Talk:Warriors (novel series)/Jul 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Clan (warriors) page help?

I know this isn't the right page, but there's been a LOT of vandalism on the clan page, (by someone with a time machine, supposedly) who is posting stuff under current members "as of volume 4" like the apprentices becoming honeystripe, berryfur, mouseheart, and junk like that. Can someone help me here? Crowstar 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I said this exact same thing in the Clan Information talk page. I think that it's all just a bunch of fanwork. This goes for everyone, whatever you see that's been updated past The Sight, delete it; it's not true! The book isn't out ANYWHERE yet! So yeah Crowstar, just get rid of all that information and I'll see to putting some kind of semi-lock on the page after I've requested from an administrator. Spottedstar 01:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Success! We have semi-protection until June 4th. Is there anything else we need to request for semi-protection? Spottedstar 03:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Berryfur, Mouseheart and Honeystripe? Those are dumb names anyway. I think we have everything in the semi-lock, so we're good to go. Thanks for the help, Spottedstar. (I hope people aren't confused by our names!!) Spottedstripe 13:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, me neither! And no problem. Spottedstar 15:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! The Clan chat page isn't used very often, so I posted it here. Crowstar 23:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Clan chat page, can someone put up a link to it? I can't find it anywhere, and I think a lot of my topics got put on it. Thanks. Spottedstripe 16:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change in The Rising Storm Article

Alright, I made a minor change in The Rising Storm article: The cover is Sandstorm and Fireheart follwing the two sick ShadowClan cats Littlecloud and Whitethroat when they go through the tunnel under the road. It would not be Tigerstar stalking Fireheart because Sandstorm was with Fireheart. Besides, the cat behind Fireheart probably wasn't two feet behind him. If that was Tigerstar stalking Fireheart, he wasn't doing a good job, was he? Another thing - Tigerstar is dark brown, like Brambleclaw on the cover of "Midnight". The cat following Fireheart is a pale ginger cat with dark stripes - obviously Sandstorm. Thanks, Redfur 23:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, I have just one comment about what you changed. I really think that it's Tigerstar who's in the grass, even though what you said was technically right and I agree with it completely. Because the thing is, Erin Hunter doesn't do these herself; it was another company (I'm pretty sure it was Harper Collins or something like that) that are the actual artists and they never really read the book anyways. They just summarize basically what happened in the book in some interesting picture-type thing that turns out to be the cover. But still, what you said was right and technically, it should be Sandstorm that's following Fireheart (even though I don't see WHY she should when he knew she was with him the whole time), but yeah. I won't change anything, I just wanted to say that! :) Spottedstar 22:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was Longtail because he was a pale tabby and he had a nick in his ear. -Mapleleaf, May 6, 2007, 6:52 P.M.

Hmmm, well, it DOES look a little like Longtail, but he really has no reason of being there, so... Spottedstar 23:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Fireheart *knows* Sandstorm is there. She's follwing him, not stalking him. ~Signed Redfur who is not logged in May 7, 2007

Well, then why is she crouched down in the grass? She really does look like she's stalking something! And there's a point with what Mapleleaf is saying. There's no nick in Tigerstar's ear, but neither is there one on Sandstorm's! Ugh, I'm too confused. I'm really hoping now that someone just asked the authors who it was on the chat last night... Spottedstar 20:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know how my last post got here, movin' up! Nyctra May 14, 2007

Longtail's a pale tom, not a dark brown one. The cat is clearly Tigerstar stalking Fireheart in the back cover. Tigerstar has a deep V-shaped tear in his ear, it isn't a nick. But anyway, why not just describe the cats in the picture, rather than having to name them? That would take away a lot of the argument, I think. TakaraLioness 00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear! I think that would be the best way to settle this. Thanks, TakaraLioness. Spottedstar 03:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea as: 1) it solves the Crowfeather/Cinderpelt war, 2) and ends false editing on the covers. I'm 100% for it! Crowstar 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The cat is Sandstorm. She and Fireheart were keeping low in the grass to avoid being spotted by the two ShadowClan cats (which are located on the back cover of the hardcover edition). Its obviously the scne where Sandstorm & Fireheart are following the ShadowClan cats to the Thunderpath. If Tigerstar had been anywhere near Fireheart during this scene, he probably would have attacked him. It's Sandstorm on the cover. Not Tigerstar. 66.61.47.152 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

68.210.66.224 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Lakestorm 68.210.66.224 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC) But if Sandstorm and Fireheart were trying to avoid being seen, then why does it look like Whitethroat and Littlecloud are waitiong for them?

I thought it said somewhere that Tigerclaw did have a nick in his ear...

~Lakestorm


If that is Tigerstar/claw, then where is Sandstorm? And about the Shadowclan cats appearing to wait for them, not all covers are perfect. Just look at the Twilight cover, for example. What are supposed to be badgers on the bottom of the page look like furry blobs with eyes and arms.

Whoever put that blobby note, thanks. It brightened my day. Tigerclaw14 18:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Tigerclaw14

[edit] Fourth Series

I don't see any point in putting in the Fourth Series till we know what it is called, (Warriors;New Prophecy Warriors; Power of Three Warriors). Because it is annoying to just put "Nothing is known about this book, we have just confirmed that it exists." Badgerstripe 00:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I agree... Crowstar 12:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing is more annoying. Thank you. Spottedstripe 00:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Um...don't mean to be rude, but the sun-drown-place is a bay, but that's the same thing..I think... And that is annoying to people who know it exists already! I say delete it. Tigerclaw14 19:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Tigerclaw14

No offense taken. I, too, don't mean to be rude, but that's kinda what we've been saying the whole time. I think you were just a bit late. Regards, Spottedstripe 20:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

HUH?! 68.36.70.102 18:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Tigerclaw14

Uh...just forget it. This disscussion is over. Regards, Spottedstripe 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

okay. Tigerclaw14 13:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tigerclaw14

[edit] Erin Hunter Chat (May 12th)

Where is the transcript? Have you guys seen it? I cant seem to find it anywhere, could someone post the link to it?---Snowfall

Wands and Worlds gave Blizz permission to put an unofficial transcript up. Here: http://warriorswish1.proboards85.com/index.cgi?board=updates&action=display&thread=1180731599&page=1 TakaraLioness 01:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Sooo much, finally i can read it.--Snowfall

[edit] Rising Storm Cover

Okay, seeing as how no one can seem to decide whether it is Sandstorm or Tigerstar (though I firmly believe it is Sandstorm), I think all this 'drama' with the cover is annoying. Everytime I check out the article, there is something different. So I think we should just say "Fireheart and an unknown cat following two ShadowClan cats on ThunderClan territory". Redfur 02:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. I did the same thing on the Into the Wild cover. Crowstar 19:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I support the change also. (Take that, unregistered users who think they know it all!!) Spottedstripe 21:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"An unknown cat, though most likely Cinderpelt or Crowfeather"

I made that change for the center cover of "Twilight" Redfur 02:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you all understand sourcing at all? It is not enough to say "most likely" or "supposedly" for these covers. You have to give reliable sources that say that. Otherwise it is original research. Metros 02:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, come up with a source and we'd be happy to put it in the edit...can't find one, huh? Exactly. I mean, c'mon, it's just GOT to be Cinderpelt or Crowfeather. Just saying, you shouldn't mouth off to ther people, Metros. Sorry if that sounded mean or hurtful, but I'm just trying to make a point. Spottedstripe 16:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be anyone. It could be just a generic cat. And it's not my job to find a source, it's the duty of the person adding the information. Metros 16:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like it so much, you can delete it. You can edit it too, you know. Anyone can edit, and it really helps that you're a registered user. Spottedstripe 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And I did edit it before it was added back by someone else. I posted this here just to get you kids to understand that the edits you make without sources are inappropriate and speculative. And seriously, you need to stop with this belief that the only people deserving of the ability to edit or deserving to have their edits respected are those who are registered editors. There are many IP users who made great contributions to Wikipedia. Metros 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there are also a lot of people who don't know squat about Warriors and don't have enough common sense to make a user account. I'm not saying any names, by the way. Anyway, they edit the article because they think they know everything, and before you know it, the whole article is messed up. I speak on behalf of the whole "Wiki Clan", you can't blame us for being paranoid about unregistered users. By the way, what on earth do you mean by "kids"? Spottedstripe 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, what did you mean Metros by 'kids'? I understand everyone's fear of unregistered users so I don't edit that much and I respect those stereotypes because they are often true. I know people who go on Wikipedia and delete entire articles for fun. I do not respect that you automatically think people who devote themselves to Warriors are kids. How old are you? Wait don't answer that, I don't wanna know. Meanwhile... I don't see the problem with saying 'most likely'. Here's an idea for a source, what about descriptions of the cats from the books? That would allow you to say who you think it is with some proof. But Metros, why don't you leave the warriors article to the kids. We seem to know a heck of a lot more about it then you! ~Rainpaw

No, because that would be original research to say "well, there's a gray cat on the cover and well, that cat's described as gray, so, it's most likely him." You need a reliable source that states the definite story of the cover, not just the "most likely" story. Metros 18:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I respect your opinion. Thing is, we're kinda getting off the subject of the disscussion. Let's just say "Fireheart and some unknown cat following him". That way, evreyone is happy. Agreed? Spottedstripe 21:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it's Fireheart? Metros 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

(Slams head on desk) I know that you're trying to delete original research, and I respect that, but who else could it be? Crowstar 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A generic cat. Also, why are these even necessary? Why do we need to write the description of the cover if that cover is there for everyone to see on the page? Can't the reader just draw his or her own conclusions from looking at the picture? Metros 00:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ARRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHH!!! Listen, if you don't like it, then leave the article! My gosh, it's soooo annoying when someone tries to come in here and change everything! We put which cat is on the cover for the sake of the people who want to know. If you don't care, simply do one thing-ignore it. Spottedstripe 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course you can...if you have a valid source saying that's what it is. Metros 13:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously, there are too many discrepancies with these covers where you claim that their truths but there's little caveats to them. Such as this version of The Darkest Hour article. Oh it's definitely such and such a cat, although...that cat has green eyes, hmm...but it's definitely him because, well, we think it is. And there are a few cats in the shadows but we know it's those four cats because, well, we think it is. Metros 13:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

-laughs- Wow, we are so thick headed! -sarcastic- Of course the cat on the central cover of Darkest Hour isn't Fireheart! I mean, didn't every cat in the forest look in the water and see a reflection of a lion staring back at them?! Honestly, if you would just use an ounce of common sense....-shakes head- Redfur 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Stubborn...OK, listen. Just drop the whole thing, all we're doing now is arguing. Please, Metros, stop. Spottedstripe 13:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Spottedstripe. All of you arguing people, stop fighting because it's getting you nowhere and it's defacing the talk page... And I swear I suggested somewhere on this page that we could just write the descriptions of the cats in the covers (for example, a ginger cat being followed by a brown tabby with a torn ear), rather than having to add names to them... At least that could get rid of this controversy... TakaraLioness 21:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Metros they're just putting up the cover descriptions for those who haven't read the book, mostly it's kids who look at the Warriors section and they won't care if the informationisn't backed up by references. It's no skin off your nose. ~( 3:25 PM Mintleaf June 2007)

It doesn't matter. This is Wikipedia, it needs sources to back up its info... That's why original research and speculation isn't allowed in the articles. TakaraLioness 01:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU SO MUCH!! Spottedstripe 01:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, TakaraLioness, I think that your idea for just the cat descriptions is a pretty good idea. I really think we should go through with that. In fact, I'll start right now!! Regards, Spottedstripe 13:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 book is called The Traitor!

Check on sfbookcase.com. Also, i saw Vicky on her tour, and she comfirms it was called The Traitor. But she refused to give away any more info.....that sucks. Check sfbookcasse for summary of book. I AM NOT LYING, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO FLAME ME TO DEATH!! Vicky herself told me, on the tour of course.----Snowfall aka Oaklaw —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.218.52.112 (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Well, actually, I agree with you. I remember it saying somewhere that it was originally called "The Traitor" until one day I went back there and it's been changed to "The Dark Forest". It was probably here on this site, I dunno, but yeah, I believe you. The title of the 4th book should be "The Traitor". Spottedstar 23:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, let's just wait until the Saturday chat, get the title from Vicky, and then re-edit the article then. That way, we'd have some better proof, since there would be a transcript to refer to, not just someone's memory. TakaraLioness 14:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Takara! Spottedstar 19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NOTE FROM SOMEONE: Vicky said that the titles past book 3 from PoT are unknown, therefore you are lying.

Dude, no one wants to flame you to death. Stop overreacting. Crowstar 16:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MISTAKE SECTION???

That mistake section was very useful, but now I can't find it and I have a mistake. Oh well, I 'll tell the mistake anyway. From Starlight (American hardback)--"'What are horses?' Whitepaw mewed worriedly as she peered through the fence. 'Nothing to worry about,' Tornear from WindClan reassured her, touching the apprentice's shoulder with teh tip of his tail. 'They used to run across our territory sometimes with Twolegs on their backs. WhiteTAIL blinked as if she couldn't quite believe him."68.110.232.148 09:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The mistakes section was deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mistakes in Warriors (Book Series). Metros 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is deleting all the good information?! 68.36.70.102 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Tigerclaw14

Well I wouldn't exactly call it good information, but Mailer diablo (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) was the one who deleted the List of Mistakes article after the articles for deletion debate where about a dozen editors agreed that this page was not appropriate by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So while Mailer diablo was the one who actually deleted it, there were many people who called for its deletion and he merely carried it out based on policy and consensus. Metros 13:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at the debate as well. I actually thought it was pointless to have a list of mistakes just sitting there, though. Go to http://warriorswish.net I think they have a list of mistakes there. Redfur 22:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, gee, Metros, you wouldn't call it good information...what would you call it? Seriously, dude, I'm starting to wonder if you like Warriors at ALL! Spottedstripe 13:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if I like Warriors or not. There is no rule that says "only fans may edit this page." And, no, I wouldn't call it good information because it was original research and inappropriate trivia which is why I nominated it for deletion and about a dozen other editors believed the same thing. Metros 20:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I never accused you of being a fan, it just kinda naturally occured to me that maybe if people didn't like to book series, they wouldn't edit the article. And, tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the authors themselves would go and search for all their mistakes, so of COURSE it's gonna be original research. But y'know, a lot of other aticles have little trivia/mistake sections. Check out Kappa Mikey, Sonic the Hedgehog (especially!) and Pokemon if you don't believe me. Spottedstripe 01:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

72.146.170.186 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Lakestorm72.146.170.186 00:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Warrior's Wish doesn't have very many or useful errors. I can put a more up-to-date page up with ALL the errors and their page numbers up. It's useful! Can we please put it back up?

~A kind-of-upset Lakestorm

If you want to appeal the deletion, see deletion review. Metros 01:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] False Information

Okay, who's the one that's posting up all the false info in the "Clans" section of the Warriors article? "Eaglestar", "Emberstar", "RAINBOWSTAR"??? Who are these leaders?! If these leaders really do exist, then what's your source of information? There's NOTHING in the Warriors books that mentions any of this! (takes a deep breath) Okay, sorry, someone please speak up... Spottedstar 23:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind, I didn't do that, but that's REALLY funny!! *laughs* OK, I'll clean out the false info if you like. Spottedstripe 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Lol, thanks! Whoever put that down must really think they know this stuff when clearly they don't. And they did the same thing about a month ago and they said such like "Don't edit this! I know these things!" and I'm like, "Yeah, right..." because seriously! There is NOTHING in the Warriors series that could've led to that! But yeah, thanks! :) Spottedstar 23:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I know... probably the same person behind Tailtip. Probably some unregistered person trying to look cool. It was kinda funny though. "PLEASE DON'T EDIT! I KNOW THIS STUFF!" Crowstar 14:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying Crowstar? That I shouldn't add to the articles at all because you SUPPOSEDLY know more about Warriors than I do? Really Crowstar watch what you say. Badgerstripe 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, wait a minute. Crowstar, are you saying that Badgerstripe is the one that's putting this up? I'm confused, someone explain to me. Spottedstar 05:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Crowstar 11:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, whew! I don't wanna cause any fights here, so I was just checking. Spottedstar 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a copy of Secrets of the Clans, and I was able to prove both Tailtip and the rumored leaders didn't exist in Warriors. The former leaders of ThunderClan (before Bluestar) are Thunderstar, Owlstar, and Sunstar (and not Eaglestar, Emberstar, and Rainbowstar). I didn't see Tailtip mentioned anywhere while I was reading Secrets of the Clans, so Crowstar, you're right. Tailtip isn't real. As a side note, although I did make the mistake of putting Tailtip on Wikipedia, I did not add Eaglestar, Emberstar and Rainbowstar. Someone else did. I was also not the first person to put Tailtip on Wikipedia. Someone else put her on Wikipedia before I did, and I made the mistake of believing it. I hope I helped solve this problem. Guest 20:54, 1 June 2007

You know, Guest, you seem to know a lot about Warriors, and you seem to be a really big fan. I think you should get a Wiki username so you can help with other sections of the article. But you're under no obligation, so just think about it. (Gee, I sound like a commercial! "Wait, that's not all! Get a username now and you'll also get...") Spottedstripe 01:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm always here for help! Crowstar 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hee, I know you are. You're a really great editer. It's good to be able to rely on you to fix up some stuff in the article. Spottedstripe 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't always been a good editor. I made a mistake with Thistleclaw, I said he was Tigerstar's father. I also made that mistake with Tailtip the last few times it was posted (I wasn't the only one posting Tailtip, I saw it on Wikipedia before). Now I am a fine editor. However, other people might be believing Tailtip was Thistleclaw's mate, even though I stopped putting her on Wikipedia, so she might reappear because of someone else. Guest 19:25, 11 June 2007

Well, that's OK. Everyone makes mistakes. I'm glad, and I'm sure the others are too, that you gave yourself up. But don't let it get to you; I've made tons of mistakes, but they've help me become a better editer. Just think of it that way. Regards, Spottedstripe 12:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Covers

WHO IS DELETING ALL THE COVER AND CENER COVERS?! THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ANNOYING!!!! Tigerclaw14 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Tigerclaw14

No need to shout. You might want to read about reliable sources, verifiability, and original research to see why they're being removed. Metros 21:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean, Metros? Does that mean, perhaps, YOU deleted that info? If I'm not mistaken, I believe that you said yourself that you don't see why that information has to be there in the first place. Another clue...you said "no need to shout"? Who wants to be yelled at? Spottedstripe 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I never denied that I had deleted the information. I simply told Tigerclaw14 the pertinent information to read to see why the covers were being deleted. And the "no need to should" was in response to the all-caps locked, multiple exclamation point post of Tigerclaw14. Metros 16:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


It seems to me you're making quite a big deal over citing some 300-page, fantasy book cover. It's not like the cover of the Bible or anything.

Well, maybe you should drop a hint to us, who have worked hard on organizing those pages, before you go and delete something we consider important. Sorry we can't be as perfect and mighty as you when it comes to citations and reliable sources, but, then again, most of us have lives and are not going to waste them looking up information for what is obvious. I mean, why would the artist just put some random cat on the cover? It's obviously a cat important to the plot of the book. So, please, at least ask the people who created these pages before deleting information.

Also, it's not like we're making a huge section on the article to describe the cover. It's just one little section that tells the central cover and the main cover. It's not the end of the world if one little section doesn't have sources. And what's the big deal with "most likely" or "probably"? When I edited the Twilight cover, I admitted it was an unknown cat, but most people, by discussing it through various means, have settled on the idea that it's either Crowfeather or Cinderpelt, seeing as how they both had major/semi-major roles in the book, and are of similar coloration. We aren't promising that the cat on the central cover is Crowfeather or Cinderpelt. It's just an educated guess based off information from the book.

-sighs- But what annoys me is how everyone is fine with the covers until one person decides to speak up about sources. It's not like it was a huge issue before this. And we were on the verge to resolve the issue about the cats' identity by saying "so-and-so and an unknown cat" or whatever, but then one person has to complain. And, also, there are hundreds of thousands of Wiki articles out there they don't have proper sources, and everyone, well, mostly everyone, is fine with them.

And, actually, I was offended with your use of the term "kids" in the previous discussion. Sure, I'm 14, but I'm also one of the top in my class. Us "kids" have edited these pages to make them as reliable as we possibly can, but no article is perfect. Every now and then, we have to throw in a speculation, be it about the plotline or whatever cat is featured on the cover.

Ha. It seems I've made a big deal out of the cover, too, huh? But I'm just trying to defend the hard work that's gone into preparing these articles.

Redfur 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
"We have to throw in a speculation" Uhh no, you don't. There is never a time to speculate in an article on Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site for you all to speculate and add your own ideas about what's going on. Metros 19:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


-smiles and shakes head-

There is never a time to speculate on Wikipedia Block quote

Well, let me tell you something- We do, okay? I'm sure someone like you whose probably been trained to sniff out every last mistake in an article already knows that. You don't seem like the stupid type to me. Just stubborn. How many articles do you think have proper sources? I think I've seen one, and I use Wikipedia all the time for everything from looking up Cross Country rules to my favourite book series.

Is there any point in trying to penetrate your thick, smug skull? See if this will: Please go away. And I'm sorry for 'attacking' you as you so reported. I don't remember saying I was going to bash your head in, I was merely merely expressing my frustrations, which you brought on yourself. Something I would expect from someone who sticks like glue to every rule in the book.Redfur 19:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how crap half the rest of Wikipedia is. Certainly all the stuff I write is referenced to reliable sources and is not original research. Speculating about what cats these are or are not is just fine, so long as the fruits of that speculation do not find their way into the article, because we don't allow speculation, ever. You violate policy enough, you get kickbanned. Moreschi Talk 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

O.k. guys, let's keep a calm head here. I agree that the "kids" comment by Metros was innapropriate, but there's no need to start a fight. There's no point in fighting. Crowstar 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

did I cause that argument? Or was it just someone who thinks their so smart? 68.36.70.102 23:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Tigerclaw14


Sorry, that was my fault. I apologize, Metros, and anyone else who was offended, for losing my short temper. I'm just stressed out from the final exams, and get frustrated easily anyways. But that's no excuse to lash out at another person...But if the whole cover ordeal is going against Wiki regulations, there's no real point in arguing, because someone'll just come along and ban us all. The only real solutions are to write to Erin Hunter or just let fans of the series use their imaginations... I just don't know why everyone started making a big deal of it now, after it has been up for about two months. Redfur 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Redfur, if I've ever done anything to make you angry, I'm sorry. Quite frankly, you are my hero! Spottedstripe 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys and girls, do you really expect these articles to be reliable? A two-year old on the computer can make it so that the most common type of kangaroo is the Bobby-Kangaroo or that the first president was James Bond. Yes, this is an encyclopedia on the internet, but it is more like an editable book. I really think you would be hardpressed to find information on here that is totally reliable. So don't go deleting what is speculation, you will be fighting an already lost battle. It would be like Cambodia thinking it can rule the world by using pitchforks as thier primary weapon with table forks as their secondary. Badgerstripe 20:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with these basic things, then you basically disagree with the key pilars and policies of Wikipedia. You might want to reconsider your involvement with the project if you disagree so greatly, Metros 20:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Metros, Metros, Metros. Did I say I disagreed with you? All I am mad about is how angry you guys get at speculation and that you delete the talk about is this speculation true things on the talk page. You are being an anoying person. Like I said, a 2 year old could change this information. Badgerstripe 20:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but when was the last time you saw a two-year-old on Wikipedia? When was the last time you saw a two-year-old on the web, PERIOD? I dunno about you, but if I saw a user name that was called "Timmy_Age_2", I would know I have gone insane. Badgerstripe, I guess what I'm trying to say is that we have to put a little bit of trust into our users. Wikipedia is generally aimed, in my opinion, toward an older audience. We have to trust our fellow users that they aren't just putting on garbage. I'm not telling this to just you, but to all the users. Just don't get angry at me. Regards, Spottedstripe 12:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, everything really needs to be encyclopedic and backed up by sources. If you can find any reliable sources then it's a good bet it shouldn't be in the article. /wangi 13:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alligences

You know in the beginning of every book it has an alligences section. Would it be possible to create one article that has all the alligences from all the books. The one problem I have is that I think this is considered plagerism; is it? Also, I don't really know if we need it or not. ~ Bella 15:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's all pretty much covered in the List of Warriors characters page. ElectricTurahk 16:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...you're right. ~ Bella 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Happened?

What happended to alot of the topics? They are not in the "Archived Discusion" or anywhere else. If someone is deleting things they don't like, STOP it is annoying, rude, and disrespectful. Badgerstripe 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Its being archived by a Bot. If you have an issue bring it up with the Bots owner. DON'T TRY TO STOP THE BOT. IT WILL STILL ARCHIVE THE PAGE. Razorclaw 02:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Many threads were removed as not being appropriate for an article talk page. See the header at the top of the page which states "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warriors (novel series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." The threads that were removed did not meet these standards. Metros 02:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Razorclaw!!!!!!!! Listen to what I said. It is not in the archhived area!!! Read it through. Also, don't remove them. I like to talk about things, just because everything on here isn't about improving the page doesn't mean it is useless. If you are deleting the topics, STOP it is rude and disrespectful. Badgerstripe 20:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes it does mean it is useless. Go read the top of the page again: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Warriors (novel series) article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."
This is your a forum for you to discuss and "talk about things;" this is a place to discuss the improvement of the articles. Metros 20:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine then Metros, have it your way. I am going to make a page for the "useless" things. If you find a "useles" topic kindly past it there. I will put a link here and on my talk page. Badgerstripe 20:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link. If you want to use it. Warriors (useless talk). Badgerstripe 20:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which I have just deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a forum, and not a webhost. Thanks/wangi 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Wangi you are a goody-two-shoes
  2. I have created a page that you can't delete because it is breaking no rules I can find. Click on the following link to finnd the new headquarters of "Warriors (useless talk)" Here is the link: Warriors (useless talk) 21:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Please, don't waste my time or your own. There are plenty sites out there you can host your "useless chat" - this isn't one. User pages are meant to be used to help build the encyclopaedia (and see WP:SOCK too). Thanks/wangi 21:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You've really done yourself no favours Badgerstripe, your two disruptive User:Warriors (useless talk) and User:Pain in the butt vandalizer sock accouts have now been blocked. And as a result you'll have an autoblock on your main one. Thanks/wangi 21:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My god. You guys are getting REALLY annoying on this page. ~Rainpaw

Wait, who do you mean? ~Crowstar~ 20:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

All three of them. Metros and Wangi for being Wikipedia bloodhounds and Badgerstripe for not learning his lesson. ~Rainpaw

Um, they're just being moderators. They have to do stuff like that. ~Crowstar~ 20:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't mean they have to act like know-it-alls. Also, I know someone who's user account got deleted because they had some funny stuff on it that had nothing to do with wikipedia. That's just rude. ~Rainpaw

He's not being a know it all. Badgerstripe wasn't following rules. Plus, this isn't the place to discuss this, it belongs on a talk page. ~Crowstar~ 20:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah I know. I shouldn't judge people like that. I just get pissed really easily. It's one of my faults. ~Rainpaw

ExCUSE me, Rainpaw?! There is NO reason for cussing on Wikipedia. Metros and wangi are the annoying ones, but I think Badgerstripe isn't annoying, he's just frustrated. We all get frustrated. Give him a break. And Metros is an admin, so that's why he acts like a know-it-all. Ignore him. Spottedstripe21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

GOD! People! This has just turned into a personal-attack-the-admins fest! If attacking's all you're gonna do, just stop talking! 'K??? ~Crowstar~ 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm NOT attacking. Just saying Metros acts like a know-it-all. Spottedstripe 12:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I can't stand to see anyone being insulted in the slightest. It makes me angry, and when I'm angry I tend to make stupid outbursts. Sorry. ~Crowstar~ 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, I didn't really CURSE at anyone. I just said I got pissed easily. It's not like I was saying: @##@$% you. In fact, I wasn't talking about anyone else. I was talking about myself. Besides, is pissed really a cuss? ~Rainpaw

It is in my book, Rainpaw. And, Crowstar, no offense taken. I can see how you can be concerned, and it's mostly my fault anyway. Forget about it. Spottedstripe 12:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation and tone templates

On many of the Warriors' individual book pages, there are templates saying that the tone of the article is not up to Wikipedian standards, and that the pages are not cited. I have been adding infoboxes to the articles and I think that takes care of the lack of citations, but whoever put up the templates about the tone of the articles did bot leave an explination of why that was done. If anyone thinks that the tone of the articles needs to be addessed, please explain. Thanks ~Bella 14:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For more information on these issues cheack out Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles and particularly Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Information style and tone. Also on the citation issue the infobox is not really considered enough (although a good place to start). Try looing at Wikipedia:Verifiability for information to start you on that subject. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes and another issue common in these articles is an in-universe style which is not hugely encyclopedic trying looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) for discussion of this issue. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Novel series?

Who changed the Warriors article name? What's the difference between a book series and a novel series? Spottedstripe 12:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. I think it's kinda irrelevant, but whoever did it must have had a good reason. ~Crowstar~ 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It all has to do with some of Wikipedia's ridiculous guidelines and stuff. Take, for example, no images without a rationale. Anywho. A (small) group of people decided - who knows when - that all book series should be labeled as novel series, so they changed them. Seldom is there consensus, like they claim. But because the small groups edit so many things, people just accept it, often because they don't bother looking into it. Either way, it is irrelevant. I told the person who made the change to fix the links. They said the would. There's no problem. ElectricTurahk 18:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I think we should keep changing it back if it's a "small" groupof people. ~squirrelstar~ June 27, 2007

Well, whatever the reason for the change, it hasn't affected anything really. All of the links work properly, etc, etc. I'm fine with it being this way. There's no need to waste time changing it back to "book." TakaraLioness 20:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I really don't remember discussion on this taking place... ~Crowstar~ 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

DO NOT change it back. It will start an edit war. And we'll lose because it's the admins who do most of this stuff (There's too many of them >_>). The exact same thing happened regarding spoiler tags on the BIONICLE pages. Of course, we (Myself and the other BIONICLE contributors) lost. But, really, no harm has been done, so it would be pointless. ElectricTurahk 21:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean, no one's gonna die because of this, we're probably maing a HUGE deal of this, though it is VERY annoying that this took place without a discussion. ~Crowstar~ 21:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, sorry I brought it up. No damage done to the article, just have to remember to type "novel" now. Regards, Spottedstripe 23:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

To me, the title seems to make no sense. I would agree to the changing of the title to 'Warriors (series)'. But why 'novel series'? ~Bella 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because they are novels? Just deal with it now. NO HARM WAS DONE. We don't need to argue this further. ElectricTurahk 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

In the beginning of the article, (2nd par.) there were 2 uncited sources. I was able to cite the one source, but I didn't find any info to support the second source. Whoever wrote this please tell someone where you found the info or cite the article yourself. I'm going to delete this until someone tells me where they found this. ~ Bella 15:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Which source would that be? Everything at the start of the article seems fine to me. TakaraLioness 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ummm....Actually I deleted the other source, but it said that there was a 3rd book in the new series. ~Bella 00:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SKYCLAN???

Okay, just today, I logged on and checked my watchlist. Nothing new, except a giagantic addition to Firestar's Quest. I headed over there, took a look, and what do I see? Under "Cover"... SKYCLAN??? Is this from some new excerpt I never saw, or just a hoax? Crowstar 20:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa...yeah, it just sounds like a hoax to me. There is no such clan as SkyClan; whoever put that up is just a fan adding a bunch of crap to the articles. We seriously need to lock these pages because lots of people who aren't users here are taking advantage of the articles. Anyways, yeah, just delete that. Spottedstar 21:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

DON'T LOCK!!!! Then some people just mess them up then lock them and it is stuck. Hey, maybe on his journey he will meet a SkyClan, there was a BloodClan so it makes sense that there are other Tribes, Clans, or other groups. Badgerstripe 14 May 2007 ~ not logged in

Its okay to lock it. Use a Semi-protect. That was registered users can edit it but not IPs and and accounts under 4 days old. If your account is under four days old then you will not be able to edit it. Regards, Razorclaw 22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC) ~ not logged in either
Alright, thanks Razorclaw! Can someone get on that? I've got other things to do, but if someone else could do that, I'd be very grateful. Spottedstar 23:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

There could still be a SkyClan. Badgerstripe 19:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe, but as for now, we don't know that. So we need to leave things the way they are till then. Spottedstar 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You have to ask an admin to do it. Just putting the template on the page doesn't lock it. Anyway, I will edit it to show you what I mean. diff. -Razorclaw
Alright, we'll have to do that then. Spottedstar 23:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to request that an admin semi-protect the Warriors main page, the Characters page, and the Clan Information page. However, there are separate articles in some of these as well (like in the Warriors main page; how they have different pages for all the books). But also, not ALL of those pages have been vandalized, but are at risk. In requesting for it, should I request all three articles plus the pages to all the books or should I just do it all under Category (as said here)? Or better yet, please just tell me what to request so I can get to it soon. Spottedstar 20:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

SPOILERS! There is such a clan as SkyClan. FirstLook members have said that Firestar goes on a quest to rebuild the lost clan that was driven out of the forest, they were called SkyClan, and a long time ago, their leader was Cloudstar, a white cat with gray patches. This information is one hundred percent true, as I have the book as well. There are also many new cats that Firestar meets, its a very interesting book.

No offense, but I doubt you have the book. Crowstar 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Either way... Any info on SkyClan (true or untrue) should be kept off of the articles until the release date, or if the authors/Author Tracker, etc give us some taste of it. TakaraLioness 14:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I swear by all that is good that I got the book from FirstLook, actually, a lot of people did, you can ask anyone who got the book for spoilers, and they'll tell you about SkyClan.

OK, first of all, sign your posts. Second, I'm not sure about his, so if FirstLook is a fansite, then it is probably wrong. If it isn't...well...like what TakaraLioness said, just keep all the info off until we know for sure. That way, no one will complain (once again, not saying any names.) Regards, Spottedstripe 01:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, FirstLook isn't a fansite. It's a program of HarperCollins. You apply to review a book early and if they choose you, they send out the book and you get it months ahead of the release. So, that's why some people have FQ already, not that they're supposed to be spoiling it. But yeah, all spoilers, no matter how minor, should be kept off of the articles until the official release date. Then once the release date is here you can go for it and put up a summary and everthing. It's fine then. TakaraLioness 11:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This talk is where I got the name for my clan on my RPS :) At the time I didn't know there actually was one. ~Aurorastar

Holy cow...that's awesome! I'll have to check that one out...do you have to pay for it? Spottedstripe 21:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


Do you mean the Firstlook thing? ~Aurorastar

Ya the Firstlook, is it expensive? free? is the shipping outrageously high? when does the book come out? when does it take place? where do i access it? Anna F C 03:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't have it but I'm pretty sure it's not COMPLETELY free. You have to still pay for the book and it probably costs shipping. ~Rainpaw

You have to pay for the book? I thought it was free...I signed up and the user account costs nothing. Can't wait for "Firestar's Quest" the be featured at a FirstLook book! ^^ Spottedstripe 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute... I was just speculating. Do you really get the books for free? Or are you being sarcastic? ~Rainpaw

I'm not being sarcastic...do you get the books for free or not? Now you've confused me... Spottedstripe 12:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay... Me getting REALLY confused. I'm just going to shut up now. ~Rainpaw

OK, LOL. ^^ Spottedstripe 23:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Outcast article with Warriors article

Hi, I was just checking out the articles, making sure nothing's messed up, when I went to the Oucast article and noticed that almost nothing was there! I think it would make more sense to just put what is there under the "Outcast" title in the Warriors article. Anyone agree? Spottedstripe 12:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If no one responds, I'm just going to merge the two. Outcast doesn't have enough info released on it to make an article just yet. Spottedstripe 13:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ATTENTION! I'm merging the two right now...speak up if you don't want it done! Spottedstripe 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummmmm...you don't seem to have merged anything, did someone just delete it or something? ~Bella 00:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup. Argh... Spottedstripe 23:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References?

One question... How can you have references for book sumaries? Isn't all the information from that book? And another for Metros: Why can't you have a cover description for the Lost Warrior? It is a magna series. Every time you see a picture it says who the character is. It's common sense not original research. ~Rainpaw

Simple, this is an encyclopaedia, not a repository of cruft, we shouldn't have detailed book summaries. For more information please have a read of:
Thanks/wangi 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but what about The Lost Warrior Cover? ~Rainpaw

Alright, let's put it this way, unless you have written (on the internet or in a book) proof that the authors said that Firestar of Brambleclaw or whoever is on the cover of the book, you can't say that you know 100% who is on the cover. I know just as well as anyone that common sense tells you who is on the cover, but according to Wikipedia rules, that's the way it goes. ~Bella 00:27, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Just as a small side note, the websites must be OFFICIAL. Just becuase a fan site says that Whitestorm is gonna come back from the dead and rule the forest does NOT MEAN that it's true. Now, if Kate Cary or Cherith Baldry said it themselves, then that would be a different story. Regards, Spottedstripe 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point Spottedstripe, I completely agree. ~Bella 12:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cats of the Clans?

Supposedly, there's something coming out called Cats of the Clans. Is this true? Crowstar 14:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was mentioned in this chat. I don't know if it's worth putting up though until there are more concrete details instead of just one mention in a chat at least 6 months in advance. Metros 14:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, we have NO details about this, except that it exists. That's like putting an article for yourself on wikipedia because "You'll be famous one day." It could even be cancelled. Crowstar 15:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

We can add info about it later when, well, when we have more information... I doubt that it'll be cancelled, but I'm sure the authors will tell us more things later. TakaraLioness 18:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd think something like that would just be a duplicate of SotC. Maybe not...I'm probably just dumb...Spottedstripe 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you aren't. Anyway, I think thes'll have much larger color pictures, and backgrounds for characters. Crowstar 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Heh, thanks. That sounds really neat. I'll have to get that right away (just as soon as I get Secret of the Clans and any other Warrior book...I'm broke!!) Regards, Spottedstripe 00:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

When does it come out, sorry, (I never pay attention to the chats)Anna F C 03:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I've TRIED to read the posted scripts before, but they bore me.~Crowstar~ 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They bore me too, but I've found a way to find on the page what I'm looking for real quick. For ex., let's say you need to find something about Dark River in a very long chat. All you have to do is press CTRL and F at the same time and a box will pop up. Type in 'Dark River' and press Find Next. It takes me right to the place where they're talking about the release of Dark River. ~Bella 12:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with a vandalist...

I need help with a vandalist who destroys Warriors articles by adding spam, links to fansites, and vandalism. I don't know where to report this, but if we all warn this guy... His IP is 71.82.119.242. If anyone can block him, please do. ~Crowstar~ 16:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

He even added something bad about Volume 3, which is the temporary title for the last volume in the Manga Trilogy. I really think this page needs to be Semi-Locked for a while. Guest 20:18, 14 June 2007

"Guest" you do realize that if it's semi-protected you won't be able to edit the page, right? Metros 01:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, actually, I believe 71 is blocked, so it can't be him. ~Crowstar~ 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind not being able to edit these pages for a while. I'm just worried about the vandalist, that's all. I want to do my best for these pages. It isn't just editing. I also want this page safe from vandalists like this guy we are trying to block right now. Guest 14:57, 18 June 2007.

Y'know, you could join, which would make editing a lot easier. ~Crowstar~ 20:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i no this a dumb question, but can't you block the editing from one person? I no you already have an idea of who made thwe changes, but can't you like read the changes they made?For example I know my friend logged on my account, vandalised some site, and then when i logged on it wouldn't let me edit, but when I created a new account I COULD edit, just find the vandal so all the innocent editors could honestly make changes, If that is a shocking naive (which means "made by someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about") answer, sorry. Anna F C 03:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can block 1 person. Only admins can though. If you need any more help, ask me. ~Crowstar~ 15:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just protect the page 'till the next book cmes out. then, the vandal will give up --Melman the cat 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think 71 wouldn't still be blocked right now...I think that block was only 24 hrs. But I'm not an admin so I'm not sure. I don't really think we should semi-protect the pages now...if he/she vandalizes anymore, I think they have something near a permanent block anyway.... ~Bella 00:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is 71. I know this because I checked this page's history, and I noticed that 71 made that change with Volume 3 (where I requested semi-protection, to protect this page from 71 and other vandals, even though I wouldn't be able to edit this page for a while). I'll try to fix any vandalisim he puts on Warriors pages. Oceanstream (formerly known as Guest), 12:25, 3 June 2007

I wasn't saying that it wasn't 71, I was just saying that he's probably not blocked right now and it probably out there vandalizing, or will be. ~Bella 22:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)