Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

SW Nominations
'kay guys, I'm here with another suggestion. As you all know, Twi's currently got a SW nomination up, and it ends March 8th. I'm in no way, shape or form trying to deny future leads of their spots, but, I'd like to propose the SW nominations be closed after Twi's nomination ends. I mean, we have fifteen, possibly sixteen senior warriors, and an excellent leader and deputy that lead us well. Do we really need anymore then we already have? I'm not saying that no one else is worthy of a lead spot, but, that we have more then enough right now to keep the project running and stable.

So, comments? I propose closing the SW nominations until...hmm...maybe April? May, perhaps, depending on what happens with the current leads we have. 05:28, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

April's only like a month away. I'm thinking June maybe because by the summer people might have more time to work. I don't know. 05:39 Tue Feb 28 05:39, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

June would be good too. With most of the members here still in high school (middle school for some of the younger ones), it's a lot harder for them to get on, due to school work and all the fun stuff you can group together with being a teenager. 05:49, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

June sounds good. I do agree we have plenty senior warriors, even though it's a bit unfair to those who really deserve it. 05:59, 28, 02, 2012

I agree. I also think that we should improve upon the grounds that we nominate our SWs for. Though I cannot deny that any of our SWs haven't earned their spot, I think that the SW rank is starting to been seen as an "inner PCA circle" which seems all high and mighty. I read somewhere that a SW rank is given to a user who needs to head a certain aspect of a project like Cloudy and the Mentoring Program.

Though this might sound kinda dumb, but, in the future, I think we should put a limit on the number of SW's so when a SW steps down or leaves the project, their spot can be filled by an appropriate runner-up. And right now, SW rank just feels like a step up from a warrior rank by saying "oh, you did really well at X, Y, or Z". I dunno, this idea's just been bothering me for a bit lately. Thoughts? 22:09, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! Kinda like how there's only a certain amount of admin and rollbacker spots and such, so things don't get too out of hand. It think that'd be great! 8D 23:50, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! I think that's a good idea. What do you think the limit would be around? Just curious, though it might be too early to ask. :3 03:49, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea too. I think the limit could be 18 sm's. 07:32, 29, 02, 2012

18? DJ, I think we're good with the ones we have now. I don't think we need more. *if I'm understanding you correctly...* 07:33, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about making the limit 10. How we get it down to that level is yet to be seen, but we can work that out later. Kitsu said that SW's should represent talented artists with a leader's trust that can represent a strong leadership in the project. Now, before accusations begin to fly, let me say that I trust EVERYONE in PCA. Everyone works hard and is worthy of trust. But 15 SWs and growing? That just seems a bit extreme to me. Though every SW does their jobs from time to time, I've only seen a good handful of members archive and all on a regular basis (I've been a bit inactive in this department too.... Gomenasai ) But yes, after Twi's nomination closes, I think SW nominations should close while we sort this aspect of the project out. Thoughts? 15:18, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Accusations? Scarlet, what on Earth are you talking about? There's no reason to be paranoid and distrust the members of this project... Do you really feel that way about us? I trust every member of this project and I don't think that taking away the rights of the recently elected senior warriors would help at all. Having these extras means that even when some of us go inactive, the project continues as smoothly as ever. Yeah, close it after Twi's election, but I don't think that lowering the number of senior warriors will be anything but counter-intuitive. 15:23, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to say a few things on this subject... First off... A hard, numerical limit isn't the way to go. Your project is big. and your number of senior warriors must reflect that. Your target should be between a quarter and a third of the project members (IE: 1 Senior Warriors for every 3 apprentice/warrior project members). This puts you guys about where you should be... Senior Warriors, however, should not have the project leader's trust alone. They need the project's trust, and the leader should be able to trust the judgement of the project when they create a Senior (IE: If the project votes them in, what reason does the project leader have not to trust the project population?). Frankly, Scarlet, don't forget that you're a figurehead with a few jobs. Like the Queen of England. You don't make the laws, you just represent something for the project and provide certain bits of guidance for it. But in the end, you're still just a member of the project. 17:42, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, put it like this maybe. (Example: Each member of the project has a right to make art and be free to participate in discussions, and critique on art. Not every member of PCA has the right to be a leader and lead the project.) We should clarify these rights and find the differences between all the different project ranks. So far, from what I've seen, these are the current rights for Warrior+:

Warrior
 * Critique on art
 * Participate in discussions
 * Participate in project votes
 * Create Original Artwork For Approval
 * Create Tweak and Redo's For Approval
 * If a charart is Withdrawn, they may take over
 * Withdraw images
 * Take part in project meetings
 * Work to become a senior warrior by earning the projects respect and trust, and by fitting into the requirements

Lead


 * Critique on art
 * Participate in discussions
 * Participate in project votes
 * Create Original Artwork For Approval
 * Create Tweak and Redo's For Approval
 * If a charart is Withdrawn, they may take over
 * Withdraw images
 * Archive old discussions
 * Set up project votes
 * Approve and Decline artwork
 * Take part in lead meetings
 * Take part in project meetings
 * Set up project/lead meetings
 * Work to become the deputy/leader once the deputy/leader succeeds the leader or steps down/becomes inactive, by earning the leaders respect and trust
 * Be a leader and rolemodel to other members of the project

As you can see, there is a huge jump from Warrior to Senior Warrior, even though it's just one rank move up. There should be a difference between the Senior Warriors, Deputy and Leader, right now, they basically all do the same thing. If anything, I think we need another rank, for the (no offence) less experienced Sw's. Their rights could be the same as the Warriors, except their rank posistion could be on the main page, so new users could come to them if they have questions, and they can take part in lead meetings and make descisions for the project, that way they don't seem all mighty with so much power. There are SW's that really deserve their posistion, and have the experience needed, but this is just my 2 cents. 05:50, 02, 03, 2012

Yes, there should be a noticeable difference between SW/Deputy/Leader, but I don't think we need another rank. We have enough. 18:49, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Given that Lead and project meetings shouldn't be happening (all important discussions should use either the forum or this talk page), you can scratch those right off the list. Everyone should be a Leader and Role-modle for the project (the project should be running things, not the "leads"), so there's another one that belongs on both parts. Given that all rules changes/proposals should be discussed and voted on by all, they don't have to be limited to the "leads" group. That would be stupid and keep a group of perfectly good minds out of the process. That leaves... Gosh... Just "Approve art", "Archive discussions" and "Setup Votes". Looks to me like Senior Warriors are mostly just members who've been given administrative duties for the project. I don't see why there needs to be Senior-Senior Warriors and Senior Warriors to handle that. You all seem to have an overinflated idea of the importance of Senior Warriors. 18:55, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kit on this. SWs are members of the project with a lot of experience with chararts and critique, so they are given the rights to decline/approve/CBA images due to their experience. I mean, they're not to have the power to control the project, but just some administrative duties, as Kit said.

Also, for these "lead meetings," SWs invite other SWs to go on the PCA IRC and discuss. It shouldn't be like that. Every user has the right to participate in these discussions, so then that would mean that there shouldn't be lead meetings, but project discussions on a forum or so. 19:08, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm against the idea of any meetings at all. All new ideas should be discussed on the talk page or on a forum, where it can be looked back on at anytime. I'm not sure what to do about the number of SW's though, I mean, we do have a lot, but not one of them don't deserve it. 00:27, 03, 03, 2012

I did the math and we should have 18-24 SW, we have 14-16. 22:57, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

No, no and no again. We do not need that many. I think we're functioning just fine with the ones we have now. 22:58, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think we're fine where we are now (plus Twi) too, I'm just giving the numbers, but I also believe you can't put a limit on well-respected, contributing users, it would be like putting a limit on users that could join. 02:25, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Yes we have more than enough now. I understand we need a percentage, not a number of SW, but I think the percentage should be to active users. Half the users in this project aren't active really so we don't actually need this many SWs. You know we've got too many when half of them don't have anything to do cause someone else has already gotten to it everytime they look. And Wildfire, there's a difference between being well-respected and contributive and being a SW. A warrior can be both very easily and not have to be a SW if we already have enough. A lot of our members have amazing skills and are active, but that doesn't mean they should all be SWs. I think we're fine with what we have now, and closing nominations again would definitely be a good idea. 15:47, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Wait. As Kit said earlier in the discussion, she said that there should be 1 SW for every 3 apprentices/warriors, but what if some aren't active? Just to let y'all know, I'm asking a question, not pointing out something. 05:02, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I think once the number of SW's gets to 13, it shouldn't matter about percentages and fractions, etc. We have plently now, and when it comes the time to re-open nominations, we'll discuss it there. 06:17, 22, 03, 2012

Actually, the percentage should be all that matters. If we were to, say, get 100 members, 13 senior warriors would never cut it. We'd need at least 25, of not 33. 12:27, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

If the projects size calls for it, we will up the number of SW's. Also, the percentage should only count for active members. We have about 60 (can't be bothered to count) members. The ammount of SW's we have now is plenty to me. 01:16, 24, 03, 2012

You know...when we have senior warriors, we need to take into account the number of active members we have, and not just the total member count. So, personally, I think we have enough senior warriors. However, that's just my opinion. But, with the departure of 'Teldy, Twi, Splook, Icestorm and Shelly (although she's a warrior now, also, sorry if I forgot anyone...xD), I think we're fine, although some extra help wouldn't kill anyone.

So, are we closing the nominations, or are we keeping them open? My opinion is still roughly the same as it was when I first started the discussion, but now we have less senior warriors. Regardless of what's done, it should be decided soon, or moved to a forum; this is cluttering the talk page. 01:52, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if we opened up SW nominations, it'd be only around 3 successful nominations until the nominations close, so I'm not quite sure what's the point in doing so. My opinions has changed a bit since some SW's left, but there is a great team of leads already there. :/ 06:38, 29, 03, 2012

Partial-description Alts
Alright, I need to get this off my chest because I've been steaming over it long enough.

That would be all of the alts that have been made simply because the Erins don't list off every attribute of a cat every time they appear. Like Mousewhisker and Hazeltail for instance: given alts because they were mentioned with fluffy gray fur... they both do have fluffy gray fur. Not mentioning the white wasn't grounds for alts to be made. Or Sol's brown-and-black rogue alt. He is mottled brown and black, not mentioning the white and orange once doesn't mean that his white and orange fur vanished, really.

Look at it this way: do we give Spottedleaf alts every single time she shows up and the Erins don't spend half a page describing her? No. Why does it make sense to make alts every time one attribute isn't mentioned? Unless the Erins, for examply, specifically mention Barley as a solid black cat, he shouldn't get a black alt because he does have black fur and only mentioning said black fur doesn't mean he loses the white.

I think that the alts made for partial descriptions should be removed, no offense to those that made them, and that alts shouldn't be accepted for this reason in the future. 03:25, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Haha, once again you use your power of persuasion to put forth an idea I originally proposed :P Good luck with this (obviously I agree) 03:26, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

(It's always a good idea to mention Spottedleaf, haha) 03:27, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. It makes little sense to have alts with partial descriptions. At the mention of Spottedleaf, the Erins do not write, "the orange and brown, tortishell-and-white, dappled she-cat with a white chest and claws..." 02:23, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

While I agree about this, I think it's really unfair that people's images get removed after working on them. No one objected against them when they were up for approval. I think we should make a rule against partial description now, but leave the current ones on the pages so it's fair. 02:49 Wed Mar 14

Actually, I did object, and so did Ivy. And if we implement this it needs to be retroactive and the other chararts need to be removed. It wouldn't make sense to have them for some and not all. And chararts get removed all the time for various reasons (Brick, Brownpaw, etc). This is no different. Removing them is the only fair thing to do, leaving them would make no sense. 03:41, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm mainly thinking of the fairness towards the entire project rather than how fair it will be to a few individuals. I see it this way: if we keep those chararts, it would be unfair to decline anyone else's charart alts based on partial descriptions. Less people get their time wasted or feelings hurt this way. 04:05, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I've really been on the fence about it, but I'll put what I think for now, without deciding anything for sure. I think that it really all depends on the situations. Like for instance, Ivypool is almost always, without fail, mentioned as a silver and white tabby. Almost always, very consistently. So when she's described as say silver, or even a silver tabby, I think she should definitely get an alt, cause it's not her normal description, and it's wrong. However, say Leafpool was described without her white chest and paws, or without her tabby stripes. Now, she's not always described with those, quite often they're left out, so that wouldn't require an alt. I personally think we should just figure it out depending on the specific situations, cause in my eyes, it all really depends. 05:04, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but that doesn't make much sense, Paleh. All cats in the series are very often described using partial descriptions, including Ivypool. Ivy just hasn't been around as long as most of them. She is silver and she is a silver tabby, they can't be expected to always list off every one of her attributes, as I said. Those alts should go with the rest. Unless she is specifically shown or described as a solid silver cat or just a silver tabby (not saying that she has silver taby fur or a silver tabby pelt, because she does have those things), she shouldn't get alts.

What qualifies for an alt, to me, is when a cat's description is changed (like when a cat goes from a tabby to a tortie like Mapleshade did), when their color changes at least more than two shades or changes color completely, or when a cat is displayed visually with an attribute they've never been mentioned with before (like white markings that come out of nowhere, though we could have a seperate discussion about pale chests).

The Erins just not mentioning a certain aspect of a cat every time a cat pops up is no reason to make an alt. 06:25, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Read this and tell me if any author in their right mind would write like this:

''Ivypool stalked quietly through the Dark forest, her silver tabby and white fur somehow managing to blend into the shadows, her white paws with thorn-sharp claws landing silently on the bare ground, her white face showing no emotion except a tiny flicker of fear that fluttered in her dark blue eyes. Her stripe tabby tail twitched nervously, but she extinguished any signs of feeling and froze the moment she sensed movement nearby. Suddenly, from the shadows emerged Tigerstar, the massive, tall, broad shouldered, dark-brown tabby that stalked her dreams... or her nightmares. His hefty paws, sporting unusually long front claws, only hid an equal power held in his sharp teeth. His long, thick tail twitched in interest as he looked Ivypool over, his scarred, pale muzzle (that matched his underbelly) lifted as he examined her, pale amber eyes boring into her. His ears twitched, one split in a deep V that only matched the rest of his scarred pelt. His pale amber eyes narrowed to slits and he bared his sharp teeth in a snarl. "Traitor!" The cry rang out through the trees as the massive, tall, broad shouldered,dark brown tabby tom with unusually long front claws, hefty paws, sharp teeth, long thick tail, muscular shoulders, a pale muzzle and underbelly, and pale amber eyes jumped on Ivypool, tearing into her silver and white tabby pelt and (I'm getting tired of writing) killing her dead.''

By your standards, had the Erins not included everything I just did in a scene like that, it'd be grounds to make an alt, which makes no sense. 06:44, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Meh, no offence taken, I'm horrible at explaining things. But I don't think you really got my point... In some characters, the main description is almost always stated. It seems off that they do it, but the erins do usually include the whole tabby-and-white things and stuff like that. Just like they almost always include whether a cat's a tabby. And we're not saying make alts for minor things left off, like pale bellies or white paws, we're saying make them for something major, like part of the main description. Main description being the absolute minimum you need to make an accurate chararts. You could have Hollyleaf short furred for example, because that's not part of her main description, and still be fairly accurate. It'd look like the character basically. And for times when those traits are left off, like when Mousewhisker and Hazeltail are described as just plain gray, I think it matters. And on a side note, cats are almost never stated to be completely solid. There's just no way to tell in the way the Erins right. Am I making any sense yet? I'm trying my best but I don't think I'm quite getting my point across. 08:57, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it so none of these things have alts, just that it depends how different the alt would be from the main charart. Like I said, we don't make alts for the erins failing to mention white paws, or even tabby stripes. However, as I was saying about the main description thing, if part of the main description's left off, it makes a fairly big difference usually. We do the same thing color-wise. If a color's too close to the original, it doesn't get an alt. So how about we just make it so there has to be a substantial difference to get an alt, rather than just saying "These things do, these things don't"? 09:00, March 14, 2012 (UTC).

I understood you perfectly the first time, and I'll reiterate my point so I'm clearer. Almost all cats that make more than one appearance are described with partial descriptions once in a while. Based on that simple fact, Ivypool should not be an acception, and obviously she is isn't consistantly given a full description every time she pops up if we've cited three instances in which she has not. I know for certain there are more instance than the three we have listed, too. And, as I said, she's only been around for a fifth of the series. Of course she's had less chances to get examples of just having her silver fur mentioned or just the fact that she has tabby fur or something like that. But yeah, making a list to add to the guidelines might be helpful. Here would be my choices:

What qualifies for an alt: What does not qualify for an alt: Seem good? 13:43, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Pelt type change (solid to tabby, tabby to tortie, etc)
 * Pelt color change of more than one shade (pale grey to dark grey, not grey to pale grey or dark grey)
 * Pelt color change to an entirely different color (brown to ginger, black to light grey, not silver to light grey or anything like that)
 * Addition of pale markings or stripes in book images (however, should a cat be constantly depicted this way, a pale chest/muzzle/paws may be added to a character's description after discussion as long as those things do not change any part of the existing description)
 * Gender change
 * Eye color change
 * Shifting pelt color by a single shade (pale grey to grey, ginger to dark ginger)
 * Being given a partial description (such as Firestar not being mentioned with a pale belly, Graystripe being mentioned without his stripe, or Mousewhisker being mentioned with only grey fur) unless a character is specifically mentioned as not having an attribute they are cited to have (for example: "Mousewhisker emerged from the den, the solid grey cat stretching in the light", not "Mousewhisker sat with his sister, Hazletail, their grey fur blending together")
 * Being depicted without stripes in the comic (for ginger cats that are not cited in the books as tabbies)

I understood the first time too, but like I said, I think it should be just differences from the main description that get alts, not everything in the description. I still don't agree and my opinion hasn't changed, but if others agree with you I'll concede. I think if there's a big enough change, regardless of it being something not being mentioned, it should get an alt. 14:09, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I can respect that. Alright, everyone else. Please comment with your thoughts on this matter. The more input the better (mayhaps this should be moved to a forum). 20:32, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Good grounds Shelly. I agree, we shouldn't make alts on partical descriptions. Also, if Spottedleaf was mentioned to be a tortie with white and black, but instead of the orange/brown, it was gray or something... (not realistic I know), would that qualify for an alt, because some stays the same and some changes. 06:10, 15, 03, 2012

'kay, guys. Final call for comments! If you've got something to say, say it now. If not, the vote to add this to the guidelines will be made in the next 24 hours. 01:55, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well I still don't support it, but like I said, if nobody agrees with me, I concede. 20:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

A vote concerning this topic has been started here. All votes are welcome. 14:13, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the Apprentice Tutorials
Paleh and I were discussing about fixing some things in the apprentice tutorials. I know we are against private meeting but we only came up with some ideas now I'm asking the project for their imput. First of all, we should have separarte sections for programs since not everyone uses Pixlr. Second, we should make the tutorial images one file and used as archives instead of multiple images or one big image. This would make it way easier to edit the pictures. Paleh aslo came up with this depth picture for the blanks. It would act as something like this but with a blank instead of a sphere since not everyone goes by the shading placement suggestions. Another thing would be to remove the triangle tabby section because, at this point, it's pretty obsolete and misleading. I think that's everything we thought of. Suggestions? 00:18 Tue Mar 13

Looks good to me. Paleh already told me I can make a section on realistic tabby styles. 00:23, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about the image idea themselves and the wireframe. What's the point of each? (no I'm not being a toad, I'm legitimately confused) 02:09, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...I would agree. Paleh told me this a while ago, and it would work, as right now, we only have Gimp tutorials, and maybe just a few others. 02:11, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Like when you post an archived image. Like the one on your talk, it's part of the same file. Sorr I didn't explain that well XD. 02:12 Tue Mar 13

But why do we need archived versions of the images on that page? We'll just rewrite them with new stuff and we don't need to use the old. If there's something I'm totally missing I'm sorry 02:15, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

It just makes it so that there's not a ton of files. 02:16 Tue Mar 13

Wait. Do you mean one master file? 02:18, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much. One master file for each tutorial, like one master for the classic tabbies for instance, and just use the archives. That way we can still edit the text, which we can't do when it's one big image, and it won't take up space, which it's doing with a couple of the tuts now that have multiple images. Plus not having all the different fonts that come in programs like gimp and stuff I think will make it look a bit cleaner and more orderly. 02:44, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I don't think Mounty linked this yet, but I made a draft of basically what I'm hoping it to look like. Here. Just the basic idea, it can still be worked around. I'll work on an example for the whole archive image thing. 02:52, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Finally, I love this idea, I've wanted to fix the tutorial since the idea of a single tutorial. 15:37, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Seems good to me, and it would be great to get into depth and make it easier for other users to understand. 23:03, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Works for me, but question. Should we have a specific tutorial for photoshop as well? It's such a rare program, it might not be worth the effort. 02:06, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Scarlet, I use photoshop, and I was SO lost when I was looking at the tuorials. It's rare but it can't hurt to add it. c: 02:51 Wed Mar 14

If somebody's willing to do it, then yes of course. I know of at least 4 SMs people who use it so I think we'd be fine. It gets confusing when there's no tutorials in your program, and I think PS is common enough to add. 03:30, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have a photoshop tutorial. I use PS too, and though not too many use it, it'a pretty confusing program at first, and I'd like to help out myself with it, too. 21:48, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yes! That is a great start Paleh, it'd take some work, but that won't stop us. Photoshop is used enough to be put in the tutorials. 05:50, 15, 03, 2012

I definitely think Photoshop should be put in the tutorial. It's a really tricky and intimidating program until you figure it out. Breeze whisker  02:57, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Another thing that Shelly suggested is that we have kinda a "Tips" section for things that don't need full tutorials. You can just put any tips or tricks that you know of, sign, and be done. I think it's a great idea and I'd really like to have it in there, what do you guys think? 14:03, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A tips section would be great. 01:10, 24, 03, 2012

Okay, reading through this has certainly made me realize that tutorial needs cleaning. Paleh, do whatever you need to fix it.

A tips section would be wonderful, and perhaps even I could help with that. Same with the Photoshop section. I have PS, and I know for a fact it's far different then GIMP, Pixlr or any of the other programs. I could probably help with the basics...but...that's about it. GIMP is where I make all of my images. 23:14, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

An Alt Image for Berrynose?
Well, I was looking for a charart to do and I saw that in Berrynose's trivia section it says: "When Molekit protests that he doesn't want to be an apprentice, Berrynose is said to have lashed his tail, even though he only has a stump." Does this mean he would get an image with a full tail? ϚίĿʋεʀϝƪσώȅƦ ♥  Live  like  there's no  tomorrow! ♥  01:03, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think he would get an image for that. I think it's already in his trivia, although I may have to go check. 07:37, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't get one... At least I'm pretty sure. Yeah, it's in his trivia, but not everything in the trivia section needs an alt. If anything, it's a typo on the Erins part, who may have forgotten about his stubby tail. 07:41, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

But he got an alt for when his tail got stubby, and the alts are for mistaks usually, so..... I would think he would get one, but it seems so minor. But then, his kit alt is minor too. I'm not sure. 12:39, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Losing a tail wasn't minor. Being mentioned with a tail was. It's entirely possible that his tail's just long enough to be tread on and lashed a bit and we just drew it too short, you know. 13:06, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

True. But still, his tail is mentioned as being nothing more then a stub stump, and last I checked, stubs stumps can't do some of the things he's been mentioned doing. As an apprentice, his "long creamy tail" is said to have rippled the water. And he's said to have used it to put his kits closer to him. It may be minor, but the alt would still be the same as having an alt for a stubby tail and long tail as a kit really. It may not be for the same reasons, but it'd be the same differences with the alts.

So, have we come to a conclusion on this? Is he getting the alt for the longer tail, or not? 01:56, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Bumblestripe and Leafstar
I was just wondering if Bumblestripe whould get an alt. for having a pelt like his father's. Or Leafstar would get a loner charart because she never bothered the clan(s). 14:31, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that all of the cats from SkyClan originally would get loners, but they were all called rogues in the book so that's what we went with. And "pelt" can refer to the length of the fur or the consistency, not necessarily the color. 14:38, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay just making sure. 16:15, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

It's all good. You made good points. It's just that we can't draw conclusions from an ambiguous word like "pelt". 16:29, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with Bumblestripe getting an alt, as yeah, what Shelly said, pelt refers to length or thickness, ect. Leafstar, she lived with a large group of cats, but was loner-like. I believe that she gets a loner image, including all of the SkyClan cats. 16:53, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Bumblestripe redone to be longhaired? Or am I just going crazy? 17:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Bumblestripe is longhaired. I disagree too with him getting an alt for having a pelt like his father, since he already has one, in a way. As for Leafstar, she was already classified as a rogue, so it'd be either she gets a rogue or a loner image. <span style="">01:52, 17, 03, 2012

He was tweaked to be long haired, yes. <font face="Arial" size="1" color="Blue" >Sky Exterminate! 01:51, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the SkyClan cats getting loner images...since they really never caused any issues. It's like Sasha, honestly. She was called a rogue, but in all reality, she really wasn't, since she didn't bother the Clans. 01:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Mousewhisker and Golden Tabbies
I was just wandering through the wiki character pages, looking for needed chararts, and I noticed there wasn't a cite or anything in the trivia for Mousewhisker's alternate, grey apprentice. I don't know where he was described as an apprentice like that so I cannot cite it myself.

Also, why does Lionblaze have an alternate for being described as orange, which is basically ginger? I thought golden tabbies were a type of ginger coat? If you Google golden tabby and then ginger, the golden is pretty much a pale ginger. That could very well be where the "orange" comes from, so I don't think it needs an alt. I also would say the same thing for Firestar with his golden tabby alternate. Unless he was specifically described as "dark ginger," (which he may be but I can't find it in his gigantic description) he could very well have a paler ginger coat. After all, book covers and COTC pictures aren't always the most accurate depictions. Breeze whisker  17:05, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I may not be able to explain this right, but I'll give it a go. It would almost be like saying cream and dark ginger are the same thing (I think cream is a variant of ginger but I'm not sure). Golden and dark ginger are two different pelt colors. Cats have gotten alternates for being described a shade darker or lighter. And yes, Firestar has been said to have a flmae colored-pelt, which is basically dark ginger. 17:13, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I brought Firestar up for the flame reason. If you look at a fire, it is a multitude of colors, and the insides can even be golden or white. I don't think "flame-colored" qualifies as dark ginger. And he wasn't described as a golden tabby anyway, just golden if I remember correctly. It could've been the lighting. I don't think it needs a whole alt. (And yes, cream is a variant of ginger. It is a very pale shade.) I just think that they are given an alt for something that could possibly be in their pelt already with the given description. Breeze whisker  17:26, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

There used to be no alts for ginger cats if they were described as orange or tawny, since I think it was Mossy or Night Shine who said that an alt should only be made so someone could truly appreciate the difference. I can't remember when we decided to make alts for orange and pale ginger and etc. But it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me, since, as Breeze has already pointed out, there's not real difference. Thoughts? 23:15, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

There's no real such thing as a golden cat, just a light, yellowish ginger cat. Lionblaze shouldn't have a ginger alt because gold is a shade of ginger, same goes for Firestar having a golden alt. Now, if Russetfur was described as gold, that's a different story because the shades are completely different. That would qualify for an alt. Ginger has a wide range of shades and flamed colored doesn't specify a shade. 23:34 Mon Mar 19

Is anyone else going to put their thoughts on this? If nobody does in a few days, I'm just going to archive this discussion. 19:42, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with the above, this is like the partical description alts we had the discussion about. There is no real difference between the colors. Firestar himself might as well have a golden colored pelt. I'm against the making of alts for ginger, golden, orange etc. As for Mousewhisker, he shouldn't even have the alt since being described as gray doesn't mean he looses his white, which we have discussed. <span style="">06:38, 02, 04, 2012

Requirements for Tweak/Redo Voting
Hey all! I'm just suggesting a tiny change this time, don't worry.

I've noted how frustrating it can be for a warrior to be unable to have any say in what chararts get tweaked or redone except for the option to propose them. Warriors aren't given a chance to defend their chararts (or chararts they like) with votes, only comments. So, I'd like to propose that instead of allowing only senior warriors and up vote in the nominations, we simply have a charart approval minimum like we do for becoming a warrior. Let's say 10 chararts either from scratch or redone and you can vote? Maybe 15? Sound good to anyone? 16:34, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would think 15 chararts form scratch or redone (Maybe 4 tweaks, 'cause knowing basic knowledge of tweaking is important). Though, I'm not that sure about it. If a warrior comments on a nomination, for an example, saying that it looks fine in a certain way, but not counting it as a vote, SMs should take that user's opinion into thought, and try thinking the way that user does. So pretty much, even if someone is not allowed to vote, SMs should take the opinion of the commenter as one factor (along with his/her own opinion as another factor) when deciding if it's fine to redo or not. 16:40, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I guess that sounds good. How about 10 and has been a warrior for like 3 months? I think if more people are allowed to vote, the number of votes to pass should be changed to like 5 or something. 16:42 Sun Mar 18

Good idea, Mounty. Upping the number of votes to pass or fail would compensate for the increased number of voters. 16:44, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I don't think it's necessary, as Stone said, warriors can comment and SW's take the comment into account of how they vote. If it does happen, I think 12 for chararts approved and a warrior for 3 months. (like Mounty said) and the amount of users who vote goes to 5 (I copied Mounty again). <span style="">06:06, 19, 03, 2012

I think it's a good idea. It would allow users like Shelly and Breezewhisker, who both know tons about chararts and pelt styles, to vote, and could prove very useful in the future. 06:18, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Huh... When the system was approved, I always thought that voting extended to warriors, apprentices, etc. Oversight, I guess. But I think that if a user's been made a warrior, they've already demonstrated their knowledge of making their own chararts, so maybe a warrior for a two weeks and at least five tweaks done and approved? 23:08, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit low, Scarlet. I dunno, I think at least seven chararts so warriors have decent experience on the tweak page as well. Warrior for two weeks would be fine. And, as we've already said, upping the number of votes needed to five instead of three. -- 23:11, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

How about we just use the same qualifications as being a mentor? 02:35 Thu Mar 22

That would be a good idea Mountain, but I think there still needs to be more chararts approved/tweaked/redone. Maybe 8-9 original artwork, including redos, and 5 tweaked, because you need the experience. <span style="">06:12, 22, 03, 2012

I like the idea of 10 approved 5 tweaked/redone, a total of 15. 01:31, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Should we set this to a vote and add it to the guidelines, then? So, a user should have at least ten chararts (or more) approved/redone and a good amount tweaked, and be a warrior for a certain amount of time. Also, raising the number of votes should be included as well. For some, there very well may be some that agree, and some that don't agree. The higher vote would allow for more discussion on said image; ie. Tallstar (no offense, Mounty. It's just the most recent one I could think of). 02:03, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think a vote is in order, yeah. That way no one can say they didn't have a say in this matter. 17:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing on the vote here. <span style="">06:22, 02, 04, 2012

A vote has been opened here. 14:23, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

A Friendly Reminder for Senior Warriors
Hey all. I was just going through the tweak nomination page and archives, and I've noticed more than once that some senior warriors are removing nominations from the page without archiving them. That's no good. For instance, on Shellheart's tweak nomination, I had asked Sky a question before the thing was taken off, but since it wasn't archived I had to go digging to find out if my question was answered, and since that page is edited a lot I had to dig through quite a bit.

Please remember that all nominations, whether approved or declined, must be archived. Thank you. 18:11, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also, people are going back to reserving chararts that nominations have not been archived, and actually, have been sitting there for a while. Please don't reserve anything until it is archived guys, I thought we agreed to this. 16:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why should warriors have to wait more than 24 hours for a nomination to be archived? The point of having this many senior warriors is so that this stuff gets done, but it isn't. I say that if a nomination isn't archived by the time 24 hours has passed, the senior warriors have failed in the duties they were nominated and voted for to complete and the warriors should be allowed to reserve the images they nominated if they please. 16:41, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I try and go through and clean up the page every day, but, I do forget. I'm only human. . . . although, how hard is it to take five seconds out of your day to archive a few votes. If an nomination has gone 24 hours with the three okay votes, why wouldn't you just do the image? It's not going to harm anyone. I've done it myself. No biggie. 16:45, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Of course you forget once in a while, Cloudy, that's understandable. But it's annoying when all 11 of our senior warriors forget. 17:57, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

One- eye alt?
Hey, just wanted to bounce this idea off of everyone. I've finally (with Cloudy's help) been able to cite the page in Bluestar's Prophecy where it says that White- eye lost her eye completely, which forced her to retire early and take on the name One- eye. I was wondering, would this constitute an alt warrior image? It'd say alt. elder, but the elder's blind eye is facing the wrong way anyway. In any case, I think that since Brightheart got an alt. apprentice for when she lost her eye, One- eye should do the same. Of course, it was already decided a while ago that we'd leave her with both eyes in her description since she only had a missing eye in one book, so that's out of the question. 20:55, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It kinda feels like its in the category of an eye color swap, but it also feels like Crookedstar alt. kit since it brings in a name changing. I think this could go either way. sorry, that wasn't much help *Scarlet's braindead today*  02:21, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

It's a major, permanent injury, like when Berrynose lost his tail. We did it for Brightheart, why not this? 05:16, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in making an alt, as we did it for Brightheart and it is a permanent injury, so I don't see why not. <span style="">06:04, 22, 03, 2012

The only problem I have with this, is that it's not actually a permanent injury. It would have been, but this was a mistake, so I'm kinda on the fence about it..... 20:00, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but mistakes get alts all the time. That's why I proposed this. 20:03, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the alts /are/ mistakes. I say she gets one 22:15, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Then Berrynose should get one for being described with his full tail. 22:17, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well I think he should get one (if I ever stated otherwise, I don't remember saying such a thing)  22:31, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yep she should (I would say she should also get a elder alt but you already explained that. 22:34, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail got one for his eye being damaged by the rabbit (I think...?) in Firestar's Quest, and Berrynose is more then likely getting on for the tail mention...so this shouldn't be any different. I say go for it. 02:04, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Dark Ginger VS Bright Ginger
Ok, so as some of you may have seen on Flametail's kit, there's a bit of a debate going on abuot whether bright ginger cats should get dark ginger alts, and vice versa. We've all agreed that a character get and alt if it changes more than two shades. However, I looked up Bright ginger cats and Dark ginger cats, and results that came up were almost identical. Due to that fact, I'm starting to believe that Bright ginger and Dark ginger are synonyms, which we decided would not get alts. So what do you guys think? Alts or no alts? 04:25, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

There is a little difference, but not much. I think it just depends on which ginger an artist uses, because there's many acceptable variations (I think), for example, I've seen several dark gingers that look different from Squirrelflight (who is dark ginger if I remember right. If not, refrain from hitting me with a pan). Still, if there's not much of a difference, artistic creativity can't always fix that (worded weird I know) 04:29, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...First things first, dark ginger is just a /tad/ darker than bright ginger, and I think that what we think of dark ginger is actually too dark. This is a dark ginger cat, and this is a bright ginger cat. There isn't much of a difference, so I don't believe that a ginger image should get an alt for being described as dark ginger, or vice versa. 04:32, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above here. There ain't much of a difference between the two, and making an alt would just basically be making the same charart. =/ <span style="">06:00, 22, 03, 2012

There is actually much difference. Sunstar is described as bright ginger, whereas Rowanclaw is described as dark ginger. There is a huge difference on their charart appearance...just saying. ϚίĿʋεʀϝƪσώȅƦ <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥ <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> Live <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> like <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> there's no <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> tomorrow! <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥  20:23, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Sunstar's current image isn't bright ginger. It was already suggested to be tweaked. That's yellow, not bright ginger. And second, just cause two artist choose completely different colors for their charart, doesn't mean that bright ginger and dark ginger are realistically different from eachother. We're taking about real cats, not chararts. Chararts can be made as different as you want, because it's artist's choice the shade you use, but that doesn't mean they should get alts because an artist could make a color different. 22:16, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I think they should get alts. if we agreed that they get them if the color changes two shades (I don't know if we ever did agree), so... yeah. 22:32, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Wildfire, if you read the conversation though, you'd see it's not really two shades. They have very little difference. Hence why this was brought up. They're so similar that it's to the point of it almost being a synonym, which never get alts. 00:57, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

"Bright" and "dark" are different shades, no? ϚίĿʋεʀϝƪσώȅƦ <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥ <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> Live <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> like <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> there's no <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> tomorrow!  <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥  01:13, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Normally. But in the case of ginger, it's not very different which is why this was brought up. You'd think, judging by the description, it'd be very different, but surprisingly it's not. 01:46, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I decided to consult the master of cat genetics, and here's what I got:

[10:07:09 PM] Shelly: Are bright ginger and dark ginger very different? [10:07:51 PM] Kitsufox: Ginger would be yellowy-red. Dark ginger could be rather dark. Bright ginger... could be one of several things. [10:08:02 PM] Kitsufox: Ginger is a fuzzy color-word to begin with.<Br> [10:08:07 PM] Shelly: Mmhm. [10:08:29 PM] Shelly: PCA is discussing the matter (peacefully) at the moment. Because we've had a cat described as both dark ginger and bright ginger. [10:09:04 PM] Kitsufox: Then I'd assume it's "bright" as in saturation level, and more red than yellow. [10:09:42 PM] Shelly: So he'd be a bright dark ginger?<Br> [10:10:04 PM] Kitsufox: That's how I'd personally deal with it. Is just assume both are accurate, since they describe diffrent aspects of a color.

For your consideration. 02:12, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

* nods* Makes sense to me. I'm happy with that answer. Anyone else? 02:20, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Paleh on this, I'm perfectly happy with it. 07:41, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense to me. <span style="">01:00, 24, 03, 2012

Yeah, that sounds good. I'm agreeing with this one. 14:24, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. So, they're more or less the same thing, and no alts are to be made. Are we agreed? 02:05, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Mhm. Agreed. <span style="">06:28, 29, 03, 2012

Archive Idea
I was looking through the archive list, and I noticed it was kinda long, more so on this page, and the approval page. So, what I was thinking, is that we could group the archives together. Perhaps in groups of 50 or 100, probably 50, since I don't think we're going to get /that/ many discussions, and the approval page archive thing is getting really long...

So, here's how it would work. You see these archive pages? That would be the storage for the main archives, and we could move the pages for archives 1-50 (or whatever number you guys want) into another subpage called something along the lines of  Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Discussion Archives/Archive  (replace number with actual archive number, as usual), and so on and so fourth. The approval page would work the same way, but the page would be called  Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Approved Archives/Archive , and the same would be said for the declined archives  Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Declined Archives/Archive .

So, yeah. We don't have to do it, but I think it could save us a lot of space on the pages... Anyways, comments? 05:21, March 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention...we could have the links to the other archives up at the top of the page, and it could read something like this [1-50]. 05:23, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a really good idea. It saves a lot of space on the talk pages, and will be more organised. I think it should be 1-50. It's quite annoying having to have a whole chunk of archives listed, clogging up space where you're trying to read discussion/look at artwork. <span style="">07:49, 28, 03, 2012



Tabbys with pale undersides
As many of you have noticed, adding a pale muzzle and underside to tabbies have become artist's choice recently since that's a common pattern found on tabby cats. Fact of the matter is that the pale underside is common on all cats and should be the artist's choice on all images, but I digress.

However, since we've adopted this trend, I feel like we ought to be getting rid of all alts made simply because a cat has been depicted with a pale underside, like Squirrelflight's alt. warrior and Heathertail's alt. apprentice. I've already had my alt. leader for Firestar deleted, which wasn't easy for me since I liked that image so much. Likewise, we should no longer make alts for this reason.

Do you guys agree? 14:07, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why would Heathertail's alt go? She was described as ginger. And Squirrelflight was shown as being short haired and having no white paw. I think if the main image has a pale under belly then the alt should go because it would be redundant. 14:32 Wed Mar 28

I don't know about Squirrelflight. But Heathertail wasn't described as ginger, she was supposedly shown as it. And both me and Shelly agreed that she doesn't really look ginger, more light brown, which is her description. 15:12, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, If Shelly's pale-belly alt was deleted, than, it would be fair to have others deleted. 15:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think Squirrelflight's alt should stay. As Mountain said, she was also shown as short-furred and no white paw. 16:28, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I remember proposing an alt for a character that was described mistakenly with short fur, and I was told no. If I was told no then, then I'm going to say no to Squirrelflight's alt staying. It's not picking and choosing what gets to stay while other things get shot down, because then that's not fair. 16:30, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I nominated my alt to be deleted. Fairness isn't what this is about. And on Squirrelflight's alt, I don't think missing the white paw is grounds for an alt. Remember the partial description discussion we're having up there? ^^^ Missing a white paw is nothing (in fact, she does have white paws in that image, so the white paw is there regardless), and having short fur doesn't matter because she's never been described explicitely with long fur as far as I can see in her description. Having a fluffy tail is possible for a short-furred cat. I'm not saying add a pale belly to Squirrelflight's image, I'm saying just get rid of the alt because the image it's based on is too similar to the rest of the images. Having a pale belly shouldn't mean anything anymore, and just having a partial description should not either. There are many more images as well. 16:33, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with Squirrelflight's image being deleted. :P Ivy and Shelly are right, other than the pale belly, we don't make alts for the reason I made hers. In my opinion, this is a bit like making an alt for a ginger cat being described as a tabby. Though not exactly, it's a similar situation. Both are things that are extremely common on real cats, and if I remember right, we used to make alts for both before we decided all gingers have to have stripes. The main difference is that pale bellies are optional now, not required. It wouldn't make sense really to have alts for cats who's artist chose not to have a pale belly, then not have them cause other artists did choose to use one. It'd be unfair. And really, since almost all tabbies (and most other cats too) have pale bellies, it's most likely not a mistake, just as showing Firestar as a tabby isn't a mistake probably. Hope that made some sense and didn't sound like rambling. 20:39, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a general agreement here, and I added this to the vote here under what doesn't qualify for an alt. 14:15, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Tweak Nominations Page
''Warning: a Cloudy mini-rant is below. Tread carefully.''

'kay guys. For those of you that use the tweak page....you should know the process, and all of that junk. Well, I'm here to say that I've about had enough of some of what I'm seeing there. "I cannot take this tweak if it passes." or "I don't want this." or something along those lines.

This needs to stop.

It's annoying. It's stupid. It's pointless.

Guys, please only say something like that if you want the image. You have no clue how many facepalms I'm doing on a daily basis. It's getting really spammy, and I know I'm not the only one that thinks that.

I see it from some of the other users that nominate images that are not allowed to tweak to begin with. We know you're not allowed to tweak, so please don't repeat yourself. Only speak up if you want the tweak/redo.

Seriously. I see anymore of this, I'm going to get really mad. Enough is enough. There are times where I just want to smack the users that do it. >.>;;;;;

Short and sweet: only speak up if you'd like to work on the image. Otherwise, keep quiet and just explain what needs to be done. Got it? (sorry, but this needs to be said) 07:52, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Rogues
I've seen a few people that are using the wrong version of the longhaired male blank. For some reason it didn't upload correctly or something (?) so I'll post all of them on here because the Wiki is dumb: long male, short male, long female, and short female. 10:30, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Can I join? Please? And what's a charart? Riverfeather 12:03, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

If you dont know what is it, why do you want join the project..lol ,15:49,April 3,2012 (UTC)

...if you want to join, try creating a new message. And, charart is character art. 14:17, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Aliendog10 - Join Request
I've been in a few of the chat pages for the wiki, and all the talk about chararts is making me envious. Can I join? I want to know how to make a charart. When school starts again, i may not be able to get on frequently, but i'll try! Aliendog10 00:16, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I added a new heading for you. <span style="">02:06, 04, 04, 2012

Multiple alts.
On page 49 of The Last Hope, Ratscar was called fox-red. Later, on page 59, Molepaw is called a brown-and-white apprentice. On page 245, Darkstripe is called a black tabby. Crowfeather is described with a black pelt on page 308 and somewhere in Twilight (Don't have the book, so I don't know where), and Hawkfrost is called a gray tom on page 319. Also, Redtail is called russet on pages 328 and 329. Wouldn't they get alts. for that?

Also, Pinenose is called a queen on page 272, Boulderpaw has become a warrior (Named Boulderfur, revealed on pg. 267), there is a new ShadowClan apprentice, Stoatpaw, and in After the Flood, Cherrytail is revealed to be expecting Sharpclaw's kit on page 17. One more thing; Mosspelt 's been a queen ever scince her daughter, Willowshine, became Mothwing's apprentice. Shouldn't she have a non-pregnant queen charart? 21:12, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Ratscar, yes. Molepaw, maybe. Darkstripe, yes (mine). Crowfeather, no. Hawkfrost, definitely. Redtail... maybe? Was it referring to just his tail?

Pinenose, yes. Boulderfur, yes. Stoatpaw's already being done. Cherrytail isn't a queen yet, still a warrior as far as I heard. No to Mosspelt. For all we know, she could be having multiple litters. Better to not assume. 21:19, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

It say, "A russet tom followed, glittering with stars," on page 328 and on page 329, it reads ""These cats gave Firestar his nine lives...Redtail-" he nodded to the russet warrior- gave him a life for courage."" (Another mistake, as he gave him justice) 21:36, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and scince Lilykit and Seedkit got alts. for being mistakenly called tortoiseshells by one of the Hunters (can't remember which), wouldn't Mapleshade get a tortie warrior alt.? 21:50, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

She already has a tortie alt of the manga so there's no point in making another for that. 22:37 Wed Apr 4

Clovertail Alt?
Should Clovertail really get an alt for being depicted as a tabby in Beyond the Code? I mean, she looks just like Echosong, so how do we know that Echosong wasn't called Clovertail by mistake? 22:25, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Clovertail does have an alt., if I remember correctly. 22:26, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

She's right, I looked at BtC, and on page 10, a tabby is behind Leafstar and she calls her Clovertail. -shrug- I'm too lazy to check if she has an alt, but it just could be a mistake on the author's part. 22:29, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I ment. I know she has an alt., but it could be that it was Echosong who was mistakenly called Clovertail. 22:33, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

No, it was Clovertail being shown as a tabby. She had the same design as echosong, yes, but she was doing queen things and such, not acting like echosong. It simply an art mistake. So she already has an alt, she's not getting another. 23:53, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

I haz a proposition..... owo
Ok guys, so as most of you are probably aware some of us were planning to make sure Loonie's image wasn't declined in the 9 days she'll be gone, as she gave a clear time she'd be back, and it was only 2 days over the limit, however Shelly brought up a good point about it not being in the rules, and it technically being an exception. However, we've done this kind of thing in the past an I think it's only fair, so I propose we add it to the guidelines. If a user is gone for any less than 2 weeks, and gives an exact date when they'll be back, their image shouldn't be declined until that day. If they're not back when they said, then yes, it would be declined. What harm would come from keeping an image a couple days over if we know when they'll be back really? It seems unfair, and we've made unofficial exceptions in the past. So I say we add this to the guidelines once and for all. I've got a few people supporting already, so what do you guys think? 03:15, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Mmkay, let's move away from the word unfair and move towards making an actual proposal, eh?

How about this: should a user that is currently in the process of getting a charart approve need to leave due to unforeseen circumstances, they may be allowed a five day extension on top of the normal 1-week time limit before their charart is declined for lack of work. If the user fails to notify the project, however, they still fall to the normal 7-day time limit. Sound good? 03:21, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Shelly, that sounds perfect^^ 03:24, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. <span style="">03:26, 05, 04, 2012

In all honesty, I don't agree with this. You get a week to upload or not and that's that. I don't think any user should have an extended amount of time for a reason like that. It doesn't seem fair that somebody should get to sit on an image that a bunch of other people can do. A week is certainly long enough and I don't think there should be exception for any reason except like deaths in the family. I know that sounds extreme, but it's not fair if somebody goes on vacation or something that requires a fair amount of planning beforehand and an image many would love to do isn't worked on. Especially if one knows they are going to be gone. The image shouldn't have been reserved or posted in the first place. So no, I don't like this. Breeze whisker  03:40, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said "unforeseen circumstances", Breezey. Going on vacation is a foreseen circumstance, and if you're planning to go vacationing you're irresponsible to try starting a charart, anyway. I'm talking about things like death in the family, sudden injury, natural disaster, things like that. 03:43, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, but, excuse me for using a specific example, Loonie said she was going to Europe in the image comments, and that usually involves quite a bit of planning. So unless it was an emergency I don't think an exception should be made. So the reason this is being proposed is bothering me more than the actual proposition, which I agree with as long as it is the emergency sort of thing, since unless Loonie's reason was an emergency it goes against the proposition and implies that what I am against in my earlier edit is the reason. I apologize for any misunderstandings or anything of that sort since I don't really want to pry. Breeze whisker  03:57, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

This wasn't made for Loonie. It began discussion because her being gone brought up the problem, but a few of us discussed it and it was decided we'd propose it. Not for Loonie, for everyone who this'd apply to. 04:07, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I am allowed to comment. I agree with this. I have two images on the approval page and I am going to a wedding in Canada today, that I only knew about on Tuesday. I won't be back until maybe Monday or Tuesday and I really don't want my images to be declined. If it is not my place to comment here, then sorry-- 11:25, April 5, 2012 (UTC)Moonshine

The thing is (I hope I can explain this right) couldn't someone easily manipulate and abuse that? They could easily say it was an emergency and not have their image declined. Also, someone could just say something happened and let their image sit for longer. I mean, I'd like to think everyone would be honest, but you can never be 100% sure. I just think that we've been fine with what system we've already had. You could also say that an emergency is how you interpret it. Obviously, serious family sickness or a death is an emergency, but some things, it depends on the person as to whether or not it is. So I say either extend the time limit or just don't change it at all, in my opinion, as it's not fair. 17:19, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we extend the time limit, there will always be users who abuse that fact. It's common knowledge that there's going to be a user or two in a group that will lie about why they're not around, and get the extended time. But, at the same time, if we extend the normal time limit, there are going to be those users who just let their images sit, thus taking up space that could be used for productive work.

I think the limit should only be extended if it's a legit reason, like, when I left back in December, or if a user is working on image blanks, like Loonie was. Each situation should be looked at differently, and exceptions only made it the situation calls for it. If a user knows their going on vacation or something like that a month in advance, they should only take on images they know they can get approved within that time limit, or just not take any at all. It's different for something like a flood (as I would know first-hand), or other acts clearly beyond their control, like a death in the family, or an accident.

Exceptions can be made, and they have in the past. As I said though, it should be looked at individually, and shouldn't be generalized into groups. 17:36, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I still agree. Something major, like a death or natural disaster, I think there should be exceptions. <span style="">02:12, 06, 04, 2012

Queen Image
It's revealed in After the Flood that Cherrytail is expecting Sharpclaw's kits, so shouldn't she have a queen image? 184.57.136.213 19:53, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. We just haven't gotten around to it yet. Someone will make one for her, so be patient. 19:54, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know... did she ever actually enter the nursery? Last I heard, she was still doing warrior duties and hadn't declared herself a queen quite yet. The pregnant charart thing only applies to non-Clan cats. For Clan cats, either you're a queen or you aren't, it isn't a state of being, only a rank.

But Shelly, Leafpool never declared herself a queen, nor entered the nursery. Yet she got one. Did it specifically say that Cherrytail was definitely expecting kits, not just that she was Sharpclaw's mate now? 22:36, April 5, 2012 (UTC) 21:11, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Bah, don't expect Shelly to be operating at full steam this time of the week. You're right. And it specifically said she's pregnant. 23:20, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

BluSkye joining request
I would like to join Pca BluSkye~The Only Girl in the world 20:48, April 6, 2012 (UTC)BluSkye

I'm back
....and I can resume with the news. :3 Thanks to Mountainheart for taking my place while I was gone! <3 06:04, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Denmate! 8D (tacklehugs) Welcome back! 06:09, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yayz~ You're back! *wugz again* 06:22, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Ohai, Ivy squared. Welcome back~ 06:24, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Joining Request
I'm pretty new to this, but I'd like to join Project Charart. Please let me know if it's currently okay. Lilywing 18:43, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Re-Join?
Hey everyone. I kind of drifted back. Can I re-join? 20:16, April 8, 2012 (UTC) Shadewing

On "black tabbies"
Alrighty, there's been some slight confusion over what exactly a black tabby looks like, so Shelly is here to try to explain.

For starters, they do not look like this: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091003012247/warriors/images/archive/f/fe/20110905165346!Crowtail.warrior.png

A black tabby is not black with darker black stripes. Typically, when someone's talking about a black tabby, they mean a black cat with ghost stripes. The ghost stripes are ripples in the fur, they're technically real stripes, just not displayed like stripes usually are.

However, sometimes a black tabby can have a pelt like this. It may look brown, but it actually contains no brown pigment. The base color is still black.

In any case, it's confusing as hell, yeah. I'd say that we should assume that when the Erins call a cat a black tabby, they're talking about black with ghost stripes (like Crowtail's new charart).

That is all. :3 21:34, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Shelly~ c: I was confused about this. That does actually kind of make sense to me, which... really doesn't happen all that often. So good job~ :3 -makes notes- What would you call that second tabby? A dark gray or just highly reflective black? Spark Candy, here I come! ♥  22:58, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

The second one is still a black tabby... yeah, I know it's confusing. I can't properly explain it myself, so I'll transcribe the conversation I had with Kit on this subject here:

''[5:22:50 PM] Shelly: Black tabbies are just brown cats with black stripes, right? Or they could be interpereted as black cats with ghost stripes, I think... [5:23:15 PM] Kitsufox: "brown cats with black stripes" is outright incorrect. [5:23:23 PM] Kitsufox: They might /look/ brown, but it's not actually brown. [5:23:24 PM] Shelly: Really? [5:23:44 PM] Shelly: But black cats with real stripes don't exist, do they? They're just ghost stripes. [5:23:46 PM] Kitsufox: It's barred black/cream on the hairs that are diluted. [5:23:49 PM] Kitsufox: yes. they do. [5:23:54 PM] Kitsufox: Ghost tabbies are real. [5:24:34 PM] Kitsufox: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Black%20ghost%20tabby/brightlight44/a%20Queen%20Eva%20Worship/238f86e9.jpg [5:24:40 PM] Shelly: Yeah, but they aren't traditional stripes. Just ripples in the fur. So what does a black tabby that doesn't have ghost stripes look like? [5:24:42 PM] Kitsufox: There's a nice example. Once that dosen't even need to be in super-bright light to see it. [5:25:20 PM] Kitsufox: "Brown" tabbies are black tabbies, but they're not in possession of /any/ actual brown pigment. So calling the base brown is incorrect. [5:25:30 PM] Kitsufox: Visually brown, sometimes... But acctually brown, not so much. [5:25:36 PM] Shelly: Oh, that /is/ night. I'm trying to explain this to PCA. We're having a hard time figuring out what kind of cat the Erins mean when they described a couple of cats as black tabbies. [5:25:56 PM] Kitsufox: IMO, if they say "Black tabby" I'd assume black ghost tabby. [5:26:16 PM] Shelly: Gotcha. [5:26:26 PM] Kitsufox: If they say "Brown Tabby", i'd assume black-based "Brown" tabby over Chocolate tabby. [5:27:03 PM] Kitsufox: But that's also my CoSC biase talking. But when people say "black tabby" and they're not talking genetics, I can only assume they're talking black-on-black. [5:27:09 PM] Shelly: So this buy would be...? http://www.mooseyscountrygarden.com/garden-journal-07/kitten-black-tabby.jpg [5:27:40 PM] Kitsufox: Due to the darkness of the stripes, and the ticky-looking nature of the dilute bits, I'm guessing black-based "Brown" tabby. [5:27:49 PM] Kitsufox: IE: Genetically black. [5:28:05 PM] Shelly: Confusing as hell, that's what it is.''

Make what you will out of that. 23:04, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhkay. -slighhtly less confused now- Spark  Candy, here I come! ♥  23:33, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Something Fun
For once, Shelly has an idea that can be construed as a way to make the project more fun. Hooray!

This would just be for fun, to add a friendly competition to charart making. Since PC, PB, and PW get to have features on the front page every month, why don't we feature a best charart on the front page of PCA every month? For fairness, it can only be a charart made originally or as a redo.

I think a couple of additional rules would be that a person that has a charart win one month would be unable to get nominated for two months afterward. The senior members would make the nominations and the entire project would vote for their favorite.

Features would go on PCA's main page, right below the project news (I think).

How does this sound? 23:34, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the chat, I think this is a very good idea. 23:36, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I re-thought this. I don't agree. What if each month, a charart made by one or two users will be nominated every time? I wouldn't find that so fun. Also...Though it is for fun...I just don't think it's very necessary...Sorry. 23:38, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

That's why I added in the rule that once a person wins they have to wait two months before even being nominated again. Of course, we can extend that length of time. And of course it isn't necessary, nothing about this project is. It'd just be a fun way to encourage users to do their best and improve their skills. 23:51, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...That would work. 23:54, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fun! Why not? Maple♥ legs  Mischief brewing 00:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Spark stands by what she said on the chat. |3 Good idea, Shelly~ Spark  Love me some chocolate~! ♥ 00:02, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Silverhawk, Snowtuft, Sparrowfeather (DF), and Shredtail
Hey guys. I was just looking through some articles...

Yeah. These four cats mentioned above. We have no proof that they were warriors, and I don't remember them even being described as such.

In these cases, their images shold not be those of warriors. Since we have descriptions but no idea what their ranks were when they died, I think it'd be safe to assign them rogue rank instead. These cats could have been loners, rogues, elders, queens, or deputies when they died. The only thing we have to go on is their actions in the afterlife, so I'd say rogues. Spottedleaf calls them rogues, anyway.

As such, I'm removing the images and rank mentions from their character pages.

Comments? 00:11, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Well they have warrior names and they are technically warriors for the Dark Forest. We don't know what they died as, for all we know they could have been like Thistleclaw. The ones that Spottedleaf calledd rogues would be rogues, but the ones that we know nothing about should stay warriors. 00:16 Mon Apr 9

No, this is exactly my point, Mounty. We have no idea what these cats were when they died. But they were hardly warriors in the dark forest. They were warriors in the same way BloodClan cats were warriors, and they should be identified in the same way as well. All BloodClan warriors, even the deputy and leader, have rogue images. If we know what rank they were at death, leave them as is. If not, they shold have rogue images. 00:18, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Spottedleaf says they were rogues within their Clans, so I think the warrior images /could/ stay. <font face="Arial" size="1" color="Blue" >Skt Here. Yes. Right here. 00:19, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

But who is to say they were warriors? They might have been deputies or queens or elders. 00:21, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

She did say they never deserved to be called warriors. Idk if that counts. <font face="Arial" size="1" color="Blue" >Skt Here. Yes. Right here. 00:22, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

BloodClan cats were actually called rogues, they do have warrior names so we can't assume that they were kicked out of their Clan. As Sky said, they were still called warriors. 00:23 Mon Apr 9

We still have no proof they were warriors at death. None at all. We cannot make assumptions or falsify facts. They acted as rogues in the afterlife and their chararts should reflect this. 00:24, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but I'm just saying they they were called warriors (I think, bleh), so tgey should get to keep them, even if they're rogues now. (Did that make sense? >.>) <font face="Arial" size="1" color="Blue" >Skt Here. Yes. Right here. 00:27, April 9, 2012 (UTC)