Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

Character categories
I really think we should start giving characters the categories based on the books they appear in, not by name. I never understood why we did this, but it seems kinda stupid that we do. For example, Firestar doesn't have categories for Into the Wild to A Dangerous Path because he was Firepaw and Fireheart, but he's the same character that appeared in those five books, just different names and ranks. Doesn't make much sense to me having it the way we do now.

02:38, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this should definitely be a thing. The characters are the same, those categories should belong to them. -- 02:46, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

I also second this, and it's something that's always bothered me, too. A good example would be like we did for the early settlers; such as Dust Muzzle. This also includes kit and warrior categories, too. Overall, it's the same character and we should treat it as such. 03:13, August 10, 2019 (UTC)

Not sure of why we originally decided to have it the way it is, but it doesn't make sense to keep it that way, so sure. Might be hard to make sure we don't leave any behind on accident, so we should probably try and make a checklist system and assign people alphabetical batches.

I disagree with this. It’s too much clutter as it is and to have categories that aren’t for the page itself is misleading. Firestar was not a character in ITW... Firepaw was. ​​​​​

I agree with putting all the books they appear in, not just by their current name. I think people see it as for example... Firestar doesn't have the ITW category so he must not appear at all in the book. Yes, it would be a lot of clutter, but it would make sense.

21:23, August 14, 2019 (UTC)

I know this was mentioned in discord, but I'll put it here, too, but we can always condense the book categories to the arcs for those characters who appear in all of them, or nearly all of them. Like how we do it for the info boxes. 12:52, August 16, 2019 (UTC)

I would be fine with condensing the categories, but I really don't think we need to have, say, Firestar's page...list basically every book category from Into the Wild to The Last Hope (along with his other appearances). That, to me, is just way too much and overdoing it. However, I'd be willing to at least try and see what adding an arc category instead might do. This bears the question though, what if someone only wants to search by book appearance, and not by arc? What if someone wants to see if Firestar appears in Bramblestar's Storm, but only has the "Super edition characters" listing? The way we have it is so we can organize things by book, and I don't see this panning out all too well in some cases. It's not that it's a bad idea, but I do want to see how it would work for individual characters, how things would be searched/listed, ect.

tldr; I'm not too sold on it yet and I think there's still a few more things I'd like before this idea is implemented. ​​​​​

We could always keep the Super Editions, novellas, field guides, etc fully listed instead of condensing them, and only condense the main arcs. Any other comments? 18:01, September 7, 2019 (UTC)

Anything happening?

Yup, I still got another question. Would we only condense the main arcs, ect, if a character is seen in all six books? Because there are "character-of-the-day" type cats who are only in maybe one or two books. Would we still be keeping the individual book categories for that purpose? ​​​​

For characters that appear in all six or most of the six books in an arc, I'd say condense it and give them the whole arc category. However, for cats that only appear in one or two books I'd say give them the individual book categories, since they don't appear for the full arc and are important/appear only in that book. way down  hadestown    |undefined    20:16, 10/01/2019 ​

i still say in all six books of an arc should be the means for condensing. if they appear in 5 out of the 6, i think it should be non-condensed 21:40, 10/11/2019

All of Erin Hunter's books are the best books. My fav character is HollyLeaf.

Any more comments? way down  hadestown    |undefined    04:15, 11/02/2019 ​

It's been two months and it seems that we haven't reached a consensus. Any more comments? way down  hadestown    |undefined    17:40, 1/04/2020 ​

I would be fine with condensing them into a single arc category if a character appears in the entire arc. With Super Editions/Novellas, given their smaller number, I feel could just be used by the book name itself, seeing as how we have a lot of super edition only characters (guardian cats, sisters, jessy, etc). With characters that only appear in a handful of books, they can get the specific book category.

18:03, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Oh I'm all for that. Does anyone else want to add to this? way down  hadestown    |undefined    19:14, 1/10/2020 ​

I’m all for what Thunder said too. -- 19:15, January 10, 2020 (UTC)

Merchandise as official art
I've been thinking about this for a while, but was reminded about it again with the recent reveal of the full-sized plushies. Should we consider merchandise of specific characters or Clans as official art? Sure they're not illustrations, but they are official depictions, and we aren't currently featuring them anywhere else on the wiki as far as I'm aware 16:58, November 28, 2019 (UTC)

I actually think a seperate section would do good with this. Maybe have it right under official art and have it be called "Merchandise". If this happened, we could provide a link to the online store in thr template, maybe like "If you want to purchase these items go to [store link]. For the caption, it could be like "[character name]'s [item] on the Warriors online store, or something like that.

Besides that, I do agree with Egg merch should be shown on articles. -- 17:36, November 28, 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds like a good idea. Especially since it's actually official merchandise iirc. That would be really cool, and yeah we could have a section for that. I'm not sure about linking to it though. Sounds like we're promoting it that way? Idk, but including merchandise on here sounds nice, as it is official and is a depiction of the characters.

Hmm.. if we were to add the link to the coding and whatnot, we could put a note like: Please note we do NOT promote these items, only the website does. Doesn't have to be included though, just an idea. -- 18:29, November 28, 2019 (UTC)

Legally, are we allowed to be taking those images for use here? While it'd be cool to show, I'm not sure it's our right to. With copyright laws, and all, unless we have it cleared I'd have to disagree with posting any of their stuff (because if we're in the wrong, it can cause major issues)

I don't see why we wouldn't be able to show the images. Linking I disagree with, but what makes showing the image of a plush product different from showing other official images? Do we have the right to show images from inside the guidebooks/mangas/etc? Unless there's some specific law with showing images of non-book merchandise, I don't see displaying the pictures as a problem. And if the specific images are a problem, we could easily take our own photos 17:00, December 1, 2019 (UTC)

I feel it all depends on how we're using the images, in this case... and I really don't have a problem with linking the stuff back to the official website either; we are here to document everything about the Warriors series, and that should include merchandise. It's not really advertising so much as it's saying "this is an official piece of merchandise that you can buy from HC/WP/whoever is behind the website". ​

I didn't make any reference to advertising. Their ToU says "If you wish to make any use of material on our site other than that set out above, please address your request to info@coolabi.com." -- and the only thing set out above is that yes, we can link to them. It doesn't say we can use their images, and I'm pretty sure that then falls into the "please ask us" category. To address what makes it different - the book cover images are from HC's website, which has a different ToU, and other images are also under other ToU agreements. Essentially, there's no specific law against such a broad category of non-book images, but rather, each site sets it's own rules, and the official website has it's own rules.

Specifically, I bring up this issue with this website because it does say anything other than linking needs permission. If they do give permission - great - I like the idea. I want to stress that copyright laws are a real world issue that extends beyond our wishes, though, and I believe we should go ask them as I said before.

I agree with Spooky. Legal issues are a thing and we should probably do it the right way and ask Wikia, or risk getting in some hot water with copyright laws.

Agreeing with Star. -- 22:06, December 27, 2019 (UTC)

Just want to update that I did email the website from their "contact us" page on the 10th and will update when I have received a follow-up. 23:44, January 14, 2020 (UTC)

Anyways. For trail's sakes; I am leaving this up until Valentine's Day to get a response, and can be archived after that and we can pull it back out if we do get that email back - or have someone send another one.

Revaluating the official site's tree
Normally I'd place this over in Project Operations, but I feel the content affects the characters more so I'm placing it here.

To resolve the continuing debate over regarding the canonical validity of the official website's family tree, I'm just bringing it up here to see if we can reach a verdict. Putting bluntly, are we really taking the tree as a valid source of information? The tree appears to be a cobbled-together structure of old Su Susann cites. While I know some users here consider the tree canon, and a Twitter poll we did some time ago showed that the majority of people took it as a canon as well. However, as stated, the tree looks like it was just taken from old cites that were rebuked by Vicky and likely taken from the wiki itself when they were considered canon. Some statements contradict book works (Willow/Tawny), and some don't (Mosspelt/Frogleap). Some of the icons there also describe characters unlike their descriptions in the books (eg. Leafshade as a tortie and white).

Personally, my main issue here is that the website is official, and I know for a fact that people will complain if we don't take it as information in some form, contrasting from those who believe it to be, more or less, constructed fanfiction presented as valid information. If we don't take the tree as valid, then are we not just disregarding something from the official website itself? At this point, I'd rather just remove the information and list it as something else.

My proposal is that we move the website specific information to something called "Continuity" or something similar to that, where the website info is neglected from the main article pages and family pages if they apply there. I've made two options for us on this, we can have it at the bottom of the page with a header as "continuity" which is just a few sentences detailing what the tree says, an example being this. Alternatively, in a separate tabber for whatever character, an example being Firestar here. At the bottom of the page, it's less crowding up top with the other tabbers, but to me the main article is much too information-heavy. If we do a separate tabber, we can easily divide and distribute the information to whatever subpage it goes to, but the tabbers up top might look a bit crowded. Thoughts? 21:12, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

I agree PC is a much better place, so that this doesn't die out. Thunder's thoughts echo my own, and I think finding a compromise such as this is much better than either keeping it all as Biblical truth, or just scrapping it. I do like the idea of a section better (a lot of the articles even mentioned on the website already have tabs, and tabs crowding, and also it can be so easily made into a section anyways.

The main reason I support this is because of the nature of the website. I respect it's what WP has deigned to put out, but there's significant errors within... it, and it's pretty obvious a lot of it was copied from us, of which was also not accurate at the time... and it's now just cobbled together fanfiction. Albeit, fanfiction of the creators, but in a series with more than one, what's even true? Of course, it's much more reasonable to take proofs and cites from authors when their name is attached, to say "Kate said...xxx" or whatnot, which is fine, but the stuff from the website is largely unattributed or just from "the editor". Who?

It's still important to list somewhere, because it does still exist. That's why a continuity listing, a sector of some sort for it, but also separate from the main article, is the best solution. It's still definitely presented, but it's not indistinguishably entwined with book/named-author canon.

I personally see nothing wrong with taking the website as canon information, especially in regards to the old one. The fact that it is updated both in articles published and initial extreme errors in the official tree (Hazeltail and Mousewhisker as Spiderleg's kits, blue Dustpelt, etc) and those facts, along with the amount of care that does go into the website's desire to connect with the fandom, leads me to believe of its canon validity. Of course it has its blatant errors, though whether that's due to staff size limitations or other issues, I do not know. The website chooses to list FrogXMoss and white tortoiseshell Leafshade for a reason, and that's what I think. But that's just me.

However, I acknowledge and agree to the concerns about the validity of the website. I don't like the separate tab option for the continuity. It makes it...subconsciously demonstrates that it's separate when I think it should be the opposite. I do like the continuity section on the page somewhere. I also really like the official tree separate reference thing, similar with blogs. I don't recall if that was ever officially introduced in a discussion yet (it's finals week and my brain is dead so I apologize if it was), but I like how it does show the reader that "okay so this is from the tree, take it as you will" that we do for the blog cites. I think that, in combination with the continuity section, will work really well. 22:05, December 9, 2019 (UTC)

assuming things
I noticed this earlier and discussed it with David earlier, but I personally think that if there's something in the books that is either blatantly obvious, or has a lot of supporting evidence, we should take it as canon. Things that come to mind are Owlfur being the father of Sunfish's kits. The two of them are mates and while Owlfur himself is never said to be Mallowtail's or Dawnbright's father, literally what other cat could it be? Same goes for Snowbush being the father of Larksong, Leafshade, and Honeyfur. To my knowledge, he is never called their father in the books, but we know he's referred to as Lilyheart's mate in the books, and to me that is very clearly signifying that he is indeed their father, because honestly, Lilyheart is never mentioned to have another mate, and what other cat would it possibly be? Other things like Cedarstar succeeding Houndstar. We know Cedarstar was Houndstar's deputy and the timeframe fits for him to become leader shortly thereafter. Same goes for Volestar and Hailstar. We don't list it because nothing outright says "Cedarpelt succeeded Houndstar", but this (and the above mentioned) are rather obscure details that likely won't be touched upon again.

We do this for other things like Owl Eyes and Owlstar. The two are very obviously the same cat and we consider it canon due to the amount of evidence, or Rabbitleap being the father of Wrenpaw. However, things like the mates of Curlfeather or Sorrelstripe, or assuming a cat's afterlife in of itself is far too broad of a spectrum to assume anything, so we don't put anything there. Thoughts? 23:06, January 5, 2020 (UTC)

I feel like assuming a cat's afterlife (and therefore another blank) isn't a good idea, since it's pretty subjective and (depending on your views of said character) possibly biased. I'm not cool with comparing the two since it's not the same thing. If a cat is mates with someone, like Snowbush and Lilyheart, I feel it's safe to list them both as the parents of the kits. I also feel like Snowbush was called the father of Lilyheart's kits in the TAQ preview we got from Kate, so that counts.

We could possibly add that Cedarstar succeeded Houndstar, and Volestar and Hailstar, and whatnot... but my question is this: where is the proof of all of that? At least with the mates thing, we do have something stating that these cats are mates.

If it's obvious without question, then we might be able to list it with a note.. but if there's anything that could be questioned (such as a cat's afterlife), then I don't think we should be listing it as canon. We're a database on canonical information only, not to be listing our guesses. Something being obvious is not proof and never will be. A hunch or a guess isn't factual evidence that can be used to say "this is what happened for sure", but instead a "this is what we think happened".

I feel like listing two known mates as parents of one's litter is fair to safely assume. Maybe not so much when the books were first published where fathers weren't open about siring a litter than the current books (Whitestorm comes to mind, how he didn't originally outright say "I'm the dad" just that Fireheart caught him looking proudly on when Willowpelt made the announcement she's expecting, but was later confirmed as the kits' father iirc). The cats today tend to stay monogamous with little parentage drama, and it seems like one of those things that changed as time passed. As long as we have confirmation they are mates, I'm fine with listing them as parents.

As for the others, I'm agreeing with Jayce on those. There's no proof Hailstar and Cedarstar succeeded Volestar and Houndstar. While I agree it's highly likely they did, we don't have confirmation. We could put a note in the trivia section saying "It's possible Hailstar succeeded Volestar but this is unconfirmed". Same thing with the afterlife; it's not infallible. 23:42, January 14, 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the parentages. However, I also think we can't safely assume the successions of ranks.

History/Appearances
Hi, this has been on the back burner for uh. Months now? Way too long. Anyways, Bramblestar's impostor is the first example of this: history section changes. Not the short arc histories - specifically for the sections - the long ones - that are by book. A few more examples of this history in play can be found here and here; with the appearances on the impostor page and Petalfur.

Anyways the main point of this is to cut out the useless book headers and condense some of the cats that have 10+ books of just allegiances. We can just make appearance lists (which also help the issue of condensed infoboxes) and pretty histories.

Out of curiosity, is this going on every character (aside from the allegiance only ones)? Or is it characters who've been in the series for years and have so many book appearances? While I don't personally see an issue with what we have currently, I wouldn't object to this, though it'd be a lot of work to implement. 01:59, January 22, 2020 (UTC)

The priority is those with no arc histories because it's what mainly people see (as what loads when a page first displays), but, as the Tigerstar one shows, it can be done for the larger. The Appearances especially to be added to cats that have merged arcs in their inboxes, to have a complete list somewhere.