This archive is of discussions initiated from 2007 to 2009 on WikiProject Warriors' discussion page.
Deadline?
I'm no awesomneth wiki-person, nor am I one of the most significant contributors to this project, but I've been looking to the active/possibly inactive/inactive members list. A good few have received the message and have listed themselves as active--for which I am glad, but the majority seems blissfully unaware. Should someone--Shrewpelt, I think, since she was the one with the original idea, contact the possibly inactives in whatever way possible to set a deadline?
I mean, nothing crazy, not like, next week, maybe give it a few months? Because if they really are unaware, then they are basically inactive, so...
yeah. -blushes- Am I too mean? IceUnshattered (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I based this role call off the Harry Potter WP role call. I don't think that role call had a deadline, so this one probably doesn't need one either. Thank you for the idea. Shrewpelt (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Why?
Why do we even have this? This "project" doesn't even do anything. The only real thing needed was the splitting of the characters page (And I see only one mention of that, and it's an indirect one too. Under "open tasks," it lists "split long pages up.") - and I did that. So what now? Seriously, we need to get this thing going! I propose that we set actual goals now. Try to get a page as featured article, even! I believe that we should either start with the main Warriors page, or with the book pages. Take a look at some other novel series articles, such as Harry Potter. We should attempt to have the Warriors articles look something like that - encyclopedic, so to say. Well, that's all I really have to say on the matter... We just need to do something, ya know? --~|ET|~(Talk|Contribs) 00:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe no one has replied to this. Of course. How about we set a goal to get all the book articles to Good Status (and then Featured)? That should keep most of the serious editors occupied. Cheers, Corvus coronoidestalk20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Icy-chan totally agrees! As a member who signed up--what, twelve hours ago, she's ready to help. I'll look through other book articles, get more familiar with wikipedia coding, and brush the dust off articles. Let's do it! IceUnshattered (talk) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to be mean but...what the heck are you talking about?! Please, I really want to do a lot of things here. We could make articles about all the Clans, even SkyClan if we all pitched in, so we still have to do things with this "project". Sorry for my overrecation, Warriorscourge (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Template
Thanks to the WONDERFUL work of User:Kevinalewis, we have an improved template where ratings can be put and such. I wanted to know if anyone would be willing to start going through and rating the books. You might have to figure out how to place the ratings in the templates, but there should be directions somewhere. Secondly, we can put an image into the template and I can do that but I don't know which image to use, and if we should even use one. (Note: Book cvers and other certain images CANNOT be used in the template) BellaSwan21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
o_O I think that's totally fine, Shrewpelt. From what I can read from the description under the image, we can use it freely as we have been doing without breaking any inconvenient laws. 71.234.96.39 (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Collaboration
Why don't we start a collaboration? Inkpelt 22:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Secrets of the Clans
The page is currently in need of a major (and immediate) revamp if we Warriors Fans wish to save it from a premature death. We need to smarten things up a bit, and get more information on the actual book (reference research needs to be done, for one, so we can support things we say on the page), in addition a shortening of the plot summary that's more to the point and less of a meander through the pages of the book. Kitsufox12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The AfD went through. And unfortunately, despite a good bit of research, I was not able to find anything significant enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). Untill such time as we have it, there's no point in recreating the article. Kitsufox16:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
We have twenty four users signed up as members of WikiProject Warriors, but not all of them seemed to be active. I think we need a role call to see who is active, then start getting this project in motion! Shrewpelt (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I would personally love to see this project get more active. Most of the Warriors Articles on Wikipedia need some hardcore work, and a handful will never be able to reach Wikipedia standards and really need to be transwikied to Warriors Wiki BEFORE they're up on AFD. We need to start getting proactive. Kitsufox(Fox's Den)15:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
So the Role Call message would be like this:
Hi. You have listed youself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all names under "Possibly Inactive." If you are still active, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. See the talk page after moving your name to "Active" to see some ideas on what to do. Thank you!
A plot summary section - describe the plot of the Warriors books, but try to keep it around three paragraphs long
Not Done The sections about the books seem to have a plot summary already. I don't think an entire section on the plot is needed. I did just add a section about the Warriors universe, to help readers unfamiliar with the subject. Shrewpelt (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't we organize this into types of tasks and put it together on the to-do list of our template? So it acctually gets out there? It should also probobly be edited into the main page of the project, rather than hiding back here in the end of the discussion page. Kitsufox(Fox's Den)15:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
As some will know, there have been concerns expressed regarding whether this subject has sufficient scope for a portal, by, among others, me. I think it would be rather easily possible to expand the scope of the project a bit, with the consent of the members, to overcome this difficulty.
As many of you will know, there are a number of other fictional series and works which deal with cats as leading characters. These include the Midnight Louie series, Rita Mae Brown's series about "Mrs. Murphy", The Joe Grey Mysteries (series), the Cat Who series, and fantasy novels including "The Wild Road" series by Jane Johnson (writer) and M. John Harrison, The Book of Night with Moon (novel) series, and all the characters in the List of fictional cats. I personally have no doubt that there is more than enough content from all of these subject to create a very viable portal, maybe something like Portal:Fictional felines. Unfortunately, to expand like this would require changing the stated scope of the project and name. Doing so would probably expand the number of involved editors, though, so I personally think it might be for the better. If it were to be done, it would probably be for the best to also become a task force of the main WikiProject Novels, or at least using that project's banner, as several of the subjects cross genre boundaries. Would this be acceptable to you all? John Carter (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I have been thinking about this too. I support changing this wikiproject to a task force, as the scope is so small. First, however, I'd like to change the project to WikiProject Erin Hunter, to allow coverage of Seekers (novel series) and individual author projects like Bloodline (2005 novel). I'm more neutral on changing to the project to cover fictional cats. Thanks, Shrewpelt (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that the project should have articles of each clan but just make sure you add refs so that they arent called "unotable", I wont be watching this page so feel free to continue the discussion on my talkpage. Thank you.GearsOf War16:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable)21:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
I would like the help of all Wikiproject Warriors members to help improve the pages under the scope of Wikiproject Warriors, so we can get as many of the articles, and hopefully all of the articles, into Good Article status.
Brambleclawx (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Roll call 2009
WikiProject Warriors is having a roll call from 27 November to 27 December 2009. Members who wish to be active: please list your name under the "active" section. For now, all active members are listed under "status pending". On December 27, all participants who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you. Airplanemantalk03:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
TODO
This wikiproject's todo list might need a bit of an update. I started doing that, and would appreciate other memebers to add tasks if they feel a page needs work. Brambleclawx (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Werdnabot
Has anybody else seen the notice on Talk:Warriors (novel series) about Werdnabot not running anymore? (May be on other Warriors pages, but I haven't looked) And any opinions about what to do? I think we could just use another bot, but if someone thinks that's not necessary, now's the time to say it. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea... right now, the page doesn't need archiving just yet, and activity isn't particular heavy, so I don;t think its an issue yet. Brambleclawx01:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
We can wait, but I just thought I would point it out. Honestly, I'm no good at choosing a bot or setting one up, and all of us are busy, so I suppose we can just get to it when there's time. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for comment on Biographies of living people
Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:
Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.
The two opposing positions which have the most support is:
supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect
Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.
Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.
Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people
List of cleanup articles for your project
If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here
Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"
If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip
Watchlisting all unreferenced articles
If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip
Wait.......... what's happening? If ANYTHING is getting deleted about Warriors, then I'm not letting it happen. Also, how do you people spell rumor? Is it rumor or rumour? Me and Brambleclawx have been discussing this and I am wandering what other people think. Biker488—Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC).
I think that a lot of IP and new users vandalized the article a month ago, but now it stopped. As for the spelling, I think I've seen it used both ways and never really thought about it so I don't think it really matters... Derild492100:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Warriors watchlist.
I don't know if there is one, but I think there should be a watchlist for the Warriors pages. I find the PJ and 39 clues watchlists very helpful... Homework2pass a notesign!14:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so it was requested, me and Brambleclawx have been discussing it, and it is hard to write an article about this. I tried, and it got deleted, so don't think that if you actually do it it will stay. I'm just saying that if ANYONE has a way to do it, please do. Thanks, Biker488
I've given this some thought for about two months now, and have decided to ask your opinions. In it's entire history, this project has conducted 2 role calls. The first one appeared to be the idea of User:Shrewpelt, now mysteriously disappeared, and the second one happened partially because of me (though User:Airplaneman did the role call notice distributing). Many of the users we have recruited since the previous role call in December have now become inactive. Therefore, I am proposing an annual role call to keep the list of active participants as accurate as possible. @Airplaneman: did you happen to copy the role call notice from the one used by Shrewpelt? Brambleclawx20:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be fine. I found the old roll call on Shrewpelt's talk page. It's:
<br><div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px #ffa500; background-color: #ffce7b;">Hello. You have listed youself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors]] and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On December 27, 2009, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!</div>
Which turns into
Hello. You have listed youself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On December 27, 2009, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!
(edit conflict)The one Airplaneman distributed was <br><div style="align: center; padding: 1em; border: solid 1px #ffa500; background-color: #ffce7b;">Hello. You have listed youself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors]] and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On December 27, 2009, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!</div>, which becomes
Hello. You have listed youself as an active contributor of WikiProject Warriors, but as we are trying to see who is still active, we have put all active contributors under "status pending." If you are still active, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors and move your name to "Active." Move your name to "Inactive" if you no longer wish to contribute. You may always move it back. On December 27, 2009, all members who have not listed themselves as active will be moved to the "inactive" section. Thank you!
My reasoning was: more people are free during the holiday break, but people could also be away on vacation, unable to access a computer. I suppose December is fine though. Brambleclawx23:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Go to the project page and just add your name under the active participantas! Thanks for joining, there haven't been a lot of active contributors recently! Actually, I see that you already have! Thanks for joining! Derild4921☼12:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Warriors articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Warriors articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
Heheh... that probably came from when I was a newbie at the project. I enthusiastically tagged some articles that only have minor connections to Warriors, (ie. the deathberry/yew article that was just mentioned, or Requiem (typeface)...) Brambleclawx01:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Great job at cutting down the excess details, but the information on the page is everything that is available! If we can get either a major expansion on themes, or a genre section nit might reach GA... Derild4921☼03:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh ok I see now.If you need any help with the Warriors pages,or any page at all,just leave a message at my talk page,as i'll be happy to help--Nyswimmer (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Non-review independent sources on the topic
Right now, I am aware of only a very few independent sources which discuss this topic to any real extent that are not reviews or sales statistics. I'm thinking, maybe, that there might be some significant mentions in recent books relating to children's literature/YA literature, but do not myself have any idea where to look for such material. Does anyone know of any recent publications which provide either encyclopedic content on children's literature and/or some variety of overview discussion on the subject? John Carter (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where to look for recent literaure, but what "independent sources" are we talking about here...? They sound like they'd be useful. Brambleclawx21:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think, if any of us have good libraries which use the dewey decimal system, looking around the 011 books might find some books which say something about the books, even if it isn't much. But even just indicating that the books exist and discuss the topic at some length might be enough to help bring some of the more central articles up to the level of reasonable FA candidates. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I've basically pulled up every frickin' article I can find which contains something other than sales figures, book signing notices, and the like on the multiple databanks available to me, and am putting them up at User:John Carter/Warriors. I hope that, whenever I get finished, it will be of use. I do think, like I said earlier, that citing the published books, even if the data is more or less redundant, would still be a good idea, as it would help establish that the books are mentioned in such sources, and make the possibility of some articles making FA better. I tend to think that, in general, material regarding the series in general should be included in the main series article or in the first article of the relevant series. John Carter (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
So far, the material added has all come from the News Bank databank. The material from ProQuest and Gale Cengage has not been added yet. Neither has the material from EBSCO's NoveList site. That site in particular seems to be primarily designed by librarians, and includes popularity ratings for each book it discusses, from one to five stars. The Warriors books have many at five stars, and only one or two as low as two stars. Unfortunately, I'm going to be comparatively much less active for the next week or so, and probably won't be able to add the remainder of the material until then. And I apologize for the formatting of some of the articles, because the format tends to disappear when I copy the material from the e-mail I sent it to myself in. If anyone wants copies of the originals, they are free to send me an e-mail using the toolbox at my user page and indicate which they want sent to them, and I will forward the material I had the databanks in question send me. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm finished. At least in my own opinion, the first five sources listed in the Warriors section should all be included to some extent in the relevant articles. Granted, the first four are all fairly short, but they are material published in books, not magazines, and I think the articles would benefit from having references from books. The fifth one in that section is the only material relevant to the subject which I was able to find in academic journals, and on that basis is material I think particularly relevant as well. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I found at least eight articles in a local Arkansas newspaper exclusively about this event, with another covering it at some length. I acknowledge that it probably doesn't qualify, based on what I have seen, for a separate article as per WP:LOCAL, but think that it does deserve significant mention somewhere. For those who don't know about it, it was a three-day event in 2008 to commemorate one family who died in a local tornado which also raised money for various related non-profits, including animal-related and literacy projects. One of the then-three Erin Hunters helped organize the event, and wrote a play specifically for the event. And all three of the members of the family in question were given Warriors names and mentioned in at least one of the books.
I guess the question in my eyes is which article would be most appropriate to include material regarding this subject. The same author, according to an article in an Illinois newspaper, also helped at a fundraiser for a young person there, so there could, possibly, be an article about Warriors involvement in charities. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
It would seem most applicable on that author's page, and perhaps as a note on the main Warriors page. Also, were all three members in book? If so, it should probably be added there too. As for the idea about a Warriors charity page, it mostly seems to be that one author, so I would mention it on their page, or the Erin Hunter page, and a short note in the main article. PrincessofLlyrroyal court18:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it'd go on the main Warriors page, as well as in Long Shadows (Warriors), because the three of them, Brightspirit, Braveheart and Shiningheart, are characters in that book. The main Warriors page currently has a brief mention of this, under "plays". Brambleclawx22:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it could clearly be mentioned in the Russellville, Arkansas page (or maybe a page on its school/s) as well, as that is where it took place. In response to PrincessofLlyr, only the one author actually attendd the event, although the junior high school/middle school in the area is reported to have received the at-that-time only copy of Into the Wild (Warriors) signed by all three authors as a result of the events. John Carter (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Give me a few days, and I'll have something up in userspace. I will also try to add the various (generally short) pieces I've found on some of the books in other works to that page. Although I can't remember right now exactly which books have published (short) reviews by members of the target audience of YA/children, I would think that those reviews in particular would be appropriate to add to the relevant articles. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Granted, the only linkage between these series is through the pseudonym Erin Hunter and one or more of the authors, but I was thinking that maybe, on the basis of that linkage, the project might expand to cover articles related to that series as well. Particularly considering the fact that both series have the same plotter, it occurs to me, perhaps, maybe, somewhere down the line after the first Seekers series is completed, there may be some form of crossover of characters between series, or, maybe, some sort of work involving both. Anyway, thoughts? John Carter (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The Seeker bears are in Canada/Alaska, while the Warrior cats are in a fictitious forest based on England, so I don't think they will ever meet each other. I actually think they said that they wouldn't meet during an author chat. I don't mind assimilating the Seekers article into the project, except for the fact that it may look a bit out of place. . lets wait for a few more opinions before making a decision. Brambleclawx17:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read Seekers, but it seems like absorbing it wouldn't be too strange. Chances are that most people who have read Warriors will read Seekers too, so a lot of the editors would be crossover, and probably a lot of coverage/info for the two would be found in similar places, so covering it would be efficient. PrincessofLlyrroyal court17:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
As an outsider who has read none of the books, from what I can find, they are intertwined in approach from the publisher and the authors. What about renaming the project the "WikiProject Erin Hunter" that way the scope is expandable if the publishers decide to develop another series under the same pseudonym, Sadads (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about renaming the project, but I suppose we could absorb Seekers for now. Brambleclawx 18:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC) Add If Seekers becomes more widespread/notable, maybe A Seekers Task Force could operate as a sub-group of Wikiproject Warriors. Brambleclawx18:39, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I doubt a Seekers task force would work. Anyone working with Seekers probably also has a connection with Warriors, so I think that expanding this project boundaries would be the better approach. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:20:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
True, the name does sound better now. But it's wrong. Unless we change it to Wikiproject Warriors and Seekers, which sounds even more ridiculous. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:22:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Let's wait a bit. User:Derild4921 is scheduled to come off of wikibreak on December 25, and Airplaneman should be back from vacation soon. I'm not aware of any other fairly active members at the moment. Brambleclawx02:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Weak oppose renaming. As it stands, Warriors is still by far the bulk of the relevant material and interest. Perhaps renaming somewhere down the line might work, if Seekers becomes as big over time. Having said that, maybe altering the banner to indicate that the scope includes Warriors and the other animal fantasy series by the author, Seekers, or some similar phrasing, might work. And I do like the image here, although I personally might separate the two and maybe make the bear smaller. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You want to seperate the two, and make the bear smaller? I'm not sure I understand where you want to put the bear after it's seperated though. Brambleclawx16:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand it because it doesn't make sense. Duh. I was for whatever reason stupidly thinking of some other image at the time. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I like the idea of expanding into Seekers as I've brought the main article up to GA, but agree that renaming this would lose the catchy title. I think a task force would work here, thought I fail to see how this would fall under the scope of Wikiproject Warriors without a name change. Derild4921Review Me!01:38, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
We should decide what exactly to do then
It appears we all agree that Seekers should be absorbed. We've got a few ideas:
Change the name of the project (WikiProject Erin Hunter), and the logo
Keep the name but change the logo
Keep the name, and logo, and set up a task force for Seekers
And any other possible combination of these ideas.
Keep name, change logo - Seekers not prominent enough yet to deserve its own taskforce, and it should fit ok under WikiProject Warriors for now. Brambleclawx18:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep name, change logo - there is only one article that is related to Seekers right now, so it really should be fine absorb it. No need for a name change. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:20:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hey! Biker488 here! Sorry I haven't been on lately! I do NOT think that Seekers should be included in the project. The project has always been focused on Warriors and should stay that way. Some people (me, for example) have never read Seekers and may not be able to help with it. If anyone would like Seekers to be in our project, then how about create a whole new project? If were calling it,"WikiProject Warriors" then it should be about Warriors.Before doing anything, PLEASE think about this.-Biker488 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The thing is, there's only one page right now for Seekers; its not big enough for its own project. You don't have to be an expert to help out; alternatively, if you don't want to, you don't have to edit the Seekers article. I've never read Seekers either, but some other project members might. People who read Warriors are more likely to have also read Seekers than other people, so members would also be more likely to be able to support Seekers. (Note that I'm not trying to discredit your opinion, merely explaining the current reasoning). Brambleclawx22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Sooner or later after some other articles I'm editing now, I plan to recreate the book articles, but this time with more information. At that time there might be enough for a Seekers task force. Derild4921Review Me!19:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Since no more comments have been added, I am closing this discussion. The general consensus appears to absorb Seekers, keep the current name, and change the logo. Any further objections should be made in a new setion on the talk page.
The new logo needs to be cleaned up, and turned into an svg. Anyone who knows someone who can do that, please ask them to turn it into an svg. Thanks.Brambleclawx02:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
From what I can tell, none of the projects that the majority of Warriors articles belong to (WikiProjects Literature, Novels, and Cats) use the "ACLASS" rating. So do you think we should use the A-class in this project? Brambleclawx02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, the main question I've had is why this is a whole Wikiproject instead of a task force under Children's Literature or Novels. If we stay I still think we shouldn't used it due to out small size. Derild4921Review Me!02:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Probably not. For one thing, I don't really see much point to it; if an article is good enough to be A-class, you may as well just go for GA. Derild, you are correct that more accurately we should probably be a task force, but at this point it's not really worth correcting. PrincessofLlyrroyal court16:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Warriors for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi everyone, sorry I haven't really been active. I don't use Wikipedia a lot, and I tend to forget that I took part in this project. -,-
Anyway, I want to help out, especially with Crookedstar's Promise, since I've just read that book. But I'm not sure exactly how I should help. Should I provide a full summary of the story, or expand the preview?
You can help out any way you want... be bold! Generally, a full plot summary is good, as long as isn't extremely long and boring, like it is here... "Pepper" @ 20:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no page for The Forgotten Warrior; it is only a redirect to the Warriors (novel series) section that covers the basic plot. This is the only book in the series to not have a full article. Unfortunately, at the moment I cannot help out, because I have yet to read The Forgotten Warrior, but I think that it should get its proper page. Agreement? Brambleberry of RiverClanChat ♠ Watch14:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
The current logo.Add this in the background for Survivors, perhaps?
Considering the new Survivors series has an article, The Empty City, that would be part of WikiProject Warriors because it is written under the pseudonym Erin Hunter (despite the fact that it is a new group of people), I propose that we should add File:Dog.svg to the current logo to represent the Survivors series. Brambleberry of RiverClanmeow21:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd agree with Brambleberry. The way it is now with the thin white line separating the dog and the cat isn't very eye appealing. Seeing as I don't really have any image knowledge, I'll ask User:Jkwchui what he can do if there aren't any objections. He's the one who altered BCx's original logo in the first place. "Pepper"@01:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, contacting someone who can convert the file to svg would be very helpful. It really made the lines a lot smoother. I think it'd be nice to fix the cat's paw while converting to svg too. I didn't notice it before, but it looks amputated... Brambleclawx00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems Jwkchui isn't active anymore... nonetheless, this can be sorted out at the graphics lab. I will put in a request now for the bear to be made paler than both current animals, removal of the white line, vectorization, and repairing the paw. Brambleclawx00:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I can add any changes. This is what I gathered from your posts. But last time you guys simply said to put them together, which I did. But let me know if you guys want to add something to it. BlackDragon16:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Book article merger
Hey all. Happy June. I recently put Outcast (Warriors) to GA review, more for feedback than because I really expected it to pass (though I did hope to GA it, in case anyone thinks I was trying abuse GAN). Anyway, the reviewer suggested we merge Outcast into a list of Warriors books type of article. This is something I've considered for a while myself. While the older Warriors novels have enough coverage to merit their own article, I've been sitting on the fence for a while trying to decide whether we should merge the newer ones. The fact of the matter is, many of the newer books are very borderline in terms of meeting coverage requirements for notability, since most of the sources are either primary sources listing things like publication date, or passing references in book reviewers (who are reviewing Warriors less and less). I think it's time to put it to our members: should the books be merged into list articles, and if so, how should they be organized? If not, what can we do to improve the articles to ensure they meet notability?
Proposals
(feel free to suggest proposals for action)
Brambleclawx: My personal opinion is that we should merge by mini-series, but keep the articles which do meet criteria for their own articles, especially those that are already GA, and those for which sufficient sources exist. Brambleclawx15:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
This sounds like a logical and solid option. My only concern here is how we will manage some if any consistency in the merging procedure; is it justifiable to keep one article over another (if it is, say, the two are in the same miniseries) just because one article is in a better state than the other? Airplaneman ✈03:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Ideally, we'd judge based on the availability of sources. I guess we'd start off redundant by not deleting anything, but just amalgamating everything onto their respective pages, before we come to a consensus on which to keep based on sources available as opposed to the current state of the articles. For example, it's fairly obvious there are next to no sources for a book like Sign of the Moon. Brambleclawx15:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Brambleberry of RiverClan: I agree with Brambleclawx on this. We can probably keep every article from the original arc and some from the second, but most (if not all) of the third and fourth arcs need to be merged into Warriors: Power of Three and Warriors: Omen of the Stars. I can almost guarantee that we'll need to merge Dawn of the Clans as well. After Firestar's Quest, we can probably merge all of the Super Editions as well, and we could merge all of the field guides, which would involve new redirection of Enter the Clans and The Ultimate Guide. I'm divided on whether or not to merge all of the manga into their little trilogies (either leaving The Rise of Scourge alone or merging it more with Warriors (novel series)) or to just make a Warriors manga page to put everything on. öBrambleberryofRiverClan15:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'd be of the opinion that we should merge all manga into one article (Graystripe's Trilogy might manage to get its own page, but the others won't) Brambleclawx15:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that merging is a wonderful idea. It has been increasingly clear to me that "new book comes out = create whole article with just a plot summary", and "OMG must improve article = adding same comments about influence and occasionally a slightly different reception". I have no problem with keeping all the articles from the original series (kudos to Brambleclawx for all the improvements in the first place), but I think even getting into the New Prophecy, it gets repetitive. Having one central article for Warriors: The New Prophecy with sections for each book and sub sections for short summaries and critical reviews and reception would be a good way to go IMO. I'll get back with more ideas and comments later. "Pepper"@15:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The credit for improving original series should actually go to retiree User:Derild4921 in my opinion. In terms of New Prophecy, I'd say Midnight maybe, Moonrise for sure, Dawn possibly, but after that i gets iffy. Brambleclawx15:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm all for it. I think we should leave the notable ones with enough coverage and sources, and then merge the remaining ones into list articles. Such as Warriors: The Original Series, Warriors: The New Prophecy, Warriors: Power of Three and so forth. Kinda like This, where it links to the main articles that have one and leaves the not notable on the page. Then we could have a Warriors (manga) page and maybe even a Warriors E-books page, since those are clearly not notable enough. Probably a Super Edition and Feild Guide ones too. We should probably do the same for Seekers too though since new books aren't notable enough, see Great Bear Lake (seekers). Thoughts? BlackDragon19:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd personally prefer to leave e-books on the main Warriors page, and not add a new article just for them because coverage of them are scant, even when combined. Other than that, yeah, that's idea I was thinking of too: using "Main article" links on the list articles for ones that are notable enough for their own article. Brambleclawx19:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The only thing about "leav[ing] the notable ones with enough coverage and sources" is that I feel awkward having, say, and article about the New Prophecy, but a separate article for only Moonrise because of its good article status. I don't really see a point in that. All the books have plot summaries, all the books have reviews, they all have some sort of publication history, and they many of their inspirations are similar. Granted I haven't actually gone out and looked for sources, but why is it that Moonrise has all that stuff when Twilight is back there at C-class? Is it just that no one has spent the time to dig up the sources yet? "Pepper"@20:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it's mostly because Moonrise actually has sources that exist, whereas Twilight doesn't really seem to have much coverage at all. Generally, as we get to more recent books, fewer and fewer sources are produced regarding these newer books. Brambleclawx01:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah your probably right on the E-books. I haven't read them so I'm not sure exactly what they are. Maybe a clean up of that section then. It seems like the first two series are notable for stand alone articles from what I've seen. If they stay stand alone, or most do, then we could maybe have a page with an overview of the series that have the sections linking to the book and have reviews of the series as a whole. Something like that could work possibly. BlackDragon20:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
So, since I hate being indecisive, why don't we start working on the stuff we have all agreed on. I think we all agreed that Warriors: Power of Three, Warriors: Omen of the Stars, and Warriors: Dawn of the Clans can be merged. I believe that Brambleclawx's proposal above of merging the manga went uncontested, but we might as well merge the three of Graystripe's trilogy on its own page. We can always merge that with the larger manga page if necessary. We can merge the super editions onto one page but leave Firestar's Quest and link to it from the main super edition page. We can merge all the field guides, too. That covers everything except the first two arcs, which we can continue discussing. In terms of merging, I remember from past experience that the sections of List of secondary highways in Manitoulin District were all just copy/pasted onto the new page, and the old pages with the history were just redirected. I don't know if this is "correct", but it is a precedent that I know of. Does this satisfy everyone for now? "Pepper"@19:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
In terms of my opinion on the first two arcs, I think we should leave the six from the first, but merge all six of the second. "Pepper"@19:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I would say we have a consensus to merge. What's left now is how to go about it. I believe we've agreed to have series pages regardless, but which articles to keep their own pages is still open it seems. Discussion in subsections below for each series:
I'd agree with this. It makes the most since to have a page for every arc. Right now its kinda just lumped up on the main page. BlackDragon22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
We should also have a review of the series as a whole on the page along with the short "preview" sections of the 6 books. BlackDragon23:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I suppose this is also the point where we need to decide then: what are we going to call this page? Warriors (sub-series), Warriors (main series), Warriors (original series)? I personally support the first one. Brambleclawx17:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I've decided to be bold, and started the article draft in my userpage pending a name decision. That way, it can easily be renamed following the discussion's conclusion without leaving all sorts of messy redirect behind later. Brambleclawx18:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I actually like Warriors (arc) out of the names that have come up. I don't think it's that problematic in terms of people who aren't familiar with the series, because arriving at the Warriors (novel series) page in the first place will have all necessary links to other project pages. "Pepper"@15:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Overall, very well done. I really like the way you incorporated everything and made it all mesh into a single article. My only complaint would be that I think some of the sentences are a bit long, which could lead to some confusion. For example, the initial sentence strikes me as a bit much. The original Warriors sub-series is the first story arc in the Warriors juvenile fantasy novel series about anthropomorphic feral cats, comprising six novels which were published from 2003 to 2004: Into the Wild, Fire and Ice, Forest of Secrets, Rising Storm, A Dangerous Path, and The Darkest Hour. I think it could easily be split in to two more simpler sentences, such as "The original Warriors sub-series is the first story arc in the Warriors juvenile fantasy novel series about anthropomorphic feral cats. The arc comprises six novels which were published from 2003 to 2004: Into the Wild, Fire and Ice, Forest of Secrets, Rising Storm, A Dangerous Path, and The Darkest Hour."
By cutting down sentence length, I think it makes it more readable to the average person, and also (usually) less confusing. Another particular sentence which caught my eye is "Themes in the series often revolve around forbidden love; for example, Graystripe falls in love with Silverstream, who is in another Clan." I can try to go through the whole article for copyediting/grammar stuff if you'd like.
As for the name, I'm still in favor of Warriors (arc). I like the shortness while still effectively distinguishing, and "sub-series" sounds a bit... unprofessional? "Pepper"@15:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I have often been told my sentences are too long. Thank you. I also tend to abuse semi-colons, which make my sentences even longer. Brambleclawx16:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I'd say so. The first three are definitely good enough. The last three are much better than the newer ones, though they still aren't as good as the previous. BlackDragon22:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
True, I agree. If any books have source yet to be found, or info, it would be these three. Most of the newer ones most likely wont, but I think these could probably have some. I mean they aren't "bad" articles, so they are the most likely to.BlackDragon23:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree; Midnight and Moonrise definitely stay, and we can take a few days to look for some sources that could establish notability for the others. öBrambleberryofRiverClan15:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you intend to have a main page as per the original series above, but the last 3 or 4 will not have their own pages, they will be all merged onto the one New Prophecy page? "Pepper"@15:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually Outcast should stay. It has a really well put together article. You yourself even thought it was good enough for GA. BlackDragon16:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Er... actually I suspected it wouldn't pass and that its notability would be questioned. Which is exactly what happened. Brambleclawx20:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it still has a pretty good article. Especially compared to the rest. I think keep this one and the rest can merge. BlackDragon22:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I think we should also make a page for this too. Since it does have 3 books announced and 1 book already has a page. Then it would be notable because its tiny. BlackDragon23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should yet. Maybe once all 6 are out. For now, I'd keep it on the main Warriors page, due to notability issues. Brambleclawx13:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Well the arc would be notable, just not the books. I was suggesting as the first book has a page. Maybe after the next two are out. Then info on at least 5 books would be out. BlackDragon14:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Wait until Thunder Rising actually comes out, then make a page for it and merge in The Sun Trail (which reminds me, I need to read A Hidden Enemy...) öBrambleberryofRiverClan15:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Reminds me that I'm falling behind too. Didn't have time to read Sun Trail when I got it from the library, and now Tallstar's Revenge is out, and so are the novellas, and I haven't even touched Seekers of Survivors. Darn. Brambleclawx15:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually now that I think about it, I don't think we should even have a page for the mangas: just merge into main warriors article; I'm not sure the manga meet notability even when combined. Opinions? Brambleclawx22:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I say let's have a page for all of the mangas, and get rid of the summaries in the main article to cut down on its prodigious length. On the Warriors page, we can have, say, a simple overview of the manga series, and maybe (MAYBE) a list of all of the books in the series, with a {{Main}} link to the dedicated manga page. Airplaneman ✈16:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Most likely merge all of them into one page. None of them have articles right now so I would say to just make a Warriors (manga) page with all of them. Then they will at least have a page. BlackDragon22:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I actually didn't see the field guides pages. I dont usually go to those and haven't edited any. I just kinda figured they didn't. But either way a main page for those should be fine. I havent checked to see how well the pages are yet. BlackDragon18:10, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
What about the Seekers. Clearly the first book is notable, but the rest dont have a page. We could easily make one for it as well, Maybe even Survivors. Agree? BlackDragon23:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
If you're saying we should make a page for each book, I disagree. As it stands, the arrangement of the articles for this subject seems okay, with an article for the first book, and the rest of the books being redirected to the main page. Airplaneman ✈16:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No I haven't read Survivors, only Seekers. No, I was suggesting for us to do the same thing for the Seekers as we are for the Warriors. That is what this discussion is about. I was saying the newer books aren't notable and could easily be list article, much like what were discussing for each Warriors series. BlackDragon01:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but you also said "maybe even Survivors", which is what I was commenting on. I haven't read anything from Seekers because it didn't interest me. öBrambleberryofRiverClan15:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I know. We could make one for it. I havent read them either, so I have no clue what they about. Someone else would have to that has read it if we decide too. I have read most of the original Seekers and its not to bad. I havent read them in a while but I remember most of it. BlackDragon18:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
With Survivors, I bought book two at a cute little independent bookstore two days ago, so I can get to reading that and make the Hidden Enemy page, separate from the current redirect to The Empty City. Then I can really start on Survivors (novel series), and it might need a character page, if that wouldn't seem too crufty. A Hidden Enemy seems to be getting some review coverage, as the first couple of books in a series always do. öBrambleberryofRiverClan15:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Gillian Philip
We need a Wiki page for Gillian Philip, the author of the first two Survivors books. Before you start pointing to WP:SOFIXIT, I'm telling you that I was trying to do it, but my computer started freaking out and I had to close everything to prevent a total system crash. I'm not usually paranoid, but I can't really afford to have my computer crash right now. öBrambleberryofRiverClan22:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't worry. I never point to SOFIXIT. It sounds like a lazy answer. The unfortunate part is that I really know very little about her too. I've been inclined to believe HarperCollins is just trying to tack her onto the coattails of Warriors, but in the Warriors official site FAQ and in some other place i looked at (I think it was a Harper press release, or a news article of some sort, Ms. Philip claims that it's not really so. Then I made the Earth-shattering discovery that our perception of Erin Hunter may not be entirely correct. If I'm correct, Working Partners (to which Warriors is licensed) is actually a group of people who make up story lines, then hire up writers to write. According to their own site, they hire writers to write, and are not interested in people submitting their own ideas (or something like that). I'm kind of ranting. But the main idea is I know very little about Philip, and it may also turn out we need to update the description of how the pen name Erin Hunter works. Brambleclawx14:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
First, officially joining isn't really a big deal in general. What matters is working on the articles. But, if you wanted to add your name by adding ~~~~to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warriors#Participants, that would be the "official" indication of being a member. Then, it would probably be a good idea to hit the star icon on the top of the page tab for this page, which would add it to your watchlist, which would let you know about any discussions here. You could also similarly "watch" the various articles relating to this topic in the same way, to keep up with any discussions there. I am one of the more inactive members of the project, because I'm spending more time on some of the Wikimedia Foundation's other entities, but I can and will forward any articles or other information I can find on subjects relating to this topic if someone leaves me a note on my user talk page indicating what it is they want me to look for. It probably would be a good idea too if one or more of the members here contacted the Wikipedia Library to get access to some of the databanks they offer access to, because they might contain some articles and information we might not be able to find on other sites. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi John, in response to the suggestion regarding the Wikipedia Library, actually, I've done quite a bit of research on Warriors (I tried to write a paper about it at one point), and as far as I'm aware, there aren't many more sources than the ones already cited. Brambleclawx01:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't find much when I checked the various databanks I have available to me either, except I think one mention some years ago in one journal on childrens' literature, although some general interest magazines and newspapers have some content. But hope springs eternal, and, maybe, there might be sometime soon someone writing a few more articles, or maybe a few more journals with articles might appear in one or more databanks. And there might be some significant mention in some published books which might be accessible in some of those databanks. I don't expect to be overwhelmed by a flood of new material myself, but on topics like a lot of children's literature any new sources which might become available would be welcome.
Gray/grey
Not sure who's still around, but anyway: we've got an issue in terms of English variants now. It seems that Warriors books are now pretty much exclusively published in American English (UK editions are lagging behind as far as I can tell). This presents us an issue since we're currently using British spellings of grey in our articles; on the other hand, new characters like Gray Wing are currently exclusively spelled in American English. Ideas? Brambleclawx13:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the default should be the British "grey", but character names should be the way they are written because it is the character's official name. öBrambleberryofRiverClan22:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Quiz!
Just for fun, I'm starting a quiz. Now, before someone tells me that I should be working on real articles, this really only took a few minutes, and it's a great way to learn little-known facts for the articles. Unfortunately, I have two questions, so if you take it, feel free to add many more questions. You can find it here. Thanks, ❀Larksky12358❀Guestbook01:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Done This could use a picture of one of the foreign translations... Shrewpelt (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Done! BTW, thanks for your work, you've been doing a terrific job reverting vandalism on pages. PrincessofLlyr royal court 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
. lets wait for a few more opinions before making a decision. Brambleclawx 17:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Brambleclawx 16:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hows it look ill go ahead and add it BlackDragon 22:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Brambleclawx 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Is This better? BlackDragon 20:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I recently put Outcast (Warriors) to GA review, more for feedback than because I really expected it to pass (though I did hope to GA it, in case anyone thinks I was trying abuse GAN). Anyway, the reviewer suggested we merge Outcast into a list of Warriors books type of article. This is something I've considered for a while myself. While the older Warriors novels have enough coverage to merit their own article, I've been sitting on the fence for a while trying to decide whether we should merge the newer ones. The fact of the matter is, many of the newer books are very borderline in terms of meeting coverage requirements for notability, since most of the sources are either primary sources listing things like publication date, or passing references in book reviewers (who are reviewing Warriors less and less). I think it's time to put it to our members: should the books be merged into list articles, and if so, how should they be organized? If not, what can we do to improve the articles to ensure they meet notability?
Brambleclawx 14:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
