Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

=Discussion=

Brokenstar being blind?
Shouldn't his description of being blind be removed as he has had his blindness restored in the Dark Forest?

 Starry  Hawk Meow... 03:27, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

No. He died blind ouo 09:30, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

So? Not like death means anything anymore. 01:33, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Good point^^. If his sight's been restored, I don't think it's considered part of the description anymore...

But isn't that his afterlife? Shouldn't his description include his description /at death/? Not after, not way before. 21:55, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail's sight was restored after he died; wasn't it? Shouldn't it be the same for Brokenstar? -- Starry  Hawk Meow... 03:36, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Did we remove blindness from Longtail's description? I see no reason to do so with Brokenstar. 23:56, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail's blindness was removed, it looks like. Should we remove it from Brokenstar, too? Jun 27, 2012; 16:04pm

I personally think we should add the blindness part back into Longtail's article, and keep it in Brokenstar's article. -- 17:54, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, I thought Longtail's was removed for lack of spoilers.... but in that case, I don't know why Brokenstar's is there..... *shrugs* No clue. 23:27, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

But Brokenstar's case of being blind would also cause spoilers. 23:42, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

We got rid of it for Longtail so we should get rid of it for Brokenstar. Sincerely: ChanCharm (Talk) 07:55, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail's failing sight was removed because of spoilers, because it happened after the original series, in FQ, but Brokenstar's blindness was inflicted in Fire and Ice, so it doesn't really count as a spoiler. It's cited and non-spoiler, so I think it should stay. 08:00, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should include "formerly blind" in their Brokenstar's (and if you want to agree with me since these pages have spoiler tags, Longtail's) description? 00:10, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it...It's still in the afterlife. 18:11, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

If they're not blind anymore, then that's that. Like Shelly said, death doesn't really mean anything anymore and we see them in the afterlife, sight restored. I think it should obviously be mentioned in its respected section but when they're seen dead, state that their sight was restored. 18:22, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

Should we add to the Trivia that his sight was restored? 20:08, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

ABout the whole spoiler thing, there are spoiler tags for a reason, if users don't even bother reading the spoiler tags, that's not our fault. But his description is to be kept up-to-date, right? If it is it should be added to his description than. (IMO) 19:45, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem is that the spoiler tag is below the description, and the description is meant to be spoiler free. Personally, I think we should just move a spoiler tag, it'd make things like this much easier... 05:59, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Moving the spoiler tag wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Pretty much, the entire article is one giant spoiler, so shouldn't the warnings reflect that?

Moving the spoiler tag would work. When I first joined this wiki I always wondered why the spoiler tag was put below the description, as I saw no point in putting it below. Descriptions are never going to be exactly spoiler free so why not move the spoiler tag? o.o 06:38, 01, 09, 2012

I agree with moving the spoiler tag. 17:15, September 1, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving the spoiler tag. 01:47, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Reference Check
So, Paleh and I created this in order to help keep track of references on each character's page due to falsified references. How it's planned to work is when you check an article's references, you will add the current date under the "Last Checked" column next to the correct character you checked. Paleh and I also thought about having users separately join this "sub-project" because some users are unaware of how to do references, or just don't concern themselves about it, so it might be a bit iffy on how they went about it. It's pretty simple, so what does everyone think about it? 17:23, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a great idea, it'll keep everything organized, and help the wiki as a whole. -- 17:31, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

So we just check every single reference on the entire page? I still think that creating a "verified ref" template would be easiest. That way those looking at the page can see that they're verified without having to look at your subpage. 17:40, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. -- 21:34, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

References are constantly changing such as to an earlier mention or removed due to a false cite or changed to a falsified cite due to a misunderstanding or something. A template wouldn't keep up with those changes. With the subpage, users can look at what references haven't been checked in a while. Also, with a "verified ref" template, what kind of impression would that give off to those users who are looking at this wiki for information, or to Kate? 23:49, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

It would give the impression that we care about the references and want them to be as accurate as possible. 19:57, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

It would also give the impression that despite citing things, we can't always be reliable with our information. Though that's true, we're trying to fix that, and it's not a good rep to have about the site. 00:27, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

I support this idea. Jun 26, 2012; 01:17am

I love this idea, actually...well done. 14:54, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

I like this idea too. 03:17, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

What about for those of us that don't own every single book? Because some pages do cite references from every book in the main story (OS, NP, PO3, OOTS), and most people don't own or have access to all of them at once. But if they want to use this table, then what are they to do? They can't say the cites are verified if they can't verify every one. It should be fair, and every cite should be checked, not every one on a page all at once. 03:55, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps we can have another row in the table where people can mark the books that have been checked, in case they don't have access to them all. I don't know, just an idea. 04:30, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

I also support this idea, I also like both of Loonie and Paleh's ideas. 18:56 Thu Jul 12

This is a good idea, and Paleclaw, I like your idea since some people including myself don't own every book and we can share the checking. Sincerely: ChanCharm (Talk) 08:07, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea ^^ 00:19, July 17, 2012 (UTC)

I really like Paleh's idea, it would make references even more accurate. 03:05, July 22, 2012 (UTC)

Are we going to put this into action? Also, are we going to add another section to the table? 18:39, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this discussion?

-forgot I was still part of this project owo ;.;- anyways I like this idea and I agree on having a new section that mentions what books have been checked. Just a question, once all the books on an article have been checked, would we restart the book-reference check or add the dates for when the different books are checked. Because if we check the books at different times, we won't quite know which book-references need to be updated. (That doesn't really make sense, doesn't it?) 02:34, 19, 08, 2012

Well I think the original idea was something along the lines of us dating the last time checked, then when a while has passed, the article is checked again. Not totally sure though. However, if we use that system, I'd suggest working out a rough time range in which you should check references, and what would be considered too long without checking.

You know.... if we really wanted to make this thorough and not have to recheck things a lot, we could make like a little section rather than a row on the table, and list all the cites on the page, and whether they've been checked or not. Then people rechecking pages can see what's been checked, what hasn't, and what hasn't even been added to this list (and therefore is not checked). But that is quite a bit more work than the original idea, and I'm not sure it's really needed. But I figured I'd just throw that out there. 06:12, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Cats that May be Eligible for More Than One Main Image
Alright, this should be an ongoing thought in the heads of editors here, but I thought I'd open up a discussion first to get some of the older articles out of the way.

Since we have the toggle feature available for use in charcats now, being primarily used for cats that hold more than one rank, like Leafstar, we have a chance to display multiple descriptions for cats like Mapleshade, who have two descriptions used equally as much as each other.

I'm not saying we should list two descriptions on character articles in cases like that: the first one should always be used in this case unless an author confirms another description. But in these cases we can show two chararts at once, like with Brackenfur, who is called ginger as much as anything else.

So what I'm putting this section here to ask is, who else could have two chararts displayed? Can anyone think of other cats that have had two descriptions used equally as much? 00:27, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I thought about this. What about the description? If the charcat has a tortoiseshell image but the description says ginger-and-white, are we changing the description to "Mapleshade is a ginger-and-white she-cat,[1] but she is also sometimes described as tortoiseshell.[2]" I don't think we should do two chararts for false descriptions because of this. I get the two ranks thing, but different descriptions... That's just too much. 00:34, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but in this case it's not just sometimes. She's called or displayed as tortie as much as ginger-and-white, and technically she was described as tortie first, so you could argue for both descriptions. And so it makes sense to display both. Same for Brackenfur, who was first described as ginger in any case. 00:41, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I think we just have to pick one. Because having two could really confuse people who are new to this site and may not know about the trivia. 00:42, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's why we write "alt. warrior" or whatever aboue the image and why we don't change the description. I choose not to underestimate out visitors that much. 00:46, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Shelly. If we choose one or the other for their main description, then we are just assuming, and we don't assume. 01:05, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Loonie, the descriptions just seems too much, I think we should only do ranks. 02:29, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree as well. I know I'd be confused if I saw two different descriptions. I think we should stick with ranks and ranks only. Errors are what the trivia statements are for, honestly.

I disagree with adding them. It would be much too confusing to new members, as has been said, and would also mean they no longer have a set description. They'll have two, which I don't think is right. And please don't add those alts to the pages before we actually agree on this. =.= 21:16, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

First off, Paleclaw, as I've told you over and over, I do not need to ask a project's permission before I do everything. I proposed this idea in the chatroom and people agreed with me, so I just did it. No one had a problem with it until I brought it up here. PC does not exist to put red tape on articles you have to go through before editing them.

And, as I've already stated, I choose not to underestimate every person that goes through this website. And, in at least the cases of Mapleshade and Brackenfur, who are we to decide which of their descriptions is used? They were both described differently at first and are very often given that same alternate description. If anything, it's our duty to display both for the sake of thoroughness and for the sake of not making assumptions. Brackenfur is very often and was originally called ginger. Mapleshade was originally called a tortie and white by the Erins and has been shown half the time as being one. We cannot in these cases just pick one description. We can write down one on the head of the article, but if we have the power why shouldn't we just show both descriptions? 12:25, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

And really, why should we simplify articles just because it might confuse people? Have you guys gotten any human interaction lately? The world confuses people. Dumbing down our articles based on the assumption that people passing through won't know what the word "alternate" means would accomplish nothing. 12:28, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

In the end, the image in the second slot of the toggle isn't a big deal. So long as the one that automatically shows and the "correct" image is the primary one that shows automatically and everything is labled clearly what goes in that second toggle slot is largerly inconsequential. Unneeded Red Tape will hurt PC and discourage editing. That's a bad thing. In the end, if every character gets a second image, it dosne't matter (so long as they're all clearly labled and approved images!). 12:34, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

And if you guys are so dead-set on not having alts in the charcats based on the assumption that they might confuse people, why should we have alts on this website at all? Oh no, people might see the alts in the charart galleries and get confused! We can't have that, can we? Why risk it? Why not delete every single alt charart on the off chance someone passing through won't know what "alt" means and couldn't look it up and might start throuwing a hissy fit because they didn't know what a word meant? 12:39, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I honestly agree with Shelly. When two different descriptions are mentioned, we're assuming the description by adding only one of them to the character's article. I've seen users get confused about the alternate images in the galleries - so then why have alternates? People get confused, people make mistakes, people get angry, sad, and happy. We can't change that. There's always someone bound to get confused - and we can't try to erase confusion from the wiki. Best to avoid confusion, yes, but simply having alts can confuse people. If a character (like Mapleshade) is mentioned with two different descriptions enough times, then the toggle tool should be used to display her first and second description, and as Kit said, the "correct" (assumed correct...) description's image should be shown as the image in the toggle tool automatically. 12:47, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

My opinions not changing on thinking we shouldn't add the alts to the main charcat. However, as for you "not needing permission of PC to do things" you DO need permission to do major things. Say I were to, oh I don't know, add a relationships section to character pages, like with friendships and such, and I didn't mention it once to PC until I added it to multiple pages. That wouldn't be Ok. When you're changing outright how we do things on here, and it'll affect multiple characters, and will be something permanent, you do need to consult PC. PC's not a "red tape" on editing articles, however it is here to discuss major things that should be discussed, and not just added on one user's opinion. You can argue it all you like, but you should not be adding and changing major things that were never discussed just cause you think we should. 18:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paleh on this. It changes multiple articles, and can't just be added at will just because one or two members agree...that's not what this community is about. Simply put, Paleh's example is the same thing as what you're doing. And now to avoid drama, I'm going to stay out of this. I provided my opinion, and that's what needed to be done.

Well, instead of doing this, why don't we come up with some sort of guideline as to which description really should be used? Whichever is used the most is what we use, or whatever the first mention was?

And frankly Shelly, sarcasm really isn't needed. 19:02, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Who said I was being sarcastic? If you guys think that having an alt image in the charcat will confuse someone and that's reason enough not to do it, why have alt images anywhere on the site? I'm being completely serious. 19:09, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree with Shelly's reasoning why we should have both. Heck, I'm confused why Ivypool was called black in TLH by the Erins. People are confused by the medicine cat blanks, saying they have green whiskers (even my own mother). While big changes do need to be discussed before being implemented, it's good that we tried out the coding for a practical usage and to see how it looks on the article. 19:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Coding could be tested and practically implemented without changing the article's layout without discussion though. =.= And I think it'd be confusing to have it in the charcat where people simply looking for their main description can see it at first glance. If you're looking in the character pixels section, right above it explains where the character was called by a difference description at each instance. Putting it in the charcat doesn't explain anything, and personally I think it's uneeded. And what about those characters who weren't even mentioned as the other commonly used description in the main rank? What will we do then? A new alt wouldn't be made, they were never mentioned like that at that rank. So what then? I think we're fine leaving the alts in the trivia, and simply deciding on guidelines for what is main description. I see no problem with using the first mention as the main description in these kind of cases. Seems that's what Kate does anyways. It was the first, and tied for most commonly used. We list the other description in the trivia, so what's the problem with keeping it like that? 19:30, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Though yes, for major changes to an article's layout, it needs to be discussed, but seriously, I feel that editing is being restricted for even minor changes to the article unless discussed. Somewhere on a wikia policy article it states something along the lines of don't be shy to edit. In my opinion, it feels uncomfortable to make some changes to an article now. And did Shelly ever change an article to having two images for two descriptions? No. Not at all. So then why are you guys getting worked up over something she did not do? And frankly, if confusion is such a big problem and is the reason why this idea is not put into action, then it would be easy to say that every time someone gets confused over something in an article, you should remove it. I get confused fifty times a day - when reading, when listening to someone, and doing anything else. But, when I read something in a book that confuses me, that doesn't mean I should just close up to book and never read it again. People get confused literally by everything. But eventually, after confusion, there can always come realization. 20:02, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

and I'm personally getting worked up because she changed the layout without discussing at all. It wasn't just something small, or even something big that would only affect one character. It was major, and would affect many characters. So therefore, it should have been discussed before adding. Not added and discussed whether to remove it or not. Anybody's welcome to make changes to articles, they shouldn't be discouraged, but when they're outright changing how we do things in the future, yes, it needs to be discussed. As for the confusion thing, I still stand by my opinion. I don't think it's needed. It'll cause unneeded confusion since there's no explanation for the alts until way down on the page. And the alts are already listed with explanation later in the page, so why list them twice? Just cause they're described that way more often than other alts doesn't mean it has to be listed at the top of the page. I think it's fine the way it is if we simply have a set in stone guideline on what becomes the main description, and the whole first mentioned thing works fine for that in my opinion. 20:14, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the layout was changed other than the addition of an option to have a second image that you click a button to see. The idea of it being avalible for characters with strong contender alts (that are just as likly as the description we support to be the correct description) was something I suggested to Shelly while I was writing the code for the toggle into the Charcat. There's honestly no guideline on this page that says a character article /can't/ have a section discussing the friendships a character has. If the editor can defend it as brining valid information not adiquatly covered in the rest of the article, there shouldn't be an inquisition by PC about it. PC should look at it (and make sure it's formatting looks consistent with the rest of the article) and then say "It's diffrent, but that was certainly a reasonable way to deal with that information that wasn't well covered otherwise". Not project needs to discuss every change to an article. In some cases, if there are questions as to a variation in formatting, it is apprirate to discuss it at the project level, but the phrase "you should have asked PC" shouldn't come up. The thing you should be asking is "Is there a better way to deal with this? Maybe we should take it to PC for a dicussion. Someone else might have an even better way!" Editors are not required to ask the project for permission to edit. In fact, editing an article to see how it works out before a discussion is generally a great way to deal with things. If things have to be undone, well. That's what history is for. PC's purpose is not to create red tape to discourage editing. 00:52, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

Umm... I don't think it's the toggle anyone has a problem with, because I quite like that myself. I do believe it's deciding what that toggle is used for. I know it's for characters who hold two ranks at once, like Leafstar, but the disagreement comes from the alts, like Brackenfur and Mapleshade.


 * Yes, but adding a second image to the charcat is not changing the layout. In the template, there's image 2 and option 2 parameters, which means that a second image is defiantly allowed and doesn't need to be brought up to project before adding it. Because it was already decided in PC to put the toggle tool in action, and it doesn't need to be discussed again (Each time you put the toggle tool into action). 07:15, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

No, it was decided to use the toggle for characters that had two ranks, like Leafstar. We never decided it should be used for alternates. 03:31, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) Alright. I'm sorry I didn't beg you guys for permission before I edited, but that's not what this is about. How about we stop this bickering and move on to being productive about it? We've all stated our cases. Very thoroughly. Why not just have a vote about whether or not to use the toggle for cases when a cat has a very strong alternate contender for their description? If someone agrees, I'll start up a voting page on this topic and we can settle this once and for all, agreeing that we all accept the results of that vote without protest. 17:55, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a vote put up for this. Honestly, the toggle isn't going to get a whole lot of use if it's only for two ranks, I think it could be used for alts too.

Mmkay, the vote is here. 18:41, July 29, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now that that is settled, let's get back to my original question. Besides Mapleshade, Thornclaw, and Brackenfur, what cats might be eligable to have the toggle used in this way? 23:29, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Lilykit is the only other one that I can think of, as shown here. 05:01, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this discussion?

I think Gorsepaw might also be a possible character for that... from what I remember, he was described very few times. Unless he was described a lot more than I remember, that wouldn't really be enough times to verify which is his proper description. 06:07, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Thrushpelt (TC) and foster family
He was, after all, a foster father to Bluestar's kits and I feel that it should be listed that he was. Jul 23, 2012; 18:05pm 18:05, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. What does everyone else think?--  Featherstorm9678   22:03, July 23, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

We did it for her, did we not? Thrushpelt was indeed a foster father to Bluefur's kits, I would say.

Yep, I think it should be added. 18:00, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Was it actually confirmed that Thrushpelt was a foster father by say Bluestar herself? I thought everyone in ThunderClan assumed that Thrushpelt was their father but was it ever confirmed? 18:26, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Thrushpelt said that he would act as their father, and to the reader, I think that counts as being a foster father. But to the rest of ThunderClan, he would be acting like a normal father..

Yes, he should. 15:20, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If we do it, I want to do it. I've added to charcats, erased from charcats, and fixed charcats.--  Featherstorm9678   06:12, July 26, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Feather, adding something to an article isn't something you can claim -.- There's five articles that need to be changed; I'm sure we'll be able to handle it. 03:26, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

So, are we adding him as a foster father? 22:34, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Do we?--  Featherstorm9678   01:40, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I'll add it. If it gets removed, -shrugs- oh well.--  Featherstorm9678   01:43, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Done.--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   01:54, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

I think we should have an "okay" on this before we start adding this, that's why I removed it. (IMO) 02:01, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

You've got an okay from me. Let's see what the other project leads think. Duck, Holly? What about you guys?

You guys have got an OK from me, too. =3 02:06, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

So, can I add it back?--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   02:19, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Featherstorm9678

Please wait until all the project leads have given their okay.

Firnen (me), says OK. =3--<span style="background-image:-webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000)); -moz-gradient(linear, left top, right top, from(#0BB5FF), to(#000000));">  Featherstorm9678   02:22, August 4, 2012 (UTC)Firnenrules9678

Firnen, your not a project lead. Just wait until Hollydapple leaves her opinion. 19:54, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are the project leads the one who make decisions for a project? Just because something doesn't get their "okay", does that mean that the proposed change to the project or an article of that project won't happen? Or if they say "okay", it will happen, even though the rest of the community disagrees? If you're going to make changes and it needs to be brought up, then the majority of the community must agree, not just the leads. Btw, just because one is not a lead, does not mean they can't voice their support in something. Since this needed to be brought up for the agreement of others, then at least wait until the majority of the community says their support or against comments. -.- Project leads are handed administrative duties in the project, and they also play a role in keeping sure that any arguments need to be put out, not be the ones who must say the "okay" for a proposed change to happen. But Featherstorm, don't be so quick to add something to an article without the community's support (if that proposed change to the article has been needed to be brought up).

Anyways, I don't think this should be added to the article. It was never confirmed that he was a foster father, even though he said he would act as their father. A five year-old kid can act as a father for a game, but that would not mean s/he is a foster father. Same with Thrushpelt, who knows? He might've even been playing game, for all we know. 14:31, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about them not saying their opinion. I was talking about things being finalized without the opinions of the leaders of the project. Featherstorm was jumping the gun, and that's why I said wait. >.>

Thrushpelt wasn't playing a game with the kits. I don't remember the exact thing, but it had nothing to do with a game. o.o He said something about treating the kits as his own or something like that...

I'm pretty sure he wasn't playing a game, but there is no exact cite to support that he wasn't playing a game. And sorry, I probably misunderstood with the lead thing. 19:44, August 8, 2012 (UTC)

He was the foster father. He wasn't playing a game. Here are some quotes that prove it >.>... You know how I feel about you Bluefur, I'd do my best to make you happy, I promise.And I'll love your kits as though they were my own.-Thrushpelt BP pg. 456 another shall we,... ''I thought Thrushpelt was our father. That's what Runningkit told me.''-Stonekit BP pg. I can't remember 8D more... ''You can tell the Clan I'm the father, if you want. I mean, if it makes things easier.-Thrushpelt BP pg. 456 one more... Her faithful friend had kept her secret till the very end, only ever speaking of the kits with the fond grief of a father.-Bluestar BP pg. 505--Firnenrules9678


 * Did any of those quotes say exactly //foster// father? 07:00, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't have to say specifically foster. I don't think that term was ever actually used. All we need is a cite that clearly says he acted as their father, not just let the Clan assume it. 06:24, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

I think there is enough information to call him their foster father. As Paleh said, we just need a cite that states that he acted like their father, and I think one of those quotes could work as one. o.e <span style="">03:45, 19, 08, 2012

Honestly I'm not sure it is.... as I said, we need a quote that says he acted as father, not just that the clan assumed he was. In all of those quotes it says nothing about him really acting as father. All of them are about other people assuming and him letting them. The closest for what we need is where he said he'd love her kits as his own. Though I'm still not sure whether that's good enough... 23:49, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

I can try to find a quote; surely it would be enough? -- 06:19, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Events Timeline
Shelly asked me to bring this up, and I think she's got a good point. Anyways, the Events Timeline page is currently in the jurisdiction of PW, however, shouldn't it be changed to here in PC? After all, it covers the characters just as much as the events, if not covering the characters more. Since it covers quite a lot about the characters, like births, deaths, ect..wouldn't it make more sense to have the page in this project? I have no idea how to phrase it...so...yeah, just go with it. Hopefully you get what I mean.

I agree. The only thing that the timeline involves with PW is the time something took place. 20:45, July 30, 2012 (UTC)

This makes sense. I agree. 21:30, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think both projects can have jurisdiction. And this project is really good about getting things done and getting them done well, so I think that it'd be best for us to work on the events timeline because it really, really needs work. The cites on it are a joke and many are based on presumption. I brought this up with PW and nothing has been done about it. Since this article effects character articles, at least when it comes to the ages of characters, this project has every right to handle it. 21:45, July 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Dual jurisdiction is the best idea for this one. It effects both projects, so both projects get a say. 01:25, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

Having it in dual jurisiction is a good idea, with both projects working on it, it'll get finished faster. 18:57, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with it being in both projects. =3 19:30, August 5, 2012 (UTC)

Supporting with it being in both projects. 23:43, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Cody ~ Possible loner?
I've been wondering for a while now if Cody, from Dawn, would be classified as a loner for her time in ThunderClan, while not an official member? Comments? Thoughts? Opinions? <span style="">05:19 Sun Aug 19

I don't think she would, because she was taken against her will, she didn't want to be a loner, and she never expressed an interest in being anything besides a kittypet. I hope I made sense. 05:23, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

She couldn't have been taken from her Twoleg nest against her will. She left it willingly I think she said every night, expressing the fact that she didn't want to be just a kittypet. Obviously she didn't like being inside all the time, which is saying that she didn't like being in the nest sometimes, which shows that she obviously had the ideas of a being wild cat, but the only thing that made her leave ThunderClan was the fact that she didn't want her Twolegs worrying and that she wasn't a fan of blood and gore. <span style="">09:23 Mon Aug 20

Yes, but in the series almost every kittypet is curious, there are a lot of instances whee kittypets wander from their nests. Also, I meant she was taken from her walk against her will. owo 23:46, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

I always saw her as a kittypet temporarily in the care of ThunderClan. She's still a kittypet; just because she was taken, and lived outside of her nest for a brief amount of time, doesn't make her a loner. In fact, I think that's the same reason we didn't give the Clan cats who were captured by those same Twolegs kittypet images. They were taken against their will.

In my opinion, she wasn't a loner. Like Ducksplash said, many kittypets wander from their nest. Firestar did, he was over the age of six moons, so he would count as a loner but he wasn't, he was just a curious kittypet at the time. She was taken against her will, so she didn't choose to be a loner, she was just a kittypet still. 15:34, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well actually... She wandered from her nest and removed her collar, both before she got captured. Does it actually say anywhere why she did that? I seem to remember something about her not liking being with her twolegs, but then, I don't remember that book very well and don't have it to check. 06:03, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Toggle thing for Lilykit?
We used the toggle for Mapleshade, whose description contradicted from tortoiseshell to ginger and white, so should we for Lilykit? She was most recently described as tabby, but has also in TLH been called a tortie (again) So should we use it for her? 22:00, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

That's what we decided to do for her, however, since her tortoiseshell description is used first and is used more frequent (1 extra time) I think her description should be changed to tortie. 19:18, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Owlwhisker Article
Can I point something out? In Owlwhisker's page, he is described as a pale light. Aren't those two words almost the same? And he was described as a light in a later book, when he appreared in the allegiances. Just wanted to help out. :) http://warriors.wikia.com/wiki/Owlwhisker 50.43.166.199 01:14, August 25, 2012 (UTC) StarClan

Bluestar's Death
Recently, the cause of death on Bluestar's article has been thrown into question.

I'm not here to fight or argue. I'm here to get opinions.

I'm of the opinion that she drowned and that that's the information we should display on her page. She went under and stayed there too long, took water into her lungs that deprived her brain and blood of oxygen, and she died because of it. Put simply, though she died on dry land, she drowned, even if it was dogs that dragged her down and shock may have been part of what killed her. But going on that logic, we could throw into question every cause of death. We could put in that Halftail was killed by Fireheart instead of smoke inhalation.

So, opinions? What information on her death should we display on her page? Killed by water or drowned? 02:15, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

This is on her talk page as well, Shelly. So, I'll place what I put there here as well.
 * Why do people keep saying she drowned? She didn't. If you guys re-read what happened, it wasn't just the water that killed her. To say she drowned is an assumption, because there were also multiple other factors that played a major part in her death, including old age, the dogs, and the pressure of the water itself. She fell off a cliff, for StarClan's sake. I don't think her death should say "drowned", because that's clearly not what happened. Read the prologue of Bluestar's Prophecy again. If she drowned, would she have been able to speak or anything because of the water in her lungs? I don't think so. If her mind had been deprived of blood for too long and she died because of that, she wouldn't have been able to speak, let alone apologize to her kits. 

I am under the assumption that she died of complications, not only from the water, but from her fall and old age. I'm not sure how you would word that exactly, but drowning comes from not being able to breathe, and she was able to breathe in a few gasps, and like Cloudy said, speak a few words. I mean, if she was a younger cat, she may very well have not died from that ordeal. So let's compromise and find a way to word it as complications from these multiple factors, if that's what we come to an agreement on ^^ 03:38, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Also I'd like to point out that drowning happens while you're in the water and unable to breathe, not on land after it's been established you can talk and your lungs are clear kthxbye.

We don't know her exact cause of death, and there was something I believe Shelly said we would never do when I suggested cause of death: Assume. "Killed by water" is actually really dumb if you think about it. Did the water grow claws and cut her throat open? She did not drown, so therefore she was not killed by water. I say we remove it altogether. 03:42, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

She didn't drown, and the water most definately didn't suddenly grow teeth and bite her throat. What could have happened was a simple case of heart failure from being under the pressure of water too long. Contributing fators would've been old age, deppression, anxiety, etc. but in the end, her heart might not have been able to survive the pressure of the water. Sure, she managed to get out and speak for a bit, but remember, she was very weak and if memory serves, she was panting and gasping, a sign of a heart attack or heart failure. Her heart couldn't withstand the water pressure, and so, imho, that's why she died. <span style="">09:49 Tue Aug 28

As Berry said, there could have been heart complications involved with her death. She maybe also could've been very stressed out. So, basically, I'm with Berry here.

I'm inclined to believe that while she showed symptoms of a heart attack, she could have also had a panic attack too. She was under a lot of stress at the end of her life and suddenly, there she was, in the water which she had been told would destroy her. She also had enough energy to try to swim again. So most of the most fatal factors that played a part in her death (e.g panic attacks, shutting down of body systems) were related to water. Of course, other factors contributed, but you could just refer to them as "other factors" as there are too many to list. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#571B7E; background:#2554C7; border:2px solid #151B54; -moz-border-radius: 1em; -webkit-border-radius: 1em; color:#151B54;"> Millie  Purple   is   Perfection  10:24, August 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Let's try and not complicate her death. Sure other factors played in, but we can scrutinize every other death and put a capacious list of factors that went played in their death when a simple answer would suffice. In fact, you can claim that being born played into someone's death and why not list every scratch they had in their life since somehow, I'm sure someone can find a way how it relates to their death. Now, yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but honestly heart complications, old age, water pressure, and the likes? Unless everyone actually wants to throw every single death into question and dissect it like a fetal pig, I highly recommend narrowing it down to one reason.


 * I also would like to kill the assumption that it was heart failure or a heart attack. Words and phrases like "might", "to believe", "in my honest opinion" or the likes show that it's completely and utterly questionable and unless we get an author's confirmation, I completely disagree to adding it in. Plus, "panting and gasping" could just mean she was out of breath when she ran head on into the dogs or couldn't breath underwater.


 * While drowning may or may not be the reason we chose, it does seem like the lack of oxygen killed her whereas it could be disproved by the fact that she talked. I'm much more inclined to list something like "over fatigue". 22:53, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well honestly, I'm not sure we should really put anything there. IT was a bunch of factors combined that killed her, and there's no specification whatsoever that says what eventually was the real cause of death. Unless it's said somewhere how she died, then I don't think we should actually list any information. Maybe at most something like "Multiple complications" or something, but to single anything out would be assuming, just as we are for drowning. 05:50, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Family Tree Idea
I've been meaning to suggest this for a while now, but never got around to it. I think something like this would be quite useful. I've seen confusion over the fact the trees are often cut off without much explanation, since we obviously can't fit all characters on the trees. However I think doing it like that, and linking to the trees with the other lines would be helpful, rather than cutting them off completely with no other link or anything. I think this would make it more organized and clear, and help make it easier to know what cats to add to the trees and what should be left off, since you simply link to another tree. What do you guys think? Whoo I finally suggested it! ;w;  07:01, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

I quite like the idea. It's better than just cutting it off and users could find more information on the family tree easier. I support it. x3 <span style="">07:26, 31, 08, 2012

I love this idea, when I first joined I wondered why it didn't go on and now it can... owo 01:52, September 2, 2012 (UTC)

=Nominations=

Owlfur-Silver Nomination
I can't say anything other then I'm taking a risk with this nomination. Comments? 13:21, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Split up paragraph 6 in Crookedstar's Promise, it's a little big. 17:19, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Any more quotes? 00:49, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Anything else for BoTC? 04:50, August 13, 2012 (UTC)

Still working? 19:07, August 19, 2012 (UTC)

Can you actually split up more paragraph's than just the one Silver mentioned? <span style="">08:56, 20, 08, 2012

I for got about this, sorry. But I split the paragraphs, and I'll get BotC at the library and bug my friend for CP back.-- 13:25, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Rainfur ~ Silver Nomination
God, I love this cat<333 Added a bit to the history and added a quote. Comments? <span style="">11:50 Thu Aug 23

Please cross of the remaining concern on the talk page. Also, is there anything else you can add to After The Flood or SkyClan's Destiny? =3 22:07, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

This may sound silly, but can you expand Firestar's Quest anymore? 18:18, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think Firestar's Quest is fine... 13:44, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Added to the history ^^ <span style="">11:07 Wed Aug 29

Creekfeather ~ Silver Nomination
I worked on expanding and fixing up the history a bit. I understand that it's history needs to be expanded and fixed up more, but I currently don't have SD with me, and it'll be about three days until I have the book with me. So please don't tell me to expand the history. 12:49, August 23, 2012 (UTC)

Expanded and detailed the history, and added a quote.

I took out a direct quote, could you add more quotes? I'm sure he says something in the manga at the back of either FQ or SD. 20:09, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

There aren't much quotes, or at least ones that describe him.

Cloud - Silver Nomination
Not lettin' this one slip by me... I detailed the last sentence in Outcast, which was what i was told to do last time this was up. 12:53, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to expand Outcast in general? 13:45, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Done. 14:47, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Jester - Silver Nomination
As much history that could possibly be jammed from two sentences has been added as well as a main quote. 22:18, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

Could you detail the first sentence? 13:46, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

No. But I did incorporate it with the paragraph.

Swiftstar (LC) - Silver Nomination
I switched the main quote and added other quotes, but there's really nothing more to add, as he's only mentioned a handful of times. Comments? =D 02:18, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Marshscar ~ Silver Nomination
I'll go through the history, and look for quotes. The history is expanded to the max. So please don't tell me to expand the history. Please. ;.; 21:27, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

I detailed the history and added the last quote he says. 20:07, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Nightwhisper ~ Silver Nomination
BoTC is expanded to the max, but I'll look through Forest of Secrets try to expand that little paragraph and get some quotes. Comments? 21:30, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

There aren't any quotes. 19:47, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Pebblefur ~ Silver Nomination
I'll see if I can get a quote that describes him, but the history is expanded to the max. I liek his name :3  21:33, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

I got 2 quotes. 15:40, August 27, 2012 (UTC)

Could the history be detailed? 13:51, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Nope, sorry, he's names only mentioned twice, I think. :3 15:32, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Fawnstep ~ Silver Nomination
Oh, look. A SkyClan cat. I love 'em. I added more quotes, and the history's pretty good, from what I can see. Comments?

Can you expand SkyClan's Destiny? 16:55, August 31, 2012 (UTC)

Her name appears all of three/four times, I believe. I can check again to see if it's possible, but I'm not entirely sure.

Beechfur (RC) ~ Silver Nomination
I expanded Twilight a few weeks ago or so and I believe that he is ready for silver status. 17:46, September 2, 2012 (UTC)