Warriors Wiki talk:Characters

If you're new to the project, you may want to read the FAQ and Guidelines for an introduction.
Template:Project talk
Please remember to comment on the FA discussions. We'd like everyone's opinion! We are now citing senior warriors on character pages! Please make sure that you add it under the ranks category in the charcat and then add the category. Remember to have a clear, valid cite before adding it onto the page.
The topics that are currently being voted on are: Featherpaw (WC) - Silver Nomination Parsnip - Silver Nomination Brandy - Silver Nomination Spikepaw - Silver Nomination
	Discussion Archives [1-50] [51-100] [101-117] [118] [119] [120] [121]

Content Drive

Since Mudclaw (WC), apart from TUG and Starlight, has a filled out history, and most of the problems the article had before had been fixed, such as quotes and history, and since I'm close to nominating him at this point, I think we should have a new Content Drive - and I have a new idea, as well.

-Singular cat; For this one, I choose Sharpclaw (SC) - his history needs lots of expansion, and more quotes could be used. He's in a similar state Mudclaw was in before his article became CD.

-Multiple cats; Skye suggested this earlier, and they thought of SkyClan in general, since most of the cats' history needs work.

What do you all think? Queen Beebs 20:49, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

Hm, what about a cat that's already silver but needs loads of work. Sandstorm would be a prime example of this, she's extremely major but yet her history is pitifully short in most sections. I don't really like the idea of doing multiple cats, because honestly it would be a hassle to keep track of and project members would have to go through a total of 111 articles and expand them. With the project's current size, I think it would be an enormous task to undertake, especially with already approved ideas in other projects that need tons of work (such as Chapter Subpages, and soon the Events Pages). I think it would be an unneeded hassle at this point. But, to me, Sandstorm and Sharpclaw are the forerunners for the next Content Drive. -Ducksauce 23:26, August 16, 2014 (UTC)

iirc i don't think Skye meant all of them - just the ones that are on PC's front page ^^;; Queen Beebs 18:54, August 17, 2014 (UTC)

I did mean the ones listed on the front page, since they appear to be in the greatest need of work. Why only one character, when someone can easily get that done in a couple days if they're feeling up to it? I think perhaps having a couple as content drives would be a good idea. Perhaps Sharpclaw, Harveymoon, and Waspwhisker? There's one fairly major SkyClan cat, and two more minor ones. I never said to do all of them- that would be madness, even by my standards, but perhaps pick a couple and shift the focus. Or, maybe pick more than one cat, so... say, Sandstorm, Sharpclaw, and Owl Eyes? And you wouldn't have to go through all 111 articles. A fair bit of them are already fairly good (I've written quite a few of them myself), and you could pick out the top two or three that are in need of the most work. —Jayce(00:55, 8/22/2014)

I agree with Sharpclaw being one. I have SkyClan's Destiny, so I can help out with that part of it, which goes for any SC cat. User:Notquiterocketwildbokan/Sig 12:59 AM, Fri Aug 22, 2014

Multiple articles are interesting, but I'm more peaked at the idea of having an article already silver being the content drive. There's already an incentive for Sharpclaw, Harveymoon, and Waspwhisker because they're still bronze. Yet, focusing on a character that needs work that is already silver gives a bit of incentive in completing the content drive. Atelda _{insert vague subtext here} 04:31, August 22, 2014 (UTC)

Even with only three articles, I think it would be daunting to other users and still hard to do. -Ducksauce 18:07, August 23, 2014 (UTC)

Two of those three cats are rather minor and wouldn't take long for them to be expanded, especially in Harveymoon's case. If we're doing singular cats, though, Sharpclaw still stands as my choice. (trying to get more attention for this.) Queen Beebs 01:28, September 1, 2014 (UTC)

well, I don't think it would be best, but I do think that a few cats would be better than a whole group of cats. oh, also, waspwhisker's silver already. -Ducksauce 02:35, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Switch Template for certain characters

Sup guys anyway I'm thinking that some of the characters from BS might need the templates that Mapleshade and Brackenfur use. Some of these characters have only been in TLH and BS so far such as Heronwing, and so they've had two different descriptons for two different books, and we use that template for those that are about even in being described with two different descriptons, don't we? What do you think? (Descriptions can be found here along with the changes that happened in BS) david ^🌈 01:01, August 26, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say if they're described in the book with a different description then sure use that template, but if one of the authors only said their description once go with the book's description and the other as an alt. -Ducksauce 02:42, August 28, 2014 (UTC)

Thistleheart ~ Silver Nomination

Again, not much to put here, so. Comments? Queen Beebs 00:26, September 5, 2014 (UTC)

comments before vote? -Ducksauce 01:59, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

Injuries

I'd like to suggest adding spoilered injuries into the trivia for cats such as Brightheart, Cinderpelt, or One-eye to name a few. These cats tend to have plenty of descriptions of their injuries that we could write a sentence or two about them for the sake of reference. There's really nowhere else reliable that has them listed and we could easily cite them. It would make it easier for artist or fanfiction writers to describe the cats accurately, and it's in the trivia so its completely within our spoiler rule. If describing their injuries is something that would gross people out we can always put them in a dropdown, but I still think it would be a handy tool for people looking into it so they don't have to search through the books. -Rustle _{it takes a leap of faith}3:18 Thu Sep 11 2014

I'd support this, and honestly, I never got why we didn't put it in the description. Yes it's spoilers, but the charart shows it and the spoiler tag could always be moved up. -Ducksauce 03:20, September 11, 2014 (UTC)

Feathertail/Crowfeather

As suggested by Duck. I bring to you the nonsense that's said in Leafpool's Wish. They call Feathertail one of Crowfeather's mates, which completely contradicts plot points and whenever she appears, which have so many points implying she was never his mate, and we've never once seen them state as much in the main arcs. Being in love doesn't equate to mates, and this appears to be another Stormtail/Dappletail thing- they're seen together a fair bit, and in this case, we know they love each other. But, being in love with each other does not equate to mates, and given the plotline, implications, and all the other stuff from the main arcs, I don't think we should label them as mates. The words of the authors are just as important as the books themselves, and we shouldn't disregard them. Idk, I really don't feel okay having them listed as mates given the massive amount of evidence against that- and Leafpool's Wish has other mistakes like that too which kinda make no sense... —Jayce(02:27, 9/13/2014)

Despite the plotline implications there is absolutely no solid proof that they weren't mates, the authors haven't even come out and said that they weren't mates, it's just said that if Feathertail would have lived their relationship would have ended, and if we go by implied statements we might as well add Foxleap and Rosepetal as mates because for a few books it is implied that they were mates, but it never came out and was said and it was later proved to be false. However, in this case a book explicitly said that they were mates. We have to take the word of the books people, we can't go by implications. -Ducksauce 02:36, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

It never said "would have ended", Duck. It said "it wouldn't have worked out", which means they were not in a relationship. Loving each other does not mean mates, and I wish people wouldn't assume that. =/ Also, there's nothing that even suggests Foxleap and Rosepetal were mates, and that's not even the same thing. There's no proof for that at all. I never saw any implications that said anything about Foxleap and Rosepetal being mates- none at all. —Jayce(02:46, 9/13/2014)

Tbh I say go ahead and list them as mates. If there's a cite, and its not from Secrets of the Clans, we regard it as legitimate. Since Leafpool's Wish is a citeable book, Feather/Crow should be listed as mates. Canon is above suggestions from plot. -Rustle _{it takes a leap of faith}2:51 Sat Sep 13 2014

I have to agree with Breezy tbh. — ferk ^{my name is BLURRYFΛCE} 03:04, 09/13/2014

With no claim that they weren't mates as well as a direct claim that they were, we most definitely should put it down. Atelda _{insert vague subtext here} 21:00, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does say it directly, and the books never actually stated they weren't mates. Bird ^{Squash one, squash two, squash three...} 00:05, September 15, 2014 (UTC)

Sorrelpaw (BS) - Silver Nomination

So, this is very generalised because we don't know which of the two apprentices shown in the manga is her, but we know one is. No quotes since we don't know which one is her. Comments? -Ducksauce 21:58, September 17, 2014 (UTC)