| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
Okay, I misunderstood what you said. That actually doesn't sound like that bad of an idea, and since it's more simplified, it would be much easier to work with. {{User:SnowedLightning/Sig2|21:08, 4/28/2014}} |
Okay, I misunderstood what you said. That actually doesn't sound like that bad of an idea, and since it's more simplified, it would be much easier to work with. {{User:SnowedLightning/Sig2|21:08, 4/28/2014}} |
||
| + | |||
| + | In case you decide to delete it, please move it under my userpage if possible. Thanks! :) {{User:Waitingforspring/Signature}} 18:02, May 12, 2014 (UTC) |
||
== June '14 FA == |
== June '14 FA == |
||
Revision as of 18:02, 12 May 2014
Timeline Issues
So I've been looking through the timeline for a while, and there are some major things that are incorrect or completely and totally assumed on there. A ridiculous amount. For instance, we don't even know when Bluestar was made leader and we assumed that, we don't know how long she lived between then and when Rusty arrived. YS can't even be added in there because of the errors, and I do believe there are a lot of issues in CP's timeline on there now too. I haven't thoroughly checked much of the main series, but I do know there are some big errors and assumptions in there too.
Some of these errors put on there completely throw off the rest of the timeline an countless ages. Vicky has announced there will be a full timeline of all the books inside the jacket of the new field guide. I personally think we should publicly declare the timeline unusable until that book comes out, or the Erins confirm themselves when some of the events were placed. I've checked for cites on some of these errors and there are absolutely none in the book to indicate when they happened. With them being such major events and being all through the whole timeline with no way of fixing them, I think something needs to be done. Whatever it may be. Feel free to suggest whatever you think would be the best way, but as I said before I think we should just shut it down for now, or put a warning or something.
Suggestions? Paleh Send help 07:37,3/26/2013
Marking it inaccurate would label the wiki inaccurate and we already have issues with that on Vicky's Facebook and Kate's blog. I also wouldn't trust the full timeline in the new field guide because it's probably taken from the "official" website or it's something put together just for making it. I think we'd probably tear this "new timeline" apart with just the amount of amassed errors we could point out. In any case however, we can always just start from scratch thus deleting it, or even moving the coding to a subpage and working on a new timeline. Atelda insert vague subtext here 01:29, March 27, 2013 (UTC)
I honestly think that the page should be deleted. It was never really "finished" and as it is now with so many flaws we'd basically have to start from scratch. With countless time errors in the books it would be harder than it's worth to finish. The full timeline, like 'teldy said, would probably be full of errors. I think it should be deleted. A disclaimer would be marking the entire wiki as inaccurate and that's not something we want. So yeah... -Ducksauce 06:21, March 30, 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Duck, actually. I've tried to edit that timeline, and I get so confused as to what goes where, and what exactly counts as a cite, and what doesn't. The references are so skewed and jumbled, that nothing truly makes sense. Added to the fact that we can't put an accurate order on the books, due to multiple factors, the timeline should really be deleted, or perhaps moved to a project subpage and say that it's an interpretation based on the wiki's evidence, and it's an ongoing event or something along those lines, perhaps? I'm not sure how you guys want to go about it, but it's plain as day that the current timeline is extremely inaccurate and needs to be fixed, whether it be by deleting the current one, or just throwing the timeline altogether. —Jayce(20:51, 4/8/2013)
Indeed it is a very bad state, but this does not mean the page itself has no place on the wiki. Rather, it is the result of a ton of unchecked edits by new (and even unregistered) members who threw in various information according to their personal opinions and taste. Such things must be fixed or removed, but deleting the entire page instead is a bit overboard.
I suggest reverting to an older and largely verifiable revision, such as this version, and start from there.
To remind editors about the original idea of the timeline: it is to show the succession of major events that took place in different series, roughly indicating how much time passed between two moments. Therefore:
- It is suggested that only major events should be mentioned, those that strongly influence the main storyline
- It is suggested that only major character births / deaths / related events should be mentioned
- Entries should be as short as possible, and I recommend at most 3-4 entries per season
Of course you may delete it if you wish, but in my opinion the wiki has become much too pedantic. Don't fall into the mistake of not seeing the forest for the trees.
Kind regards, Helixtalk 18:10, August 15, 2013 (UTC)
Though I still don't think that deleting the page would be a bad idea, I quite like Helix's ideas of reverting it back and listing only major characters and major events. We'd still have a few problems but I think that it would be easier and would make more sense to do Helix's idea. And if we find out there /are/ too many inconsistencies, we could always have some sort of note that points out the mistakes. -Ducksauce 19:43, August 18, 2013 (UTC)
-pokes discussion- So, what are we doing with this guys? -Ducksauce 20:57, September 8, 2013 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't delete the page. It does have lots of mistakes and is it indeed difficult to work with, but it could always get better if put a bit more dedication, and turn out to be more useful in the outcome. Redoing could work, but it'd take lots of planning and further stress to do so. Helice's idea looks good to me, so we can start off with a cleaner timeline without redoing it. We should also use the factual information that we have for proof and putting down, perhaps, and definately not the timeline from the official website (and make sure to not cite it from there or something of that sort)... Just my opinion here. Stoneclaw 02:33,10/16/2013
It brings many troubles because of incorrect counts of the books' lastings, especially - in the second arc where these countings are troubled by the author's mistakes. Does anybody remember the chronology considered by days in chapters well?.. I'm not always sure about mine. Thank you if you will help me (it is very important article for me)--
08:30, February 16, 2014 (UTC)
Any other comments, I really want to start this soon. -Ducksauce 15:31, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any complains about starting a new timeline, and taking it one book at a time, instead of trying to do everything at once. Especially with Dawn of the Clans now being around to try and add in... it's bound to just be better off restarting, and making it easier to understand, along with what does and does not count as a citation (like theories and assumptions based on seasons+current weather), especially for people that want to help but aren't sure how to edit the page. Like me, I'm afraid I'm going to break it lmao —Jayce(18:03, 4/26/2014)
I still honestly think that instead of restarting it and going one book at a time, we should revert it to the version Helix linked and expand from there, and from that go one book at a time. x3 really repetitive, sorry -Ducksauce 19:24, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
Well, I never once said we couldn't keep the page and use it. (Thought I should make that clear) Keep in mind that we still have tons of super editions, a novella (CJ), field guides, and an entirely new prequel arc to add in before the original arc even starts. That's not counting TF, which happens smack in the middle of the original arc. I see nothing wrong with starting fresh- we can have new and concrete rules for what does and doesn't belong, what counts as a citation, and what doesn't, ect. You're not being repetitive, and I understand what you mean.
Some of the references from even the 2010 version that Helice suggested still have assumptions and theories based on surroundings and cover images- which I was always told was a huge no when trying to reference something. Take ref no 14 for example: Sasha was already pregnant when the thaw arrived; so Hawk, Moth and Tadpole are likely born in mid-newleaf. Now, how exactly would that be a proper reference, when we don't even use the "likely" for parents, character descriptions, ect? It follows the same path as an "I think" from one of the Erins, which if that's a huge "no way" for other articles, how would that be okay for the timeline? I'm so so sorry for this- you asked for opinions and I'm giving one, but your way is more than okay too ;.; —Jayce(19:34, 4/26/2014)
PS: I should mention, as someone who is obsessed with meteorology, weather is no genuine factor in telling which season it happens to be- the climate could very well change, and it does, so we shouldn't be using the kind of weather that happens as a determinant (I think that's the right word) for the correct season. —Jayce(19:38, 4/26/2014)
I didn't mean keep that version, Skye, I meant revert to that and verify that then start building, basically because to me it would be an easier version to edit and that version could be built upon easily. I didn't clarify, sorry. -Ducksauce 16:16, April 27, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I misunderstood what you said. That actually doesn't sound like that bad of an idea, and since it's more simplified, it would be much easier to work with. —Jayce(21:08, 4/28/2014)
In case you decide to delete it, please move it under my userpage if possible. Thanks! :) Helixtalk 18:02, May 12, 2014 (UTC)
June '14 FA
I'm gonna go ahead and post this so we can possibly get a few more comments and so we can put the vote up earlier. c: Former suggestions are Sun-drown-place.and Horseplace. I also think Patrol looks great. What do you guys think? If I had to choose I'd say Patrol probably. -Ducksauce 13:49, May 4, 2014 (UTC)
Patrol looks good (even if it needs a teeny weeny bit of TLC). Queen Beebs 22:35, May 5, 2014 (UTC)
Rogue - Silver Nomination
giving this another go. c: comments? -Ducksauce 00:52, May 9, 2014 (UTC)
Warrior Names Article
Hi everyone! I was thinking that maybe we could come up with a full list of all the prefixes and suffixes used in the books, just as a reference sheet or something. I think it would be really useful and helpful to all members, whether it be fanfiction or editing or whatnot. It may be a pain to do, but honestly the allegiances help. I don't exactly know what you all think of this, but I believe it will be useful. Do you agree or disagree? Appledash the light of honor 15:33, May 12, 2014 (UTC)