Talk:Warriors (novel series)/Archive 2

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

text: 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)

text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Covers 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation and tone templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Novel series? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Which source would that be? Everything at the start of the article seems fine to me. TakaraLioness 03:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

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

message: 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:
:* Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.  See Wikipedia:Notability (fiction).
:* Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)
:* Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)
:Thanks/wangi 21:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good point Spottedstripe, I completely agree. ~Bella 12:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References?

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Cats of the Clans? 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Help with a vandalist... 

message: Hi folks.  Just a comment in passing.  As someone totally unfamiliar with this series it took quite a bit of reading to figure out just what this series is about.  Plenty about clans and character names and plotlines.  Nowhere does it clearly state that this is a saga in which the main protagonists are cats living in wild cat society (a la Watership Down being about rabbits, for example).  That would be a good place to start I think.MuJoCh 12:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this is an encyclopedia article; by definition a resource for people unfamiliar with a topic.  I don't think wanting to find the basic premise of these stories, quickly and clearly stated, is all that extraordinary. But hey, I'm just suggesting. MuJoCh 20:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sorry, I was too mean.  Spottedstripe 17:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Okay, I belong to an RPG about warriors. There was an IP who'd call himself HackerMysterio and seemed to have a vendetta against warriors. He will say very innapropriate things like "I RAPED MICHAEL JACKSON!". Worst of all, he WILL pose as other people, (which isn't such a problem here) and type nasty things like that. However, I'd like you to look out for him, as half the members there are Wikipedians, and after we got him to leave, he said, "Ill go pester you wikapedeans now." He's probably gonna make extremely innapropriate edits to Warriors... Look out! Crowstar 13:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the guy just struck again on our forum. I already deleted the post. This time he called himself the 'incredible shit seller'. ~Aurorastar
Yipe...I would find it more comforting if you didn't put what he calls himself, or what he says.  Regards, Spottedstripe 13:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Uhhhh.... Sorry.~Aurorastar
No prob.  Spottedstripe 20:09, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No one said you were.  So, were you the Guest that was putting posts in some of the earlier disscusions?  Spottedstripe 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, it makes you sound like a very noble warrior.  I like the name.  Spottedstripe 17:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch out!  

message: Do we have any info yet for Cats of the Clans?  If we do, we need to stick it in the article under the title.  Spottedstripe 23:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need now, for I was bold and made the article for it.  All information should relevant to the book should be added to its page. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, thanks.  I was just checking.  Spottedstripe 17:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CotC 

message: Many of these articles for the books need rewrites, especially Darkest Hour. If anyone wants to help, feel free to. Crowstar 16:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the edit this guy did.... if he deleted any part of the article, just ask him why, and if it isn't a good answer, you can get an admin to revert the edit. I looked on his talk page though and it said that he was gone from wikipedia for a while though. I also think Anna F C's idea is really good about using Word...I did that whenever I'm going to create an article. It helps with spelling and grammar too :) ~ Bella 14:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Gotcha..you're right. Well....you still can get an admin to revert the changes if you think they should. ~Bella 00:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I guarentee that they won't bite! but I think I actually found a way to revert them myself...what pages were they on? ~Bella 22:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pages I edited were The Darkest Hour and Into the Wild.  I would really appreciate it if you reverted them because I'm still a bit new to Wikipedia and I DON'T KNOW HOW!!  Spottedstripe 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I just checked all of your edits to The Darkest Hour.  Why exactly are you upset, when you made just two edits to the page, both almost a month ago?  One is now absolete because the book template was added, and the second edit was not exactly a good one.  You shortened the plot summary so it covered next to nothing of the book.  That's why it was reverted.  How it was was fine. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe whether you think my edits were good or not is an opinion.  I would like you to keep your opinions to yourself.  And I'll have you know I spent a long time trying to come up with what to say because the articles needed trimming.  I think that you could, maybe, appreciate the fact that I was the one who tried to trim the articles.  No one ELSE wanted to, so I gave up my spare time to Wiki my heart out.  I hope I made you feel guilty; being mean was not my intent at all.  Spottedstripe 17:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guilty?  Not in the least.  I said what I felt.  And I understand you may be upset because you spent a long time writing something only for somebody to change it - it's happened to me plenty of times elsewhere - but that does not change the fact that what you did was anti-productive.  The summaries did not need trimming.  And if they did, not to the severe extent you did. However, the point is now moot, for your edits a month ago would have no impact on the article as it is now. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 17:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to "Wiki Clan", they DID need to be trimmed.  Or did you not see the disscussion that we held on the very section?!  I'll thank you for trying to understand how I felt, but I will NOT thank you for calling my edits "anti-productive".  *sob* Spottedstripe 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and regardless of what it is, I wasn't around (Well, I was, but I didn't edit Warriors pages) back then to see any discussion regarding this, if there was any.  But.   Yeah.  A month ago. Just let it go. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 13:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles 

message: I was going over the book articles, and typing in what the cover is proven to be, in the box on the right with all the info, but somebody went back and deleted it. -.- It was good info, too! But they changed it back to stupid stuff like saying that the cover of The Darkest Hour is cats watching the sunset (it's the dawn), that the cat on the cover of Twilight is black and that cats are sitting on rocks there, that Leafpool on Starlight is light ginger, that Bramblepaw is rubbing against Fireheart on A Dangerous Path, that Feathertail is a gray tabby, that Brambleclaw is dark orange, etc. Look, what's the point of putting in a description if it's proven to be a certain cat (like how The Darkest Hour can't be anybody else but Firestar in the center) or confirmed by the authors? Can't we just put what it's proven to be?
66.157.111.88 13:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you have seen if you look at some of the earlier discussions, it does seem pretty obvious to people who've read the books who is on the cover of the books, but unless someone can find an exact quote from the book or from the authors that says exactly who those cats are, we can't assume they are Firestar or Graystripe or whatever. The reason this happens is because it is an encyclopedia, and no assumptions can be made without proof. ~Bella 19:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK...yet again....the rules on Wikipedia state that no matter how much you think this piece of info is true... you cannot put it on Wikipedia unless it is PROVEN! (said by the author or is written in the books) I apologize if this makes you angry, but unless you have solid proof (not common sense or your opinion) you cannot put it on Wikipedia. ~Bella 00:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please do not put the 'common sense confirmed cats' on the pages because they will be deleted unless you have proof, and we don't want anymore arguments. ~Bella 00:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have made the whole 'proven in the books' statement more clear. I completely understand where your coming from and this the whole thing is ridiculous, when right in front of you, you can see who the charcters are. But it has to say in the book something to the effect of 'the cat on the cover of this book is Firestar' or something like that. There are other cats, I'm sure, that have a pelt that looks like fire and might have broken their collars, and therefore they could be depicted in this picture. This annoying rule is used to try to prevent someone thinking that the cat on the front is Firestar, when it is really another cat. ~Bella 17:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks a lot, and I'm positive the readers will think that the cat is Firestar too. :) ~Bella 12:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, I'd like to know what readers would think it was if they DIDN't think is was Firestar.  ("I'm REALLY positive that the cat on The Darkest Hour is Sandstorm!")  Spottedstripe 23:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only readers of the books read the articles on Wikipedia, and really, if you want to continue this argument, please tell an admin or something about how much you don't like this rule. I really don't want to argue over this any further. ~Bella 15:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The book articles themselves 

message: Many of the aricles have the tone template saying that they are not in the proper tone for the article and they are completely right. I just redid Rising Storm's summary, and it was pretty bad. If someone wants to help me do this, it would be much appreciated. I just thought I'd make everyone more aware of this point.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 18:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also just did Into The Wild as well.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa, Bella!  Nice font for your username!  I've always wanted to figure out how to do those.  Spottedstripe 12:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I didn't change the font, just the color, which is pretty easy to do. And thanks. :)  Bella Swan(Talk!) 13:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tone and Style

message: Is the warrior's return thing real? i'm starting to think every new thing is vandalism. Shrewpelt 17:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything about 'Warrior's Return".....  Bella Swan(Talk!) 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had it down as the title of the third manga, saying that it came from a Borders poster. Actually, the title is on a free Warriors poster made by HarperCollins (making it legit, I think), which can be found at Borders (I snagged one when I went to buy the deluxe edition of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows). It's got descriptions of the series, and some quizzes, and says that the second and third manga volumes will be out in "Winter 2008" and "Fall 2008," respectively. No, I don't know how that makes sense, but it's there, all on the poster. Go pick one up in the bookstore and see. But, I suppose, we could just wait until the dates surface on Tokyopop's site or whatever. TakaraLioness 22:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's odd. I can't find it anywhere on the internet and I don't think you can cite a Border's poster...guess we should just wait.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 22:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah. Okay then. TakaraLioness 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's funny...I used to be really impatient all the time, but when I started the Warriors weries and had to wait for books, I became really patient.  Hmm.   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 11:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warrior's Return

message: ElectricTurahk: I know you have proof that the cats on Into the Wild and Midnight are Rusty and Brambleclaw. I also have proof that the cat on The Darkest Hour is Firestar but everybody says "it's not proven". Can we leave that out, considering that no other book has it?
72.154.53.67 12:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But because there is proof, it's all right to be included (Show me The Darkest Hour proof - despite it being incredibly obvious - and I'll back you up there.).  And if we have the info, why not include it? --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 14:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why not?  I wasn't around during the last time this happened, but I do have a suggestion.  Find the reasoning.  Put it on the talk page.  Add it in.  If it's disputed, discuss it.  And by discuss it, I mean each individual cover, not as a whole - that's what I think the problem was last time. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but I'm afraid I don't think this is enough to say that we know for positive that the characters can be named on the covers. I'm getting really sick of always explaining this. If you would like to know why this isn't enough proof, please see the following conversation. I know you think it sucks or whatever, but it's the rule and I would really appreciate it if no one else would bring up this argument again. Thanks,  Bella Swan(Talk!) 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's alright, I just kind of lost my temper there, sorry. I just would like to ask that no one posts anthing about this in the future unless they have written proof from the authors.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 15:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if I pissed you off, I only brought it up because I did have proof for two the novels, but I've already explained those two.  The others... Yeah, whatever... --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's OK.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 20:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: YARRRRRRGH!!!!! Do NOT say the "P" word!  This is Wikipedia, not some forum where anyone can just mouth off any profanity you want to!  OK, enough ranting...pant...anyway, I agree with Rainpaw.  However, on Kate's OAQ page it says not to ask about the covers, that she only writes the books, not designs them.  Man! BTW, here's the link: http://www.theguttersnipe.co.uk/  Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 12:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the "P" word either, and would not like people to use it in the future, but Spottedstripe, I think you were getting just a little bit over the top since it was only the second time he did it.     P.S. This sig looks amazing Spottedstripe!
 Bella Swan(Talk!) 13:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a dude. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Bella.  Yes, I did get a little bit mad.  I'm sorry, just one of my pet peeves is cussing, and since you see it everywhere these days...sometimes I just want to yell.  I apologize, ElectricTurahk.   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 16:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hm...well, I guess it would have to be someone at Harper Collins.   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 11:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ~|ET|~-- Sorry about the pronoun; I do that all the time and I'm really sorry. Didn't you also say that you were a member of wands and worlds? Is there any chance that you could explain this situation in one of those chats w/ the authors and just ask them to verify the info so we can cite it?  Bella Swan(Talk!) 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not a member; I don't want to have to pay to be able to post.  I have been there, though.  I think Spottedstripe's a member... Right? If really necessary, then somebody could ask in one of the chats, whenever the next one is. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I didn't really know who it was but I think someone said they were a member in one of the archives on this talk page.... I would have done it myself but I didn't want to have to pay the fee either.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 19:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes! That's who was saying they were a member...I'll ask her on her talk page.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just asked her and she said that she'll try to ask if she can make the next chat.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 22:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ha ha, I wish I was a member, ET.  Unfortunatly (I probably spelled that wrong) I just spent that last of my spendings account on a copy of Zelda Windwaker, so I'd have to wait for my next allowance.  How much do you have to pay to become a member?   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What is the "play" about Crowfeather's kits from the Windclan page? Spottedstripe- Zelda Windwaker is the most AMAZING game- have fun!  Bella Swan(Talk!) 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You can find the link to the play on the Warriors site, in the new section. I don't know whether to count it as canon or not. It could kind of be like Jo Rowling's Black Family Tree for the Harry Potter series, which has a bit of a disputed status, but that's just mostly with the dates (though Jo admits to being bad at math; kind of like how Erin Hunter admit to not being able to keep up with their cats) than the people on it. Couldn't we just make a note of the script's implication of Crowfeather having more than one kit, though just saying that it may not be cannon? Until we get it all sorted out, I mean. Er. If we already have that or don't want it, forgive me and just forget what I said. TakaraLioness 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, was this thing supposed to be an actual play?  You know, like singing, fighting on-stage, people wearing costumes, etc.  Oh, and Bella, Windwaker is really fun, but I think my brother has played it more than I have...and I paid for it! :)   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 11:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, no not singing or fighting. It's just a drama, it seems, but yeah, I'd say it is a play. I know it got acted out at some of Vicky's tour stops, though I'm not sure if they had costumes or not. TakaraLioness 16:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, isn't funny how you start a discussion about one thing, and by the time it's over it's about something else?  Huh.  Oh, and welcome back, Crowstar!  I like the new siggy, but I have to ask...what in the world is a Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu?   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 12:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Covers 

message: Personally I think some work need to be done on the article. It acts as if the book hasn't been released yet and doesn't talk about the story at all. It also talks about the 'note' from Erin Hunter but we already know what it says. ~Rainpaw
I think SotC should be rewritten too, it's basically notes on how we knew the book would be like, and 1 paragraph detailing what it's about. ~Crowstar~ 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you'll basically turn it into the Clan page? :P --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't recommend redoing Dark River at all because when I figured out it was nominated for deletion, I worked real hard on it and fixed it up, but they still ended up deleting it with the idea that it was too early to really know too much about the book, and when the book came out we'd make an article about it. If you do want to remake the article, I suggest you talk it over with Metros, because he was the one who nominated it for deletion in the first place. ~Bella 18:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I say go ahead, and it probably will be looking a lot like the Clan page, but I think it should be shorter, so it just shows a basic overveiw of the Clan page, not everything from the book has to be added.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Then I say, go for it, and be bold! :)  Bella Swan(Talk!) 00:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's much better then what it was, but I deleted the Glossary and Pictures section because they provided no real information. I would think that you might be able to quote the book, and list all the herbs used in the books. (I would be doing this if I had the book!) I just think it's a little too general, I think the rest of the section could be beefed up. Anyone who has the book could help out a lot with this!  Bella Swan(Talk!) 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I good start, :) It looks a lot better then what it started out as. :)  Bella Swan(Talk!) 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I own the book, and maybe I could help to beef it up a bit, but no promises.  I will probably just be deleted by a certain SOMEONE whose name I WILL NOT SAY...sorry, just had to get that out.  Anyway, sure, what have I got to lose?   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 11:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, someone really DID clean up the Secrets of the Clans page!  It looks sooo much better.  Can  whoever did it please speak up so we can congratulate you personally?   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 11:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, duh.  I'm sorry, Shrewpelt, but I wasn't paying attention to the earlier discussion.  However, you did do a very good job.  Great work! :)  Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Lost Warrior Article

message: I havent seen anything about Warriors Return, I think somebody should take it down unless yje person who put it up can cite their reference  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.154.85 (talk) 17:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC) 
:Ummm...it is cited. Bella Swan 18:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus, The Lost Warrior has been out since...when?  May?  Anyway, of course the sequel's on the way.  they wouldn't just leave it a cliff hanger.   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manga Series???

message: Uh, yeah, no one has been posting anything lately.  Should we just take this as a blessing of zero vandals and move on?   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 23:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can deal with that blessing; welcome it even. :) Bella Swan 21:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, amen to that.   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 21:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I second that. :D TakaraLioness 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... 

message: We need a better lead for this article.  However, I haven't the faintest idea of what should be put in.  That is why I'm bringing this up here - any suggestions?  And, of course, feel free to try some things out yourself to try and improve it. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 19:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of the current lead exactly needs improving? It looks pretty "encyclopedic" as it is, if you ask me. Spottedstar 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just looks cluttered to me... I think we could come up with something more than a very brief description of what the books are about, and then a list of the books and when they came out (That's the cluttered part). --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 20:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's true. Well, the only part we MUST keep in the lead is where it says, "Warriors is a series of fantasy novels written by Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry, with their editor Victoria Holmes, under the pen name Erin Hunter". All the other stuff, as you said, just gives descriptions of the series itself, which is what the article's for. So I'm not too sure what to replace it with, but my opinion on it is to keep that quoted part. Spottedstar 20:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think one problem with the lead is that it just mentions the first name of the book in the particular series. We probably should remove all titles of actual books and just have the names of the series within the Warriors universe. That might help clear up some confusion.  Bella Swan(Talk!) 22:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone just added all the names of the books in the series in the lead section and I don't think that that's good considering that... 
a) We're being too specific according to WP:LEAD and 
b) You don't put the name of a book in quotation marks; you italicize it. 
I just thought that I would tell people here so that if someone would like to argue this point, they're welcome to, but for now, I'm reverting it. Bella Swan 01:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: The Clan of the spirits of warriors who died are called StarClan, not SkyClan. I know I'm right because I read the series myself. Also, you people might have to fix that page because when I made that small change, the old one disappeared! Sorry but I don't know how that happened though, but we might have to rewrite what we had. I really apologize for this if you're ticked, but I just wanted to change what is wrong. Alpha296 21:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. The ancestors are called StarClan, not SkyClan, but the link in the template isn't linking to StarClan, which you will notice if you click it... We don't have a list of StarClan cats article. Look at the Clan article to learn what SkyClan is. TakaraLioness 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm really sorry, guys! I didn't know SkyClan was a article about characters from Firestar's Quest.
I thought you were refering to StarClan by the name of it. Forgive me, my mistake! Alpha296 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's alright. :) Anyone could make that mistake if they hadn't read FQ. TakaraLioness 21:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait a Second... 

message: I just want to let y'all know that you made an error in the article, but don't worry about it because I just changed it. And if you don't mind, I think Warriors: Forest of Secrets could use a little more detail. I just finished reading it today, and the article could use more detail to make it more interesting. Will it be okay if I add a little more information to the plot summary? Alpha296 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead.  You know the policy of Wikipedia: Be bold!  Just try not to make anything biased or something like that.   Spottedstripe(Talk2Me) 18:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warriors Book 3: Forest of Secrets 

message: Um. No offense to whoever wrote it but the plot summary for The Lost Warrior is kinda... bleh.
I think I mentioned the article once before sometime. ~Rainpaw  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.216.52 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One question. Why was this put on this talk page instead of The Lost Warrior's talk page? And it's actually two questions...  Well, you can just edit it if you don't feel that it's very good (I'm not saying I do, but you're fully capable of editing yourself...), so why didn't you? Yes, I know discussion is good, but if something is wrong/just plain bad (like this), then go ahead and be bold and change it. --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 20:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. Oops. I had two windows open at once and accidently put the topic here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.215.85.163 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lost Warrior Plot