Warriors Wiki talk:Books

Inactivity V2
As you can see I archived the discussion about inactivity as the conclusion was a new rule will be implemented. Now I want to say that will be strictly enforced. If anyone has any problems with it please list it here. 00:38, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I do have a major problem with it. You added it into the guidelines and are trying to enforce it without having a formal vote. You cannot punish someone for violating an unofficial rule that was not voted into the community. Having a discussion with three people is not a formal discussion in the least. There are more than three users in PB.

Alright, I'm sorry for jumping in without being a member of the project but I'm just going to say that I read that discussion and that was hardly a conclusion. Two people in the project agreed. two. Including you. Not a majority of the project. So uh. Yeah, I have a problem with you enforcing rules that were never actually agreed on.  16:59 Tue Feb 2 

Sure but those were the only two people who commented on it. The conversation was up for over two weeks. I'm going to let it stay untilm something else pops up. 19:46, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

But that's not a conclusion to a discussion, Icy. It was archived without comments, and without even a final call for comments. I checked that discussion, and it was only Splook replying to something, not finalizing it. That's just archiving a dead discussion, not making something an official rule. It's not right to continue to enforce a rule that was never given a formal introduction to PB's memberbase. Just because PB is smaller, does not mean you have the authority to add things to the guidelines without going through the correct procedures. By all rights, you cannot enforce the inactivity rule.

I was not going to wait forever for comments. I apologize if you feel like this but that discussion was up for more than two weeks. And by saying that I cannot enforce inactivity rules, would you like me to let people who have been inactive for over a year sit around? That's what it sounds like to me. 19:51, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

You should have made a final call for comments, instead of just archiving a dead discussion and deem it done. You cannot force requirements without them being voted on, even if they are for what deems someone inactive. I never once said you couldn't remove members; what I'm saying is that you cannot enforce what makes someone inactive. It's no different from senior warrior requirements, staff requirements, ect. They are requirements nevertheless, and given that they are put in PB's official guidelines, that's not something you can add with a discussion between three or four people. Punishing people by removing them based on arbitrary guidelines is wrong. I say this because they were not voted upon- and given that the phrasing did heavily imply you need to nominate in order to maintain membership, a proper phrasing should be agreed upon by the community.

I think over two weeks is basically a final call in itself. You just said yourself, it was dead. I deemed it done because it's basically common knowledge that if you're inactive, you're removed. It's just as simple as that. And inactivity means you're not editing the project. I'm not making definitions, that's what it is. 20:00, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

But it's not, Icy. If that were the case, PCA, PC, and the other projects would be so much different. Look at all the discussions that went dead; they were archived and users told to bring it up at a later date. PB should be no exception to this- in fact, it should be more important to make a final call for comments in a project this size; there was, in no way, shape, or form, any implications that Splook's comment was the final one. There was no proper ending to that discussion and it was archived (without even mentioning that this was going in the guidelines in the final comment) without any form of comment. A dead conversation is not a concluded conversation.

I think you are purposely ignoring the fact that it was a long time since there was another comment. The fact that it's still on the PB tallk page should be a clear indication of "you can still comment". I archived it because it was quite obvious there was going to be no more. And yes I did mention it would be going in the guidelines in the first comment, and I think Splook implied that as well. 20:08, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

I am not ignoring anything. You had no authority to add those "rules" to the guidelines without making it a proper and formal vote, simple as that. You show me where it says "a small discussion with four people is ample enough to add to the guidelines". Other than that, you should not have done so.

And I feel as if you should show me where it says "you must have a vote for something that's obviously going to get you removed from the project if you don't edit." 20:23, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

No, you are doing something that contradicts everything that we've done with projects in the time that I've been a lead; adding things to guidelines without a proper, formal, and conclusive vote and discussion. Burden of proof as to if you are legitimately able to do this falls on you.

No, Cloudy. I am not. You may have been taught to do that, but I haven't. There is absolutely nowhere that says a vote needs to be in place for something that's been around since the time I've been here. Inactivity. I was not adding "Funny jokes must be made on all articles". I added "Inactivity will be enforced." You get removed if you are inactive. PCA, PC, PB, PR, whatever project it is. It's as simple as that. I don't think you're understanding this and I don't know how else to word it. 20:28, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

I do understand it, thank you very much. I'm not stupid, I'm not reading what I want to read, and I certainly know what I'm talking about. You added something to official guidelines without having a vote! You got called on it. It's as simple as that. I fail to see why you cannot have a vote. Where does it say that a project lead can add something to the guidelines without permission? While inactivity is a problem, many leads have just removed them without ever adding official requirements to be considered inactive. I fail to see why this project needs guidelines on inactivity. If someone hasn't edited, then remove them of your own free will. To put something official down means there needs to be official documentation. We have a voting booth for a reason.

No, I really don't think you're trying to see from my point of view. I'm trying to see from yours. I added something to the official guidelines that said if you are inactive you are going to be removed. That's it. I fail to see what's wrong with it and I don't know that there needs to be a vote for something that's been on the wiki for god knows how long? 20:36, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

I am seeing, and I don't agree with it. You are trying to enforce something (I'm talking the requirements; why is there a timespan? Who decides what is or isn't considered a contribution to the project?, ect) without having a vote. Why should you get to decide what does or doesn't count as contributive to the project, and why is the timespan your choice? The discussion lasted one day, and then sat for two weeks. That is not a discussion.

Outcast/Chapter 5 ~ Silver Nomination
Meh, not too fond of the quote. Comments? 02:22 Tue Feb 2

If you don't like the quote, maybe you could use one of Leafpool's like, "You see that silver tabby over there? That's Feathertail. She was Stormfur's sister. She died in the mountains." Leafpool to Jaypaw in Outcast pg. 61 16:38, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Nah I think the quote is fine as it is. 19:49, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

March FA
That time of the year again. So we've gone through a ton of articles (which is awesome) but how about we do Goosefeather's Curse for March? 21:26, February 1, 2016 (UTC)

I think GC wouldn't be a bad idea, but maybe Mapleshade's Revenge would be better because it will be a year since it has came out? Although I'm fine with GC being the FA too. 22:42 Mon Feb 1

Either of those are fine with me. 00:38, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

But I do think we should do Goosefeather's Curse because it's more recent. 00:42, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong with Mapleshade's Vengeance? A more recent book doesn't mean it's better. What makes Goosefeather's Curse more worthy of being an FA?

I didn't say it was better. My opinion is that GC should be first because it's more recent. However if the majority agrees with MV then that is fine with me. 19:47, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

I personally think Mapleshade's Vengeance would be better for the March FA, even though I really like both novellas. February 2, 2016, 20:18 (UTC)

Forest of Secrets/Chapter 2 ~ Silver Nomination
This one's done, although someone could pobably add more space between the paragraphs(I tried). Credit to those who worked on it before me. 2 February 2016, 20:43 (UTC)