Warriors Wiki talk:Books

Essay Sources
okay... so i've put this off for a long time but here goes nuthin

so if you see the short stories and essays Vicky wrote, like Spottedleaf's Honest Answer, Why is Jaypaw Blind?, Tigerstar: Heart of Evil? they've been hosted on Warrior's Wish. But the thing is, they're all dead. each of these lead to 404's. And I think that we might need to find another place to source them. Like, maybe even userspaces if we have to. Or scratch that, we could just make a page to host the script on mainspace and make it a subpage of their story, like, "Why is Jaypaw Blind?/transcript".

so tl;dr: hosting the essays and short stories on the wiki y/n --

I don't see why we shouldn't host them. I already have the Bright Stream bonus scene that was written for the OF back when it was still around. I'd be fine with placing the others somewhere too, and if you guys want to use my userspace for it, go right ahead.

This site is where I've been nabbing mine from for a few years. I think we could host them in a userspace as well for safekeeping, but for the 'External Links' section on each page, we can replace those broken links with ones from silverpelt for others to download

This going anywhere?

I have no problem with hosting it on the userspace - we actually could have probably done it before. 13:48, May 3, 2018 (UTC)

Agreeing with above^ 04:13, May 7, 2018 (UTC)

Detailed Plot Summary
Quick but getting to the point: detailed plot summary is an oxymoron. A summary is not detailed. A summary is a brief description of the book and there is actually already a summary on each book article. It needs to be changed to either "detailed plot" or "detailed description" or something among those lines, but not a summary. 21:16, April 29, 2018 (UTC)
 * "Detailed [...] summary" is an oxymoron; an internal contradiction in the title. There's nothing wrong with having detailed plot descriptions, but calling them summaries is dishonest. A summary does not include details, is brief, succinct, short and concise statement, whereas detailed is defined as "having many details and facts" . These two words mean the opposite. I'm by no means saying trim down the plots, but at least go with an accurate name like "Plot", "Plot description" or something.

1358 (Talk)  21:22, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

While I personally think it's fine, I'd be up for changing it to 'Detailed plot description'. Many of the new summaries have a lot of detail, so the word detail should stay, and while the articles we have certainly seem like summaries to me if it's that much of a technical grammar issue then I guess it could be tweaked? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The word detail very much needs to stay imo, though

I'm up for changing it - they descriptions we have do seem a little long to be considered summaries. 17:27, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Can I have more comments on this? 03:28, May 7, 2018 (UTC)

yeah, i agree with that. but how about we talk about what we should put instead? --

Point of view
Short and simple: we should not have the abbreviation of "PoV" on our articles, there should really never be abbreviations on subpages at all because it is not proper nor correct. I believe we should simple change it to "point of view." 16:18, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is...

Why do you think so? 16:22, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Is there actual proof of what you're claiming? My question is where does it say that abbreviations cannot be used in articles/summaries/whatnot? Because you're claiming this, but not exactly providing any professional links as proof of it.

Basically that. ^

I'm inclined to let it stay as well - I'm not really getting the concept of a lot of the stuff we're changing, and PoV in particular seems perfectly fine to me. I know there's the properness technicality thing but I still think it should stay. I mean yes we're a wiki but changing each thing to be 1000% correct now is kiiinda getting a little irking when it's qh fine

Agreeing with what everyone has said above^ 17:24, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with wanting things to be correct. Our articles are formal. W rshould nkt be using anything informal. 17:32, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Again, where is your source that proves abbreviations should not be used in articles? Burden of proof falls on you, not us.

I don't really see how this is informal, keeping as-is seems fine to me. 17:36, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Two sources are my english teachers who have studied english and told me with a firm no, "no, it should never be used in a formal article." But, those may not be a valid source, so here you go - one two three http://www.apastyle.org/learn/faqs/use-abbreviations.aspx four] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Write_out_both_the_full_version_and_the_abbreviation_at_first_occurrence five (check the unneeded use sections, appear informal)] If you want to tell me my teachers are incorrect, or this is not a formal article (if it is not I will back off) and should not use this, I do not know what else to say. 17:48, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Also, if we are so vehemently against it, then it means that we should change absolutely every single "point of view" word on this Wiki. There must be a consistency. 17:55, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

Looking at these articles and a few I found on my own, the general consensus seems to be that the first instance of the phrase should be the full version, while abbreviations are acceptable for any other instance even in formal articles (I know when writing scientific papers for my assistantship, we used abbreviations whenever we could). I mostly assume that this is in the context of the chapter subpages, where the little text under "Chapter Summary" reads " [Character's] PoV". Given that the infobox itself says "Point of View: [Character], it seems to me like that follows the conventions set in those links. 18:22 Tue May 1 2018

Which brings up another question. Do we even need that little text if the point of view of the chapter is already brought up in the infobox? It's somewhat redundant. 18:30 Tue May 1 2018

I do agree with the consistency bit.

Just noticed the huge typo I made ... do not type with your phone. And you read my mind. We should not have both on the article. 21:43, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

So yes, adding to that, it is completely redundant. So either we get rid of "[Character's Pov]' or get rid of the "Point of View" in the template. 17:17, May 7, 2018 (UTC)

I'd say get rid of the second one - the one in the chapter summary. No other articles use that type and it looks weird anyway. 21:17 Mon May 7 2018

Night Whispers/Chapter 16 ~ Silver Nomination
CBV?

Eclipse/Chapter 15 ~ Silver Nomination
ty to Maple for characters

CBV?

Twilight/Chapter 13 ~ Silver Nomination
SquidneySucks originally wrote this, I cited the character list, added a quote, and gave the summary a once over

CBV?

The Darkest Hour/Chapter 10 ~ Silver Nomination
TheUsual wrote the first bit. 23:48, 5/10/2018

The Darkest Hour/Chapter 4 ~ Silver Nomination
Duskpaw wrote the first bit. 23:48, 5/10/2018