Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

Project Characters This is a project discussion page, where a group of dedicated editors may come together and work towards their common goal. For more information on projects, please see the community portal.

News A reminder: please give proper credit where it is due when writing articles and nominating them! If someone else has worked on an article that you are nominating, please mention them by name in the section you post. If you're new to the project, you may want to read the FAQ and Guidelines for an introduction.

Votes None

Archives Discussion Archives [1-50] [51-100] [101-117] [118] [119] [120] [121]

Template for redirect

Looking at redirect pages, there is no consistency with the way they are written. To be professional, I believe that we should have a template, or at least a guide, to write redirects so that they are all consistent with one another. Appledash ^{the light of honor} 14:13, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

I agree^^ I'd think a template could be made for this fairly easily, but we could also do a guide. Consistency ftw —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 17:25, 5/17/2018

A guide is a nice idea. —Jay^{I hope they remember you....ϟ} 18:07, 5/18/2018

Any more comments? Appledash ^{the light of honor} 02:15, May 28, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with a guide, but what our (idk how to phrase this) guidelines for being consistent? (hooray for unexplainable ideas) ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<03:44, 7/03/2018>

This has gone long without comments. Shall we get to using this guide? Appledash ^{the light of honor} 22:52, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

definitely, let’s do this. ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<20:59, 8/07/2018>

Summaries (Again)

I would really like some comments on this, whether you disagree or agree, because this just keeps getting archived with no clear conclusion. Can we please discuss writing some summaries, after a cat's description? Say someone does not want to read the entire history, just wants a quick snippet of the character - can we work for each major character, and each supporting one, a little overview of what their personality is, their events in the book, etc? Appledash ^{the light of honor} 03:16, May 21, 2018 (UTC)

Until we can chop down on PC's concerns list more, I personally have to disagree. While it's a nice idea that would totally work in the future, I don't think we should start a project of this caliber when we already have so much to do - and to divide the attention of those few writing sections consistently - would only intensify the problem of falling behind on histories. I'd be in support of this idea probably around... the gap after AVoS because we'll most likely have a break then, since it is a good concept, but it's one I don't believe we have the capaility to see all the way through right now. —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 12:01, 5/21/2018

Your point is valid, which is why I am not suggesting we do all of it at once. It is just an option to have so if by chance anyone wants to do a quick summary, the option is available as PC would have agreed on it. Appledash ^{the light of honor} 12:04, May 21, 2018 (UTC)

This is a great idea. —Jay^{I hope they remember you....ϟ} 18:28, 5/21/2018

Any more comments? Appledash ^{the light of honor} 02:21, May 28, 2018 (UTC)

I actually disagree with Spooky; I am strongly in support of writing character summaries. If anything, I think that being behind on articles might be even more of a reason to write article summaries; there are a lot of major characters like Violetshine or Windstar which have sections of their histories that are understandably not filled in because they appear so many times. I think that, especially since the histories are incomplete, a short summary for these major characters would be good so that readers know what they did in the series. Often the most important characters don't have their book histories written because they do so much in the book that it takes a long time to write, but if I have the same idea of a summary as Icy does, then these summaries could be written relatively quickly. Also, to be honest, I think it will be a long time before all of the detailed histories are finished for all the characters, so I don't think we should wait until they are all completed. 🏵️ Maple 🏵️ 18:56 Wed Jun 13

Any more comments? ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<03:44, 7/03/2018>

I don't have much to add to this other than that I like this idea and if we're not doing it all at once, then I think it's possible. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 03:00, July 18, 2018 (UTC)

I'd be fine with adding these to articles... but the history itself should take first priority. Although maybe in doing this, we could also find those articles with sections that still need to be done. I know we have a stub category, but that isn't always used on articles. —Jayce(19:09, 7/18/2018)

If there are no comments within a few days, we should start implementing this. Appledash ^{the light of honor} 22:52, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

Beetlewhisker

Beetlewhisker does not have his AVOS sections listed on his article, and although he did die, it is still his article and is still the same character, mistake or not. Should he not have those sections listed? He still appears - and Heavystep has his appearances as well, despite dying. Appledash ^{the light of honor} 00:42, June 14, 2018 (UTC)

I think we should list them for both characters, since we kept Rippletail's appearance in TS despite it being contradicted. madie ^{the wicked witch of the west}

A mistake is a mistake, and Kate herself has even said more than once that these appearances are mistakes for Beetlewhisker. I'm sorry, but I feel we should not be documenting mistakes on in the history sections, as we do not document mistakes for the infoboxes up top. —Jayce(06:47, 6/16/2018)

Then there should be a page or a section somewhere that details Beetlewhisker’s appearances because omitting him is omitting information. Appledash ^{the light of honor} 21:11, June 16, 2018 (UTC)

maybe you could add another subsection the mistakes page that has detailed errors like this? like "detailed character errors" or something thats beyond the usual pelt error colours. david ^🌈 21:18, June 16, 2018 (UTC)

hmm yeah I like that idea^^ cats like Rippletail do need a section to detail said error imo, because for his in particular, he played a decent role even though it wasn't supposed to happen —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 02:58, 6/19/2018

Any more comments? ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<03:44, 7/03/2018>

I feel the agreement is to include it in a separate section, or at least include it in general...should we make a subpage? Something like "Beetlewhisker/Appearance Errors" and then document when he appears post-The Last Hope? Given he's not just allegiance only, has an apprentice, and was confirmed to be the same Beetlewhisker by Kate. —Jayce(04:05, 7/09/2018)

I was scrolling on Riordan wiki and noticed at the top of Apollo's page, how they have a template that separates his greek and roman forms. Perhaps we could do something like that for Beetlewhisker? Keep everything on one page and make another page for his history errors, while having something at the top of the page to direct us easily between the two. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 03:00, July 18, 2018 (UTC)

that could definitely work, and this could easily be used on Rippletail as well. ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<23:46, 8/09/2018>

Unknown Residences

Hi everyone, sorry for this.

Should Jake and the other cats - not Clan cats - such as Tom and other cats who were said to walk in some sort of skies - have their own status? Perhaps a genuine "unknown residence". Appledash ^{the light of honor} 01:49, June 14, 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with it, because it's not right to ignore that they are walking in some sort of skies. even if they don't get a blank for it, they should have some sort of listing. (and maybe change needletail and such to ghost in affies too to avoid confusion.) david ^🌈 01:51, June 14, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with them getting their own status. They're not StarClan, they're not the Dark Forest, they are their own and it is confirmed that they walk a different path, I see no reason why they wouldn't call for their own place. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 03:37, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Agreed^^ It's not the same as that other ghost place, nor our usual residences, so they could be listed all on their own^ —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 03:02, 6/19/2018

Any more comments? ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<03:44, 7/03/2018>

A bit delayed, but listing them as their own place makes perfect sense to me. With the exception of Scourge, since I think it was confirmed that he went nowhere after he died and he just poofed (kinda like the cats who were killed in StarClan and the Dark Forest; Spottedleaf and Tigerstar, for example). For cats like Jake and Tom, I'd say listing that as an actual residence would work for me. Just one question though: would this warrant an article, or just a mention in the infobox? —Jayce(02:42, 7/05/2018)

It is a place where dead cats hang out, similar to StarClan and the DF, but I don't think there's enough info on it to warrant an article. A mention in the infobox would suffice, and also a blank (but that's for PCA to decide) ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<05:45, 7/08/2018>

So are we agreed to list it in the infobox and whatnot? But not to create a page itself for it? Because that's fine with me, as I was only just asking (since chances are people will try and make pages in the future). Also, is there a full list of all of the cats this would apply to? I know of Jake, Tom, and Scourge. Are there any others we're missing? —Jayce(04:08, 7/09/2018)

I think Princess was confirmed to be dead iirc? ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<23:19, 7/15/2018>

I'm not sure, but I thought this was for cats who had a confirmed afterlife residence, not just the deceased ones? Unless my wires are crossed here. —Jayce(23:22, 7/15/2018)

I think this should be applied to cats who have been confirmed to be in an afterlife. I don't think Princess has been, so I don't think she'd count. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 03:00, July 18, 2018 (UTC)

Silverstream

Is there a particular reason that Silverstream is listed as "silver-gray", and the "silver tabby" mention a mistake? I'm going through her edit history and I can't seem to find any reason why. She's called a silver tabby in the allegiances for Fire and Ice, Forest of Secrets, and she's also called a silver tabby in The Last Hope. If we typically go with first mentions, shouldn't she be a silver tabby, not a silver-gray tabby, since they are two different things? Or at least take it to PC to alter her base, considering she's said to be the palest of her littermates, and she's also said to be just like her mother, Willowbreeze, (Crookedstar's Promise, 468) and share the same markings on her head. (page 491)

tldr; I think we need to alter Silverstream's description to match what's stated more frequently a little more. Willowbreeze is cited pale, Silverstream is called a silver tabby multiple times throughout multiple books, and she's said to be just like her mother. —Jayce(06:40, 6/16/2018)

If she is mentioned to be a silver tabby more than silver-gray, then she should be a silver tabby since that over rules the latter. I'd think she would be tweaked to have the same markings as Willowbreeze on her head. As for the rest of of her, I'm not sure, as "just like" could be referring to multiple things. —Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 03:37, June 17, 2018 (UTC)

Especially since silver tabby is the first mention and is backed up by other mentions, it'd definitely need to be that imo. For tweaking, I agree with Patch^^ —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?} 03:07, 6/19/2018

Another thing we might discuss is the "black" in her description. I believe it was only mentioned once or twice in the first series and since then she has been described as silver or silvery-grey, iirc. Silver-gray tabby kinda contradicts the black in her coat, as does pale, since to me that seems to be calling her a light gray tabby that looks silvery more than anything. -Rustle _{it takes a leap of faith}21:47 Tue Jun 19 2018

Any more comments? ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<03:44, 7/03/2018>

So if we go by mentions, "silver tabby" outranks "silver-gray/silvery-gray". As Breezey said, silver-gray contradicts the black that a silver tabby would have.. but given she's called a silver tabby far more often and spanning across multiple years of publication, should we change her description to "silver tabby"? The only thing I'd ask PCA to change in terms of stripes are her head stripes, since that's confirmed to be just like Willowbreeze. Her stripes/base pelt can also be altered at the same time if they need to be, once this is over. Could I have any other comments, please? —Jayce(04:12, 7/09/2018)

if she's called a silver tabby more, then that overrides the silver-gray cite. she should be altered to match the silver tabby descriptions. her head stripes can easily be changed. ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<23:49, 8/09/2018>

September FA

Seems like we skipped over August's, so we are just going to let Alderheart sit there for now. Any ideas? Appledash ^{the light of honor} 23:50, August 9, 2018 (UTC)

How about Fierce? ♥ Star _{red and black ♥}<23:52, 8/09/2018>

Fierce would work nicely^ —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?}  00:31, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Friends, Personality, Importance

So we were talking about an incident that occurred, and about topics that people have discussed. I'll get to the most difficult to do first. Personality would be a hard one. It would give a clearer description of the character, but then there would be the problem of character differences based on opinion. As someone might see Ashfur as misunderstood, while the other person might see him as pure evil. I am just bringing this up in case anyone else has better ideas. The second is important events in the character's lives. We could have a bullet list that goes in time line order of whatever happens. "_____ got injured gravely", or "_______ lost their father in this battle" we could gives references, then if readers want to see a more detailed version, they can retreat to the book summaries. The last thing on my list in of friends and enemies. We would add a section to the the chracter template telling who is friends and enemies with that character. Like Leafpool and Sorreltail or Hawkwing and Darktail. We could even add romantic interests. Thats all I have! Sorry for this long essay lmao. – Cinna ^{dear evan hansen,} 21:26, August 10, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. I've wanted this for a long time and I think it would help articles in the longrun.

—Hrafnsmál ^{The raven's call} 23:49, August 10, 2018 (UTC) I actually do love this idea. I give it a thumbs up.

—Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 00:17, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

As I’ve seen on other wikis, we could have a ‘Personality and traits’ section, which would work very well. For the importance idea, however, we already passed the character summary thing like last month, so we can implement that and that’ll solve the Importance issue. We do only need one or the other, because it will be redundant otherwise. —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?}  00:27, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I was also thinking of something like this (That and kind of everything below it). It might add some depth to the page. Thoughts?. I also agree with Spooky. We don't need anything redundant.

—Hrafnsmál ^{The raven's call} 00:32, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I have an issue with the personality section, though. Some of the characters really do not have personalities (or mentioned out right) - and other characters, who can be biased, talk about them. Also, readers have different views too. So how would we work the personality version? And how exactly would we know who their friends and enemies are, if it's not stated in the book? Appledash ^{the light of honor} 01:46, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I mean, something like "Relationships" could work for that, Icy, which would include both friends/enemies. Who they are would be obvious enough. Personality should be written as what's described in the book. Nothing biased or anything.

—Hrafnsmál ^{The raven's call} 01:54, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I think having relationships and personality sections is a wonderful idea. It'll give wikigoers a sense of what the cat is like and who their friends and enemies are without having to read through their entire history for this information. Aandydandy (talk) 18:47, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I think adding a personality/platonic relations section would be very difficult to keep unbiased. Is Firestar brave and compassionate or overbearing and nosy? Is Squirreflight annoying and bossy or proud and brash? Were Leafpool and Sorreltail practically dating in the second arc or just good friends? 

I think the quotes section of character pages should do this. It shows notable and more importantly citable conversations characters have had between each other, what the character themselves say and think, and what others have said about them and overall SHOULD be the place you go for cited platonic character interactions. It's already there, just maybe it could use some work. 

F a l l o w *:･ﾟ✧

21:16, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Dovewing's eye color

Green or blue? Both sides have evidence and everyone is just being really immature about it. Calm and collected debate here.

—Hrafnsmál ^{The raven's call} 23:49, August 10, 2018 (UTC)

like I've said, if we ignore this author statement, then we might as well go ahead and ignore everything that's ever been said by authors. it's all of them or none of them, so blue. david ^🌈 23:50, August 10, 2018 (UTC)

^ That's the point. If we change them to green, wouldn't we be disregarding everything the authors have said?

—Patchfeather^{Hangar 18, I know too much} 00:19, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Kate often says that books = canon, and that anything in print isn’t real. I’m sure there’s several instances of her saying that over the years. The wiki’s been steadily relying on social media sources for things, trumping the books themselves at times. In this case, there is proof for both blue and green, but the decision here would set the standard for several other calls since Kate made a direct statement - we accept all or none for consistency.—spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?}  00:30, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Kate has also said that her eyes were gold and also said recently that she only personally thinks they're blue. If we ignore these statements why do other ones go free. Along with that she wrote Tigerheart's Shadow and they are very clearly green in that book. Other authors have also said otherwise. So what's the truth? Well clearly the decision isn't in the author's hands it's the editors team. If Kate has said she imagined them as blue why would she write them as green? She isn't in control, that's why. The editors team has clearly chosen green. No matter what it was before right now it is green and that seems to be the final decision they have chosen. We should change it to that. Sherlockhoots (talk) 00:37, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Kate has said on her blog twice that Dovewing's eyes are blue. It has also been backed up in nine books. Her eyes are green in four. The editors seem to think they are green but also the editors have had a lot of inconsistencies - if we believe them over Kate, we are to change several things and discredit perhaps hundreds of cites. Kate made a post about it as well, and if we ignore that, we ignore her other cites and we ignore her say as an author. Appledash ^{the light of honor} 01:03, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Kate has officially stated that not only are they blue, that she sees them as blue. The editorial team has made no official statements on the eye colour and randomly decided to change her eyes in this new series. There are always multiple mistakes in books; to the point where we have so many alrt chararts made to try and cover ever inconsistency in designs. If an official statement is made about a design choice, it is better we put that down over a nonofficial change in the series. Dovewing's eyes were meant to be blue and have been for many many years until A Vision of Shadows was released. If we brush off an author's word, what worth is any information we have? --Echo (Talk) 01:11, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Dovewing's eyes were correctly blue when they were described as blue in the most recently published books. Now they are described as green in the most recently published books. The amount of books a character's eye colour is referred to with does not matter, the most recent book should determine a character's eye colour. Unless a character is consistently referred to with multiple different eye colours in the latest book, it should not be this hard to determine. In terms of warriors, the authors are not the actual owners of the books. They write it for the editorial team, who are the owners of the books, but that doesn't discredit the authors if they share something that does not conflict with any source material. They come second after the source material, which should be what is referenced before anything else. If the author provides information and a book doesn't conflict with it, then it can be considered canon information. If a book, the actual material, does conflict with it, then it should not be canon. I say green. Aandydandy (talk) 01:46, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Yeah we really need a hierarchy for what information comes first, i say the book comes first and in that case it's green. Sherlockhoots (talk) 01:59, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Just playing devil's advocate here, Sherlockhoots, but if we did use the books as the very top of the hierarchy, I think they would probably still be blue because there are nine books that mention Dovewing with blue eyes compared to four with green eyes. If we're going by number and not the most recent book trumps all - regardless to how many times they are mentioned in one book imo.

As for the rest of the conversation...I could honestly care less what color Dovewing's eyes are, and I can't fathom why there is this huge fight about it. But I digress. My two cents: the authors and books have been wrong many times before. I think that if the information in question is not contradicted by either party, it's canon, whether it's from the authors or books or whatever. If it does, as in the case of Dovewing's eyes...I think the books go. The warriors team's gotta be huge, and if something like Dovewing's eye color manages to slip through the team for so long, then the books go. Vec ^{I am Iron Man! 👾} 03:33, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I would like to say that I think people are saying that green is mentioned more due to the amount of times it's mentioned in the books. She's been mentioned a lot more than five separate times with green eyes; that's just one specific book mention. I can count more than five times in Tigerheart's Shadow that she's mentioned with green eyes. I think we also need to take that into consideration, as well author statements and whatnot. I'll be rereading Tigerheart's Shadow anyways, so I'll try and keep a running tally and see what I come up with. I really do think we shouldn't just brush this under the carpet, since it's pretty clear that the editors and Kate are trying to do separate things. —Jayce(03:40, 8/11/2018) ( 03:40, 8/11/2018 )​ ( 03:40, 8/11/2018 )  ( 03:40, 8/11/2018 )  ( 03:40, 8/11/2018 )​

i don't think we should judge by the amount of times, clearly they had no idea what eye colour she had through OOTS which is why it's all over the place. However, if they've decided that dovewing is having green eyes in recent books, they keep releasing new books and it stays green then the amount of time green appears will overtake blue and it'll have to be changed again anyway. It shouldn't be judged on the amount of time they made the mistake in the past it should be judged on what they fixed it to for the future. The reason this has come to be such a big deal isn't because people care about Dovewing's eye colour, it's because this shows that there is really no set hierarchy for the site. Meaning that what information is considered more important than others depends on who ever is editting it. In my person opinion, the main series books are the main source material, they should be taken into consideration before anything else. Along with that if something has been inconsistent in previous books but is now consistent in recent books, it's safe to assume that the editor team has caught onto the inconsistency and has fixed it. If books keep being released and Dovewing's eye colour stays the same it's obvious to assume that they are green for good. Along with that, I'm saying it again because people don't seem to realise that Kate is ONE author of THREE. She herself has contradicted her own word on Dovewing's eye colour, and recently has said that she only personally believes they are blue, not that blue is the canon colour. Sherlockhoots (talk) 03:51, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Not that I actually think anything I say will have any meaning on this site, but I may as well point this out: The reason that Kate's comments on Dovewing's eyes are different from previous author comments on other subjects is because of the nature of the contradiction. It's one thing for Kate to say on her blog "Yes, I made a mistake in that book, that should have been character X, not character Y," or for Vicky to say on Facebook, with clear intent to retcon a previously established fact that she herself created, "Actually, character B didn't do that thing." It's another thing entirely for Kate to tell us that she disagrees with the official source material on what color Dovewing's eyes are, and for fans to consider her words as overriding those of the editors, who have more power and standing to affect the finished product of the official text than she does. There are situations where word of god takes precedence over the canon text. A case of God A openly disagreeing with Gods C through M---who have deliberately decided not to take God A's known opinion on the situation as factual, and have instead purposefully substituted her opinion with their own---is not one such situation. DuplexBeGreat (talk) 08:35, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I'd hate to butt into this debate, but here's my take on Dovewing's eye color: while yes, the most recent books describe her eyes as green, the only way we have a true answer on which color should be used on the wiki page is to compile each and every mention regarding Dovewing's eye color. In most cases, the books' canon override word of god. But does that mean we should completely disregard Kate's statement? No. We could factor her word as well as the other Erins' opinions on what her eye color is to decide which to use on her page. Perhaps we should wait for Crowfeather's Trial to release and see if it describe her eyes as green or blue, and factor that into that compilation.

tldr make a list of every time Dovewing's eye color is mentioned in all the books, and whichever eye color is said most is the one we use. Branchwing^★ 14:58, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

hi! im not very active in the community here but while visiting another page an anonymous user posted this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYxUg4YQrl8

and this is the paragraph i wrote about it:

while the video itself may not be a canon source, it contains the number count of the color of her eyes from the books. are the books themselves not valid enough? regardless, her eyes are described most recently as green. kate cary envisions them as blue but has stated herself that is how she views them in her mind. do other authors, such as vicky or cherith's opinions matter? kate cary wrote tigerheart's shadow with dovewing's eye color as green. the editing team has wrote them as green for over a year now, besides kate's few accidental mentions of blue in thunder and shadow. while logically there is no way to describe why there was a change in the book, dovewing's eyes have always been artistically depicted green on covers and other official art. i think in the end if its going to be such a debate the wiki should describe her eye color as "unclear" and create a blue version and a green version of her current art state. thank you Elemental Drachen (talk) 16:28, August 11, 2018 (UTC) (mango)

This is probably a easy-out solution but why not just remove it from her description altogether? Just mention in her trivia that her eyes could be green or blue and the correct color is unknown. -Rustle _{it takes a leap of faith}17:19 Sat Aug 11 2018

I agree with everyone's opinions on green eyes. There really is no way for us to take Kate Cary's word as gospel when the printed, finished publications say the exact opposite. I respect Kate's word a lot, but at the end of the day, the editing team has recently made her idea that Dovewing's eyes are blue an author equivalant of a headcanon. I don't think that this renders everything the author's have ever said obsolite, but it's not like between them they are exactly consistent. The editing team that technically OWNS Warriors' and has full control over designs are finally trying to clear this up, and we are ignoring it. I know I don't exactly have much pull here on the wiki, but I feel that the best solution might be to acknowledge author posts if they do not contradict things that are published in the books. Thanks. MossCoveredKate (talk) 18:47, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

if people keep saying the recent ones matter more, then the cover shes on doesnt count towards it since its in oots and not totally recent and so is invalid for some reason, despite being almost always blue. if people insist on being children over it, just list that her eyes are "blue or green". harassing people over a cats eye colour is pathetic, btw. (: david ^🌈 19:36, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

and for those who want all book stuff over the authors, then that also mean firestar is now dead by a tree, tallstar and jake are no longer confirmed gay, as well as a million other things. that doesn't only affect dovewing, which is the point of trying to find a compromise here so people can stop being immature.

also propose that we list it as "frequently blue or green" or something similar until the end of the next arc. david ^🌈 20:06, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Like I and others pointed out, we don't have to disregard everything the authors have ever said, but when the information is so contradictory, it is probably incorrect. The cover from OOTS should not be used within this argument. We should stick to what is printed within the books, and since this series will most likely not end in the near future, we as a  public resource  should make sure that all of the pages are updated with the most recent and presumably accurate information we are given. And you're right, harasssment over eye color is pathetic and immature, and the point of this page is to find a peaceful comprimise. If you read any of these and felt like they were harassment,  I'm sorry, because I don't think anyone's responses have been intended that way, and have been much more civil than those on outlets such as Twitter. I like your idea, but a more permanent solution would have to be found later on.MossCoveredKate (talk) 20:38, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

There has been a given compromise. If an author says something that doesn't contradict a book(that is not a very obvious mistake), it can remain canon. I don't understand why you are being rude. And yes, if the community would rather not use the most recent book as evidence, then both blue and green could be listed on her page as fitting eye colours. Aandydandy (talk) 20:41, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

Official artworks

I'm of the mind that we could begin to include the official artworks of characters on our pages. Obviously, not all cats have official artwork, but for those who do, we could do something like this. A separate section for official artworks would be made beneath the character pixels section for the cats to which this applies, and more than likely a caption saying which book it came from. Thoughts? —spooky ^{is that... a furry cat?!?}  18:02, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. People sometimes just want to view official art instead of the fanmade chararts, and it's an easy way to give them that! Aandydandy (talk) 18:49, August 11, 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea and the format that the other wiki had it in. 🏵️ Maple 🏵️ 18:58 Sat Aug 11