree lines, or have those trees switch to chart template (which is practically the same as the family tree template) and use the dotted lines for foster links.Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  03:32, July 1, 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with using the chart template - I've used it before, and it's pretty easy to work with so why not :)

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  03:58, July 13, 2017 (UTC)

I would agree that the charart template is easy to work with and should be used in this situation.

I really like this idea. However, I think if we’re going to use it and use the chart template to do the dashed lines for foster relations (which I support, for sure), I think we should put the foster relations on the same tree as the genetic relations and differentiate them with the solid vs. dashed lines. Most genetic families only have one or two foster relations in them, so the foster tree would just be the exact same tree with a very slight modification, which would be really repetitive and unnecessary imo. 17:52, July 18, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure on that either. I mean, I did a test with Thunderstar and it could just become too difficult and messy. It'll just be easier to make foster trees.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  07:03, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, including foster siblings and/or parents in a tree is really cluttery and messy, given how large some of the trees are. I don't think it's a bad idea, but I also don't think anything would really benefit from this. We have them in the kin section, that should honestly be good enough <span style="">18:21, 7/25/2017

Honestly, I have to agree with Winter. I see what you mean about the trees getting too cluttery if you add foster relations to them (most are already really crowded anyway), but at the same time I still think having a whole new tree to represent one or two foster relationships seems unnecessary. Honestly, since the foster relationships are in the kin section, I don't think they really need to be represented on the trees. 16:08, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:58, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea for having foster family trees. Even though everything is so cluttered, there can always be a separated link or add some space more below the real family tree. <font face="Brush Script MT,cursive" color="451179" style="font-size:17px;text-shadow:4px 4px 4px #b278ed;">C o s m o s n e s s 🐾 <font face="Papyrus" color="3a3ce4" style="font-size:10px;">#cat lady 02:13, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

Character Ages
Y'know, this was a nice idea when it started, but I really think we should remove character ages from articles unless there is clear proof as to the passage of time. Let me use Cherryfall and Molewhisker as an example; their age cite is from The Fourth Apprentice, and that does not state their current age. I'm gonna be blunt, this series has very little in terms of consistent time passage, and I really think we should start removing all ages that cannot be 100% confirmed; such as a direct statement from Kate, Vicky, or within the series itself (such as someone saying "[name]kit is three moons old", or something like that. With each book, we experience more time, and these ages are also becoming outdated. I've removed some of the ones with expired cites (old books do not reveal anything other than them being born, and unless we have a solid confirmation [the timeline I guess can be used, but again, it's not totally 100% cited yet]), and I'm not even sure we should still have these.

And if you yell at me saying we're removing hard work, it's not like they can't be readded with a proper cite to back it up.

Not sure how much my opinion on this actually counts since I'm so inactive, buuuuut Jayce has a point. Half of these ages aren't accurate or aren't properly cited. I actually think it's impossible to find accurate ages for these characters...the series is way too inconsistent. Cats appear as full grown cats in one book and then in another book released later in the same time period, they're just being born. Even saying it's an approximation doesn't really excuse it imo; there's far too many conflicts. <span style="">12:56 Sun Jun 18

I agree with removing ages entirely for cats that have never had their age mentioned, but, if it has been stated, then I think it should be put as "[age]+ Moons" (eg. "Age: 48+ Moons) (unless it was stated as being 8 Moons once and now the cat is a warrior or something, then I think you should remove its age), because you can never be sure if time has passed since the stating of a character's age. Although, like Sootopolitan Berry, I have been inactive and, unlike Sootopolitan Berry, this is my first post on the Project Characters Talk Page (excluding my join request, of course!), so my opinion will, most likely, be unimportant. -- 16:32, June 18, 2017 (UTC)

I think that ages should be removed from characters who are still currently alive, as there's the passage of time still and all that. However, even if not direct proof, with a few double cites there are some ages that can be confirmed and so I think it might be smart to keep the ages of deceased characters on those pages until proven false.

I don't think they should be removed entirely. They should be revamped yes, but not removed. I've been working hard on the Timeline and most of the seasons are cited now. I made this suggestion earlier with Spookycat but I think maybe we can try an age template. Like, we tell the template a character was born at (referencing warriors timeline), Year=3, Season=1 (leafbare), Moon=3. It figures it out for us and for living cats, it compares to what time the series is currently at (Year=11, Season=2(newleaf), not sure about moon but I will definitely check if we do this) and we change what the 'current time' is when a new book in the series is released. For deceased characters, we tell what moon they died, like Year=3, Season=4(Leaf-fall), Moon=2. It's just a basic idea but it could work well. It's better than doing it ourselves, math can be so hard ><<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:07, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

there's a few kits and such that have the right ages (because they're dead) but more are wrong currently than right. those should be removed because they're incorrect, and any other wrong information would be removed immediately. people outside the wiki don't take much stock in the ages as it is because of how thye are right now. 22:11, June 20, 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually up for removing them from the still-living cats.. because the passage of time isn't always 100% clear in the books, and even context clues isn't always accurate. That's not saying your work isn't going unnoticed, Stealth. Trust me, I'm so happy with your progress on the timeline and I'm very impressed. It just doesn't seem right to have these ages shown on articles when many of them are incorrect. We remove all wrong information when we see it, so I don't see how this is much different...

Well, I think we should remove the ages from living cats for the time being (and perhaps some of the deceased characters too), since in a lot of cases it is false information. I think we could talk about re-adding them later if Stealth and the others finish up the timeline and get it properly cited. At that point, we could double cite the ages (to where they were born or their age was stated and the timeline page), and it would be easier to see if the ages were up to date referencing off the timeline. I understand if we decide to remove the ages completely because they're never going to be 100% accurate, but I think having the approximations is useful. 23:44, June 21, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like that the ages listed are not accurate either.

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  04:43, July 7, 2017 (UTC)

Well, I've looked further into the issue, and although I know a lot of people are for keeping the ages of the deceased characters, I want to question the practice of doing that as well. First off, many of the deceased characters were born during the Super Editions. But do we really know exactly how much time passed between them and the start of Into the Wild? The timeline (which, in that section, is not fully filled out or cited) shows that there's a little over two years between Bluestar giving up her kits and the start of ITW. But it fails to cite how it came to that conclusion – I know it wasn't from any evidence in BP itself, which only says that "many moons" or "countless seasons" have passed. I know it couldn't come from CP or TR either, which end well before ITW starts, and if you compare YS to BP the timeline doesn't really match up and shows ITW coming at least a year before it should.

Even with many characters whose lives don't span that time gap, it's questionable how legitimate their age cites are. For example, we often have to use logic to override direct cites in the book (case in point: how several books state that the Three were born in leaf-bare, when logically they would have been born in greenleaf). A lot of the other cites I've found are questionable at best, too. For example, Dustpelt's age cite links to page 15 of Into the Wild when Graystripe says that apprentices have to be at least six moons old. This does not show that Dustpelt was made an apprentice at six moons or that he just became an apprentice (he could have been one for several moons already). Even if the timeline of the series was consistent, it's very difficult to determine the exact moon a cat was born or their age was stated because the time terms used in the series are usually pretty vague. Often it just says a cat was born in "leaf-bare" (which could be any of the three moons) or people take "a few moons after leaf-fall" and decide it must mean the middle moon of leaf-bare. I know we put "approximately" before all the ages, but I don't think even that excuses people using things like the above to guess when the cats were born.

tldr; Because of the inconsistency of the series and the way time is represented, we're never going to get completely accurate ages and we're always going to have to resort to guessing and using "logic" to figure out ages. Since this is a wiki that likes to use solid factual evidence rather than guesswork and assumption to get its information, I think the best course of action would be to just remove the ages altogether. Sorry for writing this really long thing 17:33, July 9, 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I just joined this wiki, I used to be "outside" for a very long time and with my outside views I can tell you that the ages and the timeline we're EXTREMELY helpful and I loved them so much. Yes, I know much of it is inaccurate (like if your a geek like me and really look into it you find that Darkstripe was born to Tawnyspots, who was very sick at the end of BP, and Willowpelt, a new warrior. Since cats' gestation period is 2 months, according to the timeline, he was born at the earliest in Newleaf of 1YBF. He is 6 moons old at Leaf-fall, 3 moons before Firestar comes to the Forest. Some how in 3 moons he becomes a warrior AND trains Longtail ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). But there is a lot of info on it and I know outsiders really like it. Please consider this!!! Crestpaw123 (talk) 16:20, July 14, 2017 (UTC)

Hey so I just was bringing this up to Skye and I was going to make us a timeline to use as I re-read through each warriors book and also take notes of births, deaths, and description cites. So it'll take me a while but I'll get there! I'll probably link my sandbox when I start workin on it <span style="">02:49, 7/18/2017

That's very kind of you. Thankyou. Meanwhile, I've cited all books, events, births/deaths and etc on the Warriors Timeline. Unless someone still isn't sure, we can start using that now.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  06:08, July 18, 2017 (UTC)

Even with the timelines, it's almost impossible to ensure that the ages are accurate. It's often only stated what season something happened in, not what exact moon, and if the information's not there in the books, we're just guessing at it. Passage of time often isn't fully worked out in the series, especially in time gaps (I'm pretty sure we don't know how long the SEs are set before Into the Wild). Also, it doesn't address the problem we have with living cats' ages becoming quickly outdated with new releases. 14:41, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you Ivy, but I also don't agree. Since that is why we put approx. in front of their ages. I think I vaguely remember that Su was working on a timeline as well and she had the stuff worked out very well, but after she was attacked her wikia was taken down and all was lost. I can try and ask her for it if she has like the vague stuff, but if she doesn't I won't bother her about it, since I'm working on my own and matching the cites within the pages. Stuff is usually off by like 1 or 2 moons anyway, since unless specifically stated when they were born and yadayada then we can't know for sure, but it's clear in context if you really stare at the sentence it is said long and hard enough.

Also, I have begun my timeline with The Sun Trail as the beginning book. I don't want to be called out on posting a link to my wikia here, but I wasn't sure if I could've posted it here or not, so I'll just post the link here: http://warriors-shattered.wikia.com/wiki/User:Lyokion/Sandbox I'll remove the link if it's not allowed. <span style="">00:42, 7/20/2017

Maybe you could create a sandbox as a subpage on your userpage. I also just want to remind everyone that sometimes the Erins do mess up and are not consistent in their time line, so we must take that into consideration. 01:25, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

I've been doing timeline notes for the dawn of the Clans as well. I'm not sure the time of birth of Gray Wing and that is valid really, the book never said he was born in the sunny season, just he lived in the sunny season. He could have been born in the winter season beforehand.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  07:00, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

I still think we should remove the ages for currently living cats (modern-era cats, not Dawn of the Clans cats), due to us currently having an active arc and future super edition to take into consideration. Remember, we don't know where Tigerheart's Shadow will fall, nor do we know how many more seasons A Vision of Shadows will show us. Once the arc is over and super edition released, perhaps then we can re-read and figure out exactly how many moons/seasons have passed.

It said he was still a kit in the sunny season and that he couldnt remember the last time the warm weather happened which means he was about 5-6 moons old at the time of greenleaf, and that means he was born in leafbare of that year. Like i said you have to really look at the context. <span style="">12:04, 7/20/2017

Winter, that's what I was trying to say -- the ages are not based on direct evidence, but rather on people trying to piece together different context clues to guess when events happened, and this requires some level of assumption to be made. Why on a wiki where you have to cite everything else with a direct statement from a book or an author do we allow speculation and assumption for these ages? When we're all about making sure we have well-founded information, why do we have ages that we admit are not 100% accurate by tacking an "approximately" before them? I mean, I personally like having the ages, but I just fail to see how they don't run contrary to our no-assumptions rule. 17:46, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

I mean you have a point there, but that's how it's always been? Idk how else to word it. <span style="">22:01, 7/20/2017

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  06:16, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

Alrighty since there are no more comments, all currently living cats ages will be removed temporarily.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  05:29, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

It was my understanding that we would just remove the ages from cats who were living during the time of A Vision of Shadows since most of those were out of date and there are going to be new releases that will further throw them off. I thought we were going to keep the DotC cats' ages since Winter just updated them. They're accurate now and they're going to remain that way since there aren't any books set in that time period that are going to be released anytime soon. 13:47, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

We haven't finished with Winter's discussion so not yet. We agreed all living cats.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:14, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Well, the DotC cats are not living? Also, if this is the case, then we should put the pause on this, and wait until my discussion is archived. My discussion wasn't just about the ages, it was about the timeline. If we're working on said ages, then we need something like my timeline so we'd be keeping closer tabs on which moon of which season it is in. They may be in chronological order, but they could of all happened in the same moon. You can say it's not canon all you want, but if we're getting technical, then the wiki's isn't either. So far, some of the things are off by a season in the "official" timeline from what I've read in the books. <span style="">22:19, 8/11/2017

The DOTC cats are still alive in their timeline....

Yep. So their ages will be removed too.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:37, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

Shadepaw
In Secrets of the Clans page 45, it mentions a Shadepaw from RiverClan when the river floods. It seems to be Shadepelt (TPB), who was also a RiverClan cat and was an apprentice at the time but I'm not sure if that would be an assumption. Should the SotC section be added to Shadepelt (TPB) or should a new article be made for this Shadepaw? <span style="">14:01 Fri Jul 7

If there's no absolute evidence, then they need to be seperate. It feels like a bit of a stretch to me, and since SotC is pretty old, they might have meant for Shadepaw to be a one-time mention. Keep them seperate unless there's solid proof.

Well, if that's the case, then Silverpaw (TPB) should be treated the same way and have the Silverpaw that appears in Secrets of the Clans get a separate page. I kind of disagree with that, though, since Shadepaw and Silverpaw both appear in books at the exact same time the short story is set and it makes no sense whatsoever that the two apprentices wouldn't be the same ones that already exist at that time period. 14:30, July 7, 2017 (UTC)

I mean, we made Smokepaw (SotC) already because of a similar case of lack of proof, so I'd agree with making Shadepaw and Silverpaw extra pages.

I think Smokepaw is a different case, because there was no Smokepaw proven to be in ShadowClan at the time (Smokepaw (NP) died before that story, which we know because it's set at the lake and he died on the journey, while Smokefoot never had a cited apprentice name). Meanwhile, the story where Silverpaw and Shadepaw appear is set during Forest of Secrets, which is a book in which they appear. It doesn't make a lot of sense that the authors would create not one, but two new characters with the exact same names as characters already living at the same time. 15:19, July 7, 2017 (UTC)

I don't know it's like saying that the Leopardfur, Stonefur or Blackclaw from the same passage isn't Leopardstar, Stonefur or Blackclaw. It's around the same time period, everyone is in the right position for it, everything matches up.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:28, July 8, 2017 (UTC)

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:41, July 18, 2017 (UTC)

Just realized I didn't say my own opinion on this, but I agree with you Stealthfire, I think it's fair to say that this Shadepaw is Shadepelt if we say that Blackclaw from one book is the same Blackclaw from another book. <span style="">15:52 Tue Jul 18

^^I agree with Stealthfire.

I have to back up Stealth here. 01:24, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with Stealthfire here.

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  00:45, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

Cites
What should we do if we have cites that are broken links? Do we continue to keep the cites there, despite the broken links? I myself believe that the cite with a broken link should be removed, as there is no concrete / definite proof if the cite does no longer exist, but what does everyone else think? 01:30, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean facebook pages that are cited but no longer exist? If so then I agree that they should be removed, since a broken link is like having no cite at all. <span style="">06:55 Thu Jul 20

I do agree broken links should be removed. It's just frustrating that I did see these facebook posts myself and for some reason they just disappeared. Sometimes I think we should take screenshots for cites instead :/<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  07:01, July 20, 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to Facebook, please make sure to have someone else verify that the cite has indeed vanished before removing it. If someone in the string of comments is a user you have blocked (or if they blocked you), then you are unable to see the entire story. We don't need information removed due to one person not being able to see the cite, but others can. Kate's blog, however, is an entirely different story. Make sure that the page just hasn't been moved before removing the cite entirely; Kate's blog underwent multiple updates since some of the information has been added, just as a head's up.

If we do decide to remove all broken links from each project (not just PC, so we stay consistent and all), we're gonna lose a pretty big section of Official Sites because readingwarriors.com is down...So while I support removing most broken links, I kinda think we'd be okay with keeping the ones that are well documented. (aka the ones that aren't like trivia, but more cites from broken HarperCollins pages and catalog things and such)

Icy wants to know if "we had to put possible broken cites on the talk page before we removed them" <span style="">23:10, 7/20/2017

I think that would actually be a good idea. I've seen this happen before; I went to check a cite, but it wouldn't work. It turns out someone in the comment string had me blocked, meaning I was unable to see it. It's good to have someone else (or even multiple people) double-check a Facebook cite first, especially given how their blocking system works. Might be a bit of extra work, but honestly? If asking someone else to double-check is that big of an issue, then we have a problem.

An example of a broken cite is this. (Long link I think.) Can someone double check that? And if it is not, should we remove that? 00:31, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

Broken for me <span style="">18:18, 7/25/2017

I see cites that lead to the page in tons of pages. Like, half of the Vicky's Facebook cites that aren't Su's cites lead to broken links like that one.

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  00:46, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

I think that broken links should be removed. However, I don't agree with screenshots being used as for cites because someone could always accuse us of photoshopping them.

Sure, they could photoshop them... but at the same time, there are things, like Kate's blog, where we either have to accept screenshots, or not accept any cites. Kate's blog, to my knowledge, doesn't have the same layout as her old blog did, meaning trying to link to comments is impossible...unless there's some secret way that no one's sharing with us. We should assume good faith that the screenshots we use are portraying the accurate and correct information.

Oh, I forgot about the new Blog issue. In that case I change my opinion. I'm fine with the idea of using screenshots.

DF Cats
This will be very controversial because the answer I am going to get is, "Su said this, so it is confirmed." Except please bear with me because although I am well aware Su said this, Vicky never confirmed it. While keeping this in mind, there was a point in time that Vicky had specifically said that Su was her helper for answering questions, and she was not canonical. Bringing that up, we also must remember that Vicky said the missing kits were not canon because these were her suggestions. Although that may not refer to every question she answers, it is an example that some of them are not canon. We also have Vicky saying, and I quote, "I cannot make decisions for the whole series as that wouldn't be fair to the others." And, once more, quoting her, "But to go back and insist that things are canon when they didn't appear in the original books is above my pay grade, sadly. I hope you understand." The post in general refers to the missing kits, but also these quotes from Vicky are very broad and refer to Su answering questions as a whole.

All right, so that aside, I want to bring up the DF cats, such as Brightflower and a few others. Yes, once more, they were said to be in the DF by someone. But we must remember this is Su, and not a writer of the books these cats were in, which I am inclined to rely more on. The reasons and explanations for the places these cats go are not reliable and do not make any sense. We have Brightflower, who went because she was driven with grief and hate. If so, why is Ashfur not in the Dark Forest as well? I am someone with a mental illness, and I do not have a favorable liking to a lot of people. Does that mean I go to hell? I am not sure if that was a good example, but going on. We have another cat (I cannot remember her name) who is crippled like Briarlight, but could not accept her fate. How in a logical way does this get her in the DF? We read that cats that go to the Dark Forest because they commit crimes when they are dead. In the books, we are never given any proof that these cats commit crimes, and when questions are asked, we never get answers as well. We are also told that "it is a secret". How can we take that as a cite? I get that Su helps Vicky, I get that completely. But she is not an author. She is not the writer of the books.

Vicky contradicts herself and Su several times. She has also said that these are Su's suggestions. There is nothing confirming that she herself agrees with this and approves of it. Quoting Vicky again, "Also, please, please remember that this is all speculative; nothing that is discussed after a book comes out can be set in stone, so don’t rush to conclusions about what I was thinking when I created a particular character or scene. I know the Dark Forest cats have stirred up a maelstrom of emotions. There are a million reasons why a cat is sent to the Dark Forest, and they can’t possibly be summed up in a single line. I would love to have the time and opportunity to write novellas explaining the history of every single cat that we have put in the Dark Forest, but that’s not going to happen, unfortunately."

Also, another quote. "If you feel that a reason we have suggested doesn’t feel right, that’s only a good thing. Perhaps you have a better understanding of that character than we do. Feel free to make your own suggestions! I really do feel that once I have finished with a book and sent it on its way, then the story and characters belong to you as well, and whatever conclusions you might draw from reading are as valid as mine or anyone else’s." She specifically says conclusions, and that they are valid as hers or anyone else's. Does that mean my conclusions are also valid? Can I add them to the Wiki? I do not think so, and that is the case here.

Long post is over. I understand that this is a controversial topic, so I ask all of you to please think about what you say before you comment, but I ask that you do. This is a confusing subject that should have been talked thoroughly before anything was done. 17:38, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Missed something. Another quote, "But I promise she is almost always right!" Almost right =/= always right. 17:43, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

One thing I want to add that has bothered me forever is Marshcloud. He's literally an allegiance-only character, never seen in any books besides one mistake in a preview. How did Su come to the conclusion that he's in the DF? Like you stated above, almost always doesn't mean always.

Agreed with Danny. ^^

I disagree with removing these cites. Firstly, I think in any case shouldn't just pick and choose, so that whole cite (including the star cites) would have to go if we're just not counting the DF part. Secondly, this is where Su says: 'Yes. I asked her where the cats are because I can't just put them where I want to Especially the Dark Forest ones.' Su says that she asked Vicky because she can't just put them where she wants to. This isn't just Su just coming to fan conclusions imo - she asked Vicky where to put them, and put down what the author said. Even on the original comment where she posts her answer, she says that she had to check with Vicky before so she didn't slip up. I get that Su's word alone isn't like an author's post-death confirmation, but in this case, I really do believe that these were straight from Vicky, just through Su's mouthpiece.

I see the points from both sides on this, honestly, because I think the evidence itself is contradictory. I do think the information comes from or at least was checked Vicky, based on Su's comments. But even so, Vicky kind of walks back on the information (I'll link the post here) by calling the post-death residences "speculative", and we don't use speculation, even that which originates from the authors. And if Vicky says readers can make their own conclusions about where a cat went, then she's basically saying these conclusions she has just made aren't completely canonical. At the same time, it's worth remembering that this post was made after backlash (however, we did get rid of Missing Kits based on something said after backlash, but that statement explicity said they weren't canon, while this only implies such). Finally, I completely agree with Spooky we also have to get rid of the StarClan cites if we do the DF ones, they're from the same post. 20:58, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Ivy, I am backing up your point because of the evidence you have provided. And in this case (I was not aware of the StarClan cats) they should be removed as well. 22:07, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

I would like to elaborate more on my prior comment, I posted it from my phone and of course, it would have spacing issues. I want to point out the timeline in this as well - the DF cats were the first thing revealed, and all of the links I have posted occured after. But yes, I was unaware that the StarClan cats had images as well. I agree that these cites also must go if we are removing the DF ones. 22:12, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

Promise this is my last comment in a row. Here are the links (not in chronological order, sorry, I do not have the time for that right now): link 1 link 2 link 3 link 4 link 5 link 6. 23:55, July 21, 2017 (UTC)

We voted and agreed to use her. If you want to backtrack on a year's worth of work, that's on your head, not mine. Especially because of this message, especially the second screenshot. Vicky outright says that if something Su says is not correct or quite right, Vicky will jump in to correct her. I am very much against this.

These messages are from 2016, almost a complete year ago in August. Vicky contradicted them in February. She changed her stance, from what I have seen. 00:14, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

Popping in to say, if it's ruled that Vicky changed her stance on the very validity of Su over time, then does this just apply to this one cite? Or will it affect all of Su's cites? It would seem logical in that way, because we shouldn't pick and choose what to say she changed her opinion on and what she didn't. But imo all of them still count, but if it is decided otherwise, then I think they all should go.

I agree with all that's been said above, including Spooky's last statement (as that was just what I was coming here to say). If everything is "speculative" and not set in stone, then we need to doubt all of Su's word, so technically everything she has ever said could be considered non-canon. <span style="">12:02, 7/22/2017

Icy, all of the links you provided only address two things: The Dark Forest cats and the Missing Kits segments. We have already removed the Missing Kits information, and we can remove the Dark Forest ones as well. But none of Vicky's comments address any of the other information Su has given us. Her words cannot be used for what she has not said. My message from Vicky still stands and has not been contradicted, unlike what you claim. Vicky has only said things on the Missing Kits segments and the placement of the Dark Forest cats. Nothing else. You have nothing that says any of Su's other information is wrong.

I never said that I wanted to remove all of her information. There is absolutely nothing in this post about rejoicing all of her information, just the DF cats. I am glad you agreee on that. 15:14, July 22, 2017 (UTC)

Anymore comments?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  06:17, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the DF cite should be treated exactly the same as Missing Kits, because that was repeatedly stated not to be canon. Vicky only directly addresses the DF cite in one post (link 4) and the closest she comes there to saying they're non-canon is to call them "speculative". I realize that might be enough, but look at the context: "remember that this is all speculative; nothing that is discussed after a book comes out can be set in stone". And in the next paragraph: "I really do feel that once I have finished with a book and sent it on its way, then the story and characters belong to you as well, and whatever conclusions you might draw from reading are as valid as mine or anyone else's." If we followed that logic, then nothing the authors stated outside of the books would be canon, but that seems to completely contradict the wiki's current definition of canon. Therefore, I don't feel the evidence to eliminate the DF cats cite is really that strong. 16:28, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Yes but there is still evidence, no matter how strong it is or is not. Vicky specifically says it is speculative, and that does not make it 100% canon, in which is what we need. 19:58, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

I think what Ivy meant is that when Vicky said ' nothing that is discussed after a book comes out can be set in stone' - which doesn't just apply to the DF cats. But, we can't just remove everything the authors have ever said, and therefore there isn't enough proof to just remove the DF cats and not everything else. So yes, the DF cats are speculative by that, but by that, so is everything else.

If the post just says dark forest are not canon, then we remove those.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  08:40, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

Well, it would be everything on that one FB post, right? If we just removed the dark forest section of the exact same cite, then aren't we picking and choosing info?

Timeline Revamp
I figured I'd start a new topic for it, since the one for the character ages is getting longer and I'm going to add a few paragraphs onto it. Okay, but anyway, I was thinking that maybe I suggest a revamp of the events timeline, as the coding you guys have now is messy and kind of disorganized. Plus, I know it looks nice to the eye, but it's very hard to edit, since there's all that code in there. If there wasn't that much coding, then everyone would be able to edit it. Plus, my sandbox'd timeline is something that's approved by Skye, and it would make it so much easier for people to edit, since it would edit by season, and you wouldn't have to go through the entire page to edit one section.

I suggest we use the color coding for births, deaths, etc, as you can find here mainly because it looks a lot nicer to the eye than just reading black text constantly, and sometimes people skim over black text (as I know this for a fact). Deaths are red, births are blue, etc. It looks quite a bit more appealing to the eye. Plus it's a lot easier to add citations, and Skye was also mentioning that we could combine and reorganize our current one onto this new timeline with the citations, because some of them are a little bit clumped together.

Also, for the character ages: Like, I know it says in the books what age they were and stuff, but the Erins do mess up. Tiny Branch is an example. He was born the first moon of leafbare, and dies in the last moon of summer on the night of the Gathering. He was said to be less than 6 moons, but he is not. He was born on the 2nd half moon after the new moon, and died on the full moon, so that makes him 7.25 moons at death. So despite him being called under 6 moons, which is considered incorrect information in accordance with the timeline, then he and his siblings would get an ES image, and he would have to get a new StarClan adult blank.

I just brought him up as an example, because while you guys all did start voting yay on the redo nomination, as soon as Skye brought up my timeline was "not canon" you all voted no. But it is canon, as I take citations from seasons and moons directly from the books. I don't add my little two cents into the timeline. I do however make notes within the seasons, for example, I have a note here that says: "It is heavily hinted at that Fern and Beech were born during this time, as they are referred to as "young", and the fact that Fern was born in leaf-bare.[42]" I did not put it in my timeline, as that would be an assumption. I calculated their ages by retracing time backwards moons, and then placing their births in the correct moon. For example, Thistle and Clover were called 4 moons old in PoS, and I backtracked four moons and placed their birth in the correct moon, so their ages would be correct.

So there's my wall of text. You can either agree or disagree that my timeline is canon, but I do cite my stuff directly from the books, and the only thing I "assume" is my notes that I do not put on the actual timeline. <span style="">13:28, 8/01/2017

it doesn't change the fact that the authors clearly intended him as a kit; he's called a kit multiple times. while the timeline may be as it should be in the books, it's still not author made. while it's great to have a decent timeline in the works, we shouldn't be saying something that clearly isn't the case in the story, but it should definitely be noted in trivia as it's yet another goof by the erins.

hope it makes sense, I wrote this at 5am. 17:57, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

While it's nice to have a timeline, I agree with skt that the timeline isn't quite author-made, even if it based off the books. Imo any mistakes the Erins make would be best off in the trivia.

That said, I also disagree with redoing the timeline template/styling, but I'm pretty biased so take this as a grain of salt if you like. We redid the Events Timeline template early June. So it's only been around 2 months, and I don't think it makes sense to do another redo so soon after a PW consensus was reached agreeing upon the current code? (speaking of which, the Events Timeline is a PW page, so wouldn't this be on there?) I never found it super hard to edit, and it's certainly less cluttered than it used to be. I think the aesthetics of the page are important too, so I think it is fine as is. But again, I'm the one who created the current one, so I'm biased to keep it.

Agreeing with Spooky, the template before the current one was redone to make it easier to work with. You did an amazing job on your timeline, Winter, but in my opinion, the colors can be confusing, like "what does blue mean again", and "which color means this" and I have to scroll up to the top of the page to see then go through the trouble of finding where I was. Others may completely disagree or agree, but it's easier to look at from a chart. Very sorry if this was mean or rude or I hurt someone's feelings. 21:23, August 1, 2017 (UTC)

Agreeing with Spooky and Shypaw points. I feel like you are just running over all of Spooky's hard work. Plus, no your timeline is not completely canon. Check Fluttering Bird's and Jagged Peak's birth cite for example. It says The Sun Trail, page 27. The only mention of age or birth is Quiet Rain saying "What was I thinking, having kits in the cold season?" That does not say anything about if they were born in leafbare or leaf-fall, or which moon they were born, yet it is still there. So no, I'm afraid I don't agree with you. Sorry if I sound defensive, I'm quite proud of Spooky's template, and the work I did to it too. and it'll be all for nothing. <font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  05:15, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Just as a head's up, guys. Weather is not an indication of season (newleaf, greenleaf, leaf-fall, leaf-bare). Snow can happen from as early as September until at least May in some places here in the US. I see multiple cites like that throughout the page, and unless it outright says the season, you are assuming.

I kind of have to agree that the Events Timeline template redone in early June is suitable for use. There is no need to change it.

I agree with Spooky and others above. I think the timeline is fine the way it is right now, and it was redone recently so it seems unnecessary to me to redo it again so soon. <span style="">07:54 Wed Aug 2

the main issue I have right now is that it can't be edited by sections- only the timeline as a whole. That's not a good idea in the least. If someone can change this, I would appriciate that.

If the section headings are the only problem, there's really easy way for me to fix that without touching the rest of the template. I can try and do that once the discussion ends if it's necessary. :)

Ok whatever. Im really sick of you all calling my timeline not canon. It is 100% canon. I put the wrong cite in for jagged peaks birth. He was called fully grown sometime in thunder rising when he came back after he broke his leg. And what my discussion up there states that fully grown is 1 year then my cite is as valid as yours. Im just getting ready to blow a gasket here because ive proven that my timeline is canon. And you all are shoving my hard work back down my throat. <span style="">14:01, 8/02/2017

Canon or not, there's still the fact that the timeline was just redone in June, and like others have said another redo so quickly just seems unnecessary

I do think that you should add in headings for the different years, because that would make the timeline much easier to navigate, but other than that I think it's fine. As for your timeline, Winter, it's really well done and good to be used for most ages, but it's not exactly canon. If something on that timeline is contradicted directly in the books (like the Tiny Branch age thing), then I think we should be taking the book cite. Tiny Branch is repeatedly called a kit in MFV, so that's what we should treat him as even though he should be older. 15:58, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Sigh but it is canon. Despite the age mistake thing on Tiny Branch, everything I've put on there is canon. I've gotten all of my information directly from the books. I know Tiny Branch's age is a mistake, but he is supposed to be 7.25 moons of age. We are supposed to be a factual wiki. It's been put in his trivia as a mistake, and his age is correctly set. <span style="">16:47, 8/02/2017

its also outright canon that hes called a kit and treated like a kit so 16:51, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

skt i just said that. i already said i know he's supposed to be a kit, but the seasons pass and so does his age, so his age is set at 7.25 moons, but i put it in the trivia that the book was repeatedly calling him a kit despite him being 7.25 moonsold at the time :/ <span style="">16:54, 8/02/2017

I'm not sure about him being that old, even if the timeline says so. MFV says in the chap. that Tiny Branch died that he was 'less than 6 moons old' and refers to him as a kit. Imo, I agree with Ivy in that should be treated as a kit, and is an erin mistake.

he was born the second half moon of leafbare, he died on the last full moon of summer, which makes him 7.25 moons old. it is an erin mistake that they called him less than 6 moons of age throughout that whole book. <span style="">17:14, 8/02/2017

Ok, so I've been tweaking around with it, and I've come up with something that'll make everything look a lot nicer. I've kept the old "template" and put it in my sandbox, and with this, we can now see which moon something takes place in, also it has collapsible tables, which would make things a lot less cluttery <span style="">13:57, 8/03/2017

Uhh, I don't think the collapsible boxes work. I think putting different years into editable subheadings would work a lot better. Another note: it's completely possible that the early settlers definition of kit depending on age can be completely different to the Clans. Clans say that kits are no longer kits at six moons, when they become apprentices (with some exceptions) but with the Tribe of Rushing Water, it is actually eight moons. Unless there is evidence of what the early settlers consider a kit or not at what age, then I don't think we can use full-grown as a cite. Who knows? Early Settler adulthood could be 8 moons. It's just the different cultures, doesn't matter what real life says (according to studies on cats, 6 months is adolescence and a year is adulthood, and ten years is actually middle age. But we do know Warriors isn't exactly realistic).<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:07, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

Why don't the collapsible boxes work? What is your reasoning other than just flat out saying it's not gonna work? Also I have this discussion up there called fully grown, and by that it means that fully grown means 12 moons by here on out if the discussion goes through <span style="">22:23, 8/03/2017

Well, 1. it means I cannot see the information easily. It's meant to be displayed there and easy to see. The point is to see information easily, not click so many links to finally see it all. and 2. that discussion is not finished and barely anyone commented, so you cannot really make that canon. In that discussion, I referred to real life when this is a fantasy series, Tribe kits stay kits until eight moons, so they will not become an adult. Adulthood in the series changes, much like real life cultures. Older cultures had humans at 13 years, then 15, more modern has it at 18 and I wouldn't be surprised if some have it at 21. It's the same with warriors. Each culture has it different so we cannot really depend on age to tell if a cat is an adult or not. Crookedkit is a great example. He stayed a kit for moons after he was six moons. Age doesn't dictate whether one is a kit or not in the Warriors series.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:33, August 3, 2017 (UTC)

That's only because he went loner for the remainder of his kithood. Otherwise age is an indicator of whether someone is a kit?? it was only after he came back to RiverClan that he got his new apprentice name, far more along than oakheart. But anyway, if it's such a huge deal, I'll get rid of year 0. I'm getting real ticked about you saying my stuff isn't canon when you went and put cites in about weather and called it "leafbare". like we get it, there's snow on the ground, but you cant assume thats leafbare? and especially one year after thunderstar's echo? theres no proof. im sorry if i come off as blunt but you cant call my stuff not canon when yours was just as "not canon". <span style="">23:36, 8/03/2017

I really don't think the collapsibles are necessary. The page isn't that cluttered imo, and it causes to much work for a user to be able to find the information quickly. For example, your sandbox on year 2 and 3 has 15 collapsibles each, and I really don't think a user should have to click 15 times per section just to see what happened in a year? It just seems very redundant to me, and it's so much easier to just look at a chart. And imo, I'm not really a fan of the moon symbols either, because a lot of that stuff really seems only implied in the books, and I doubt some of it's canonicity because it's hard to understand without doing some deeper calculations in some cases. I get if a chapter says 'oh, it's leaf-bare' but then, how do you know exactly which quarter-moon you're in when the Erins sometimes make innocent mistakes?

While I agree that age isn't necessarily a definition of rank in general, I also agree with Stealth that we aren't sure when a kit isn't a kit anymore in the early Clans. It could be more tribe like, like 8 moons, or we do know kits were apprenticed early before the 6 moon old apprentice law was made. So yes, we know what the modern Clans do, but this is MFV and not quite the same.

How about something like this? Just on the leaf-bare section. I think the moons would help us categorize things better, with ages and stuff like that. Also there's many instances where it says "mid-leafbare" or something like that <span style="">00:45, 8/04/2017

Again, I still don't see the use of it. The lines stand out to me, and they don't align with each other all the way across, which I find odd aesthetically. It's like, you're looking at moon one, but the columns seem unorganized when they're different sizes. And then, the moon 3 of the first column has the 2nd moon columns next to it - so when people read left to right, they go from 2 to 3, instead of just easily straight across on the same moon, which is miseleading. The moons aren't really necessary to me either, as they pretty much list events in their chronological order anyway. (though, it could be that I'm not personally a fan of that particular emoji and it's 8 different variations, which I think is far too much for anyone to reasonably remember without scrolling up and down each time. If it was just moons and (maybe) half moons listed as text, I'd be more inclined to keep them for the age purpose etc.) But for the lines, I don't think we need it/should have them, so I stand by my previous points that the template is fine as is.

thats what my sandbox is for :/ its for making stuff look exact. i need your opinions instead of you just shooting me down on the spot :/ I can take out the lines, its not that hard. its not really helpful to me if you just say its not "aesthetically pleasing", both physically and mentally. i dont understand what you mean about listing them as text, because i find that the pictures help, and you may not, but the younger readers, when they check the wiki, theyll be able to see this. plus the fact that the erins check the wiki for their future books and im sure they have the events timeline bookmarked, and if its not marked which moon they died in or were born into they make more mistakes, and whose that on? us <span style="">01:27, 8/04/2017

The current one may be hard to work with but easy to read. You said something about younger readers looking at it, and the series is for at least early 4rd grade or something. (Sorry, it's probably not.) That young and for all we know they can still be learning the moon phases and it may be confusing for them. Also, the moons kind of stick out, maybe if they were smaller? The "1 2 3" sections by the moon are also a tad confusing, do they go in order like that or is how many events? I feel like with the current one there isn't that many questions following it. 02:45, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

it goes in order because there are 3 moons per season .. <span style="">03:55, 8/04/2017

The events timeline is not my timeline. It's the wiki's. I just gave it some work it needed. I posted the information so anyone can fix it. Sure it's not completely canon right now, so fix it. That's everyone's job as editors. You see a problem, fix it. No one owns that timeline. I only learned recently weather doesn't indicate season, so don't treat me as such. I'm not personally attacking you, no one is. Please take a step back and take a break. This is getting a little out of control. I understand you worked very hard, which is the same reason why I'm defensive. I worked hard too, and what you are showing is in basic sense, throwing it away. That's why I'm a little upset. I understand you are in the same way too.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  23:57, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to use the timeline to calculate our character ages, which are done to the moon and not just the season, then I do think it's worth noting and citing which moon (not anything more specific, though) events came in. Just because the events/births/deaths are in chronological order does not mean the first one is in moon 1 and the last in moon 3 -- they could have all happened in the same moon. 01:00, August 5, 2017 (UTC)

I'll probably get shot at again, but how's this? <span style="">02:15, 8/05/2017

Bump?? Ivy made a very valid point. <span style="">01:42, 8/12/2017

Be patient. It hasn't even been a day. Your behaviour comes across as...agressive Winter, which is why some people do not wish to comment. Tone it down so we may have a proper discussion.

It doesn't really work. It just looks... messy. I mean, the events don't need the moons and, well, maybe with the births and deaths for ages, but right now, it looks bad. Maybe we can have a note in the cite the moon they were born in? idk.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  02:03, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand how that was aggressive? And I'm pretty sure it's been a week. <span style="">02:06, 8/12/2017

I still stand by my opinion.

As per Winter, Stealth. The last comments were about a week ago, and since Winter is the one who started the discussion, her asking for comments is warranted. There was nothing aggressive in her "bump" comment. And while we're on that note, Stealth, you're being pretty aggressive yourself when it comes to defending your version of the timeline. She provided another method, and there's nothing wrong with that. Ideas are what make this wiki flow, so are there any ways to somehow use both of your versions so no one is killing each other over it?

While the moon listings kinda are cluttery, they are necessary for ages so I'm okay with just the moons and nothing more specific. This actually is similar to what I meant in my earlier comment in it being text-based titles, so thank ya for that. And since that's pretty much the only visible change I can see from the sandbox, it's a pretty good mix of what everyone wants.

blue-grey and being called grey
yep, I'm bringing it up. why are cats like bluestar and her kin given alts for being grey? they ARE grey. it doesn't matter if they're blue-grey, that implies a grey base. it's literally like giving a black and white cat an alt for only being called black, why is it in this case? and if we're doing it for them, then every partial ever may as well be added. seriously. 01:14, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

Quoting Skye from Skype from long before when I asked them, "gray and blue-gray aren't the same thing, gray is gray and blue-gray is more blue" And I agree. Blue-gray is just that. Blue. Gray is a completely different color <span style="">01:16, 8/13/2017

no, it's not. they are literally just grey cats with a slight blueish look to them. and it's not even two shades, not to mention grey is already in their description, which qualifies it as a partial. 01:18, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

its kind of like having puddleshine be called a brown tom rather than brown and white, and someonen make an alt for that <span style="">01:27, 8/13/2017

Yeah I have to agree with you David. It makes sense. They are gray, so they shouldn't have alts since that's literally what they are. Blue gray is part of gray.

Blue-gray and blue are different colors, especially given how wide of a range the gray coloring is..and Bluestar hasn't just been called gray. She's been called dark gray (which that stays, as that contradicts her pale cite), silver, silver-gray, and...literally blue. If anything, this would only eliminate mentioning it, as the one alt StarClan she has that is a lighter gray coloring is for the forehead markings. The alt leader is for silver/silver-gray, and then she has her darker gray alts. None of her alts would be removed in this case, just the mentioning... which I disagree with, but I'm outnumbered. I'm speaking in purely colors, not what a cat looks like...which that's a wider range and some of the colors that would be considered blue-gray are unnatural for a cat.

So pretty much since this is a discussion that's happening right now. if blue-gray and gray are the same thing and it's a partial, then the dark gray cite would mean it's also a partial and she's dark blue-gray. <span style="">03:04, 8/13/2017

kate or someone said the dark grey was a mistake, somewhere. 03:06, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

I think dark gray would be a partial, but she was said to be pale so it still counts as a mistake, I guess?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  08:43, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

dark grey is not a partial. kate said she is just blue-grey. 08:46, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

Mistystar is just blue-gray. As per Kate herself. The cite is on her article. Anything calling her pale or dark are mistakes and should be labeled as such. Not sure about Bluestar and Stonefur, however. Dark gray would be a mistake for both Bluestar and Mistystar, due to Bluestar having a pale cite (which came more frequently, I do believe), and Mistystar being said to not be dark or pale.

Stonefur is cited as pale as well, which means dark gray would be a mistake for him as well.

I personally think that blue-gray and gray are far enough apart to not count as partials to each other, and should receive alts for mistakes that happen around that.

blue-grey is just blue tinted grey though? it's not even two shades apart which disqualifies it on that alone. and I don't think stonefur was ever called dark anyway? 18:48, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

personally, feel free to disregard this, but blue-gray cats should not get alts for being called gray, but should get alts if they are called dark gray. <span style="">18:51, 8/14/2017

Broken that absolutely makes 0 sense. <span style="">20:09, 8/14/2017

i..suppose. i was trying to say that its just blue-tinted gray, but it would be a darker shade than pale, so it should get an alt for that. <span style="">20:17, 8/14/2017

No thatd be another partial as well. <span style="">22:40, 8/14/2017

If a cat is cited pale, like Bluestar, or cited to be neither, like Mistystar, then dark blue-gray (or dark gray) would be a mistake. I'm trying to make heads or tails of this, but you guys seem to want to remove Bluestar's dark gray alts as well, when they are perfectly valid. =/ It's not a partial if it's a totally different shade (dark and pale are not the same thing, guys)

silver-gray tabby and being called a silver tabby
honestly if we're getting rid of bluestar's blue-gray / gray thing, there should be no exceptions to this rule. cats such as echosong shouldn't get an alt for being called a silver tabby because if we're going by the same rule as bluestar's discussion then it's a partial <span style="">02:53, 8/13/2017

Silver tabbies have black stripes. Silver-gray tabbies do not. Silver-gray also implies a gray base, whereas silver tabbies do not. It's not a partial and something completely different.

you're completely overlooking my argument here. If we're going with bluestar's "gray to blue-gray" comments, then this would still apply. since she's silver-gray and she was called a silver tabby, p sure that's a partial. <span style="">02:57, 8/13/2017

No, it's not, because they are not the same thing. We decided this years ago, and there is no need to undo this just because someone else brings up a point on something totally irrelevant. Plus, what PCA decides to do with artwork is not PC's jurisdiction. This is PCA's, and this discussion was already settled. Just because you and some of the other members currently active weren't here doesn't make it any less valid.

that's not at all what im trying to say. I said let the community decide. if we're doing the "its in the description and it's got the same word in it so it must be a partial" thing, then this is also warranted <span style="">03:06, 8/13/2017

The community already decided. We do not re-decide just because most of those members aren't around anymore. The discussion was archived and the ideas implemented. It is not warranted, because they are not the same thing. Silver tabbies and silver-gray tabbies are two totally different things.

I do agree that silver tabbies and silver-gray tabbies are different due to the stripe colours, but I do wonder with these partials rules. I mean, Lionblaze for example, was only ever once called golden-brown, but the rest he was always golden. Being called silver when the cat is silver-gray, I think just counts as a partial.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  08:47, August 14, 2017 (UTC)

Silver, perhaps. But not silver tabby. That outright mean the stripes are black. You seem to be saying two different things, Stealth.

I'm agreeing with Skye here - since they are more than one shade apart, with different definitions, they aren't partials and do warrant alts.