Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Time limit on Tweak Nominations
I've noticed how some tweak/redo nominations will stay up for a week (or more) without getting their three yay or nay votes. That's really not fair to the nominator having to wait that long for their nomination to be approved - especially when it's missing like one vote. I think that maybe after a certain time period, say 3 days, whichever vote at the time has a majority should be the automatic decision. So it would go on the list if the majority were yay votes. And if they're tied I guess it could just default either way, so long as all tied nominations would default the same way. It'll just keep those nominations from sitting there and the nominator from having to wait so long to know whether they can work on it or not. Breeze whisker  04:54, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think this might work. It would stop nominations from sitting there. 06:37, 17, 05, 2012

I agree with this...but the only question is for those that tie. I'd say look at the comments, if any, and that could determine if, but, for now, I think that they should just be approved and be done with it, or, if they really want the image to be redone, they can re-nominate it.

Have we come to a conclusion on this? 09:23, 06, 06, 2012

I believe that is fair enough. For if they tie, I say we just wait 24 more hours, then archive it/decline it. 20:06, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should just decline the nomination when it's defalt, and they could just renominate it necessary. 06:01, 12, 06, 2012

I agree with the declining it automatically, but how long should the wait be before the votes are tallied? Breeze whisker  15:20, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking two or three days, but it could be more or less. Breeze whisker  15:21, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think 3 days/72hrs is good enough as a time. 05:51, 15, 06, 2012

Alright, that doesn't seem too long, so I agree. 19:03, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this? 17:09, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

Is everyone happy with 3 days? 00:54, 24, 06, 2012

I am, but should we put up a vote just in case for the other project members? {\ 14:42, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose a vote could work. x3 03:26, 30, 06, 2012

Tweak Nominations: I am going to sound like a total idiot...
Alright, as you all know, right now I am the sole overseer of the Tweak Nominations page, and I'm supposed to nominate someone to help me. This is going to sound so horrible, I know, but I haven't been active enough to know who would be the right person for the job to help me. There are so many new people, and it's hard for me to keep track, and I don't even know who would want the position. I know this is unorthodox, but members that are eligible and would like this position, let me know and I'll make my decision. This way, it'll be a lot easier to pick the right person who is interested. Thanks, and again, please don't brick me for not just picking someone XD  15:15, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

We respect your desicion Ibly, not everyone can do their jobs. :) I could probably do this, but if the featured charart vote passes, since I'm one of the users in charge of that, I'll strike my interest for fairness. :) 06:29, 15, 06, 2012

I'm interested owo I can do this but it's your choice. 06:38 Fri Jun 15

Don't want to sound too greedy or something, but I would like to try this out. '^^  20:06, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm the new SW, but if I am allowed, I too would like to try this out. 20:24, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Man, now I'm not sure who I should choose...you'd all be good choices  15:31, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Have you chosen your replacement? 12:11, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

You can tweak/redo it because it's your image
Okay guys. As probably most of you know, people nominate their own image to be redone and tweaked just because they personaly don't like it. I'm sorry, but I don't think that's neccessary. If images are redone/tweaked without reason ("Your image, so you get to tweak/redo it" is not a valid reason), it takes up file space, and just adds to the tweak page.

Project Character Art is supposed to provide character articles with quality art, but I don't think we should be creating/tweaking/redoing art just out of the opinion of the OA.

So, I propose that all images should be redone or tweaked for a valid reason. 04:01, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think I've ever voted for an image that didn't need tweaked/redone. Some that the OA's propose I just ignore if I don't agree because I don't want to get into the "it's their image, they can do what they want" dillema, but yeah, I feel that some images have no good reason to be done. I've seen wonderful tabbies redone only because the person is "better" at them, stripe style and a personal dislike of it is actually a guideline against nominating an image. 05:13, July 8, 2012 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, I don't think personal dislike is a good reason for an image to be tweaked... if it needs to be tweaked then yes, it should be, but as Ivy said, there are great images out there that get tweaked for most likely an invalid reason. So I agree. 06:16, 09, 07, 2012

Some of mine, I redid because not only I knew I could do better, but there were also other issues with the images. I think that the OA should have //some// control over whether or not they chose to tweak one of their own images. However, there needs to be a limit as to what should be tweaked and what shouldn't be.

I believe it should matter on the people whom are voting - if a majority of the leads believe that it is fine, then it stays. I also think that an OA should have some control - and if it /does/ qualify for a tweak, the OA can add on more if they wish, and if it's necessary. 16:17, July 12, 2012 (UTC)

Apprentice Tutorial: Paint.NET
On the apprentice tutorials there are some pictures of the tool bar in Gimp and Pixlr. But I also think that somebody should do that same thing with Paint.NET. A lot of people use paint and if they´re having problems they can refer back to it. Thoughts? 21:18, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

I think that there should be a picture of the tools for paint.net. Even photoshop and sumopaint. I remember there was discussion about having sections for each program on the apprentice tutorials - what happened to that? o.o 03:28, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that discussion. o.e It would help if there were pictures of the tools for all (well, most) of the editing programs, and I still support the "revamp" of the apprentice tutorials. 07:12, 14, 07, 2012

I'm not sure what happened to that discussion...but I know Paint.NET was mentioned in it... I think. If someone who knows what they're doing (and knows how to use Paint.NET) wants to go ahead and make something with the tools and stuff on it, go ahead. There might already be something on the wiki, I'm not sure. I'm strictly GIMP, and I don't have the patience (nor attention span xD) to help with tutorials.

So we agree that somebody should do it? And maybe other programs because our members have a very wide variety of programs to use. 16:54, July 14, 2012 (UTC)

I say go for it. 02:24, 15, 07, 2012

So do I. We want the best for our tutorials. ;) 18:52, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

What about the "revamp" of the tutorials? And, I think it would be good to also add the tools for sumopaint, and photoshop. 22:26, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Well, if someone uses those editing programs, I say they could just go and add them into the tutorials. I remember a basic example of the revamp was ment to look like this. Maybe if several users want to work on it they could. 03:21, 16, 07, 2012

Possible Kit Chararts
So I noticed everyone was having kit blanks (ect.,) for like "inferring" (sorta) and I wondered if these two got kit images. "Get off him! Ratscar's my littermate." Snowbird is speaking by the way. I wasn't sure if they did, so what do you guys think? 23:10 Sun Jul 15

That sounds to me like implying that they were once kits. I don't see why not. Breeze whisker  23:52, July 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yep! Nice find! 01:56, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! 02:10 Mon Jul 16

I'm sorry but just saying characters are littermates isn't them mentioning when they were kits. It's talking about relation to them. It means nothing really. I honestly don't think characters should get kit images for being mentioned as littermates. I think we're simply taking this too far. 06:04, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

It's like saying any cat who's mother calls them their son or daughter should get a kit image. It's just silly, and in my opinion, very uneeded. 06:06, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. "Littermate" just means they were siblings. In past situations, if cats had remembered being in the nursery, then they'd get a kit charart. Adult cats call others littermates all the time. 16:01, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Loonie and Paleh on this one. I don't think it quite counts...there wasn't anything implying they were kits in that statement, imho.

I have to agree with Paleh and Loonie and Skye as well. The statement never mentioned them as kits. 16:58, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think it can go either way with this one. I mean, Snowbird is kind of saying that they were kits together. But then again, I have to agree with Loonie and Paleh... But in my opinion, I believe they should get one. 20:09, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so I found some examples of "littermate = siblings". This is just from Sign of the Moon.

"My mother was your littermate." (Stoneteller and Bird's mother)

Foxleap dashed up to the edge of the hole, leaning over to see his littermate. (Icecloud)

There was comfort for both of them in the touch of a littermate's pelt. (Jayfeather and Lionblaze)

Worry for her littermate pricked through Dovewing's pelt. (Ivypool)

"She's lucky to have such a great littermate." (Bumblestripe and Briarlight)

Jayfeather didn't want to travel with the cat who had lied to him and his littermates. (Hollyleaf and Lionblaze)

"Well, mind you stay clear of that farm where your littermates an' that nuisancy WindClan apprentice met the dogs." (Jayfeather, Hollyleaf, and Lionblaze)

Bumblestripe protested, drawing his tail down his littermate's flank. (Briarlight)

"No good cat would be jealous of an injured littermate." (Blossomfall and Briarlight)

He flung himself at his littermate. (Strong Pounce and Lapping Wave)

I think this is enough examples to determine that littermate = sibling, not kit. Ratscar and Snowbird should not get them. 20:29, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. None of those examples said that they were kits. They should not get chararts. 22:34, July 16, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing. It doesn't mention that they were shown or mentioned to be as a kit, just as siblings, so I say no charart. 05:43, 17, 07, 2012

If it doesn't mention that they are in the nursery/ mentioned int eh kit rank, I don't think they should get one. 02:39, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

Does the majority agree that they do not get the chararts? 03:31, July 18, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going with no, as littermate is basically another way of saying siblings or whatnot. Skt Omnia vincit amor  13:41, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you guys,but (again) I'm outnumbered. Whatever, decline those images already up. 15:15, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Ivy, if you had some good points to support your argument, then we could continue the discussion. But plenty of us have made points as to why they shouldn't get one (I've provided evidence from the books) and all you've said is that you disagree. So don't get defensive about an argument you haven't supported. 16:20, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

A little late coming in, but if these don't get a charart for basically being to vague, then Ivytail shouldn't get one either. Since, for instance, she could have been a rogue, kittypet, or loner and gone directly into being an apprentice. That's just as vague as "littermate." Also, littermate could mean both sibling and being in the nursery together, since it implies they were born at the same time. This language is tends to have the same word meaning different things, after all. It is entirely possible. So this really could go either way. Breeze whisker  17:47, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think that's the same thing, Breeze. Ivytail got one for being mentioned as a new apprentice at a Gathering; which has nothing to do with this discussion. It's the same basic concept that allowed Mistystar to gain an apprentice image, as well as Toadstep and Rosepetal (not because we knew their mentors), expect instead of being mentioned as new warriors, they were mentioned as new apprentices. Ivytail has nothing to do with this discussion, and the kit image is warranted.

Ok fine. The word in itself refers to the time that the cats were beside their mother's belly as a litter. They've also used the words "brother and sister", and if it only meant "brother or sister", wouldn't they have no need of the other words? I just feel calling them your littermate has a very deep connotation to the time where they were innocent and defenseless (kits) and that is why I feel they qualify for kit chararts. I'm sorry, I haven't been thinking clearly lately, but there's your explanation  15:51, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

She does have to do with this discussion since she is also getting a kit charart for something just as vague as "littermate." Like I said, she could have have been something other than a kit before being an apprentice. It's not like that's never happened before. Let's think of who's story the entire first arc was about. Also, Mistystar, Toadstep, and Rosepetal were seen as kits before so it is slightly different. Since there has never been a kit in the series that has gone directly to being a warrior, it would be assumed that they had been apprentices in the gap of the books, since it is also assumed that they were in the Clan the whole time training to become a warrior. Ivytail could have come from outside the Clan. We've never seen her as a kit either, and she's never been mentioned as being in the nursery. This is the same argument that appears to be being used against Snowbird and Ratscar getting chararts. If Ivytail gets one, then these should also. They aren't any more vague than hers, and if anything, less so since littermate still implies that they were kits together, even if it also means siblings. Breeze whisker  05:19, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ivy: But it's never been used that way. It's always been used in a way that it can be interchanged with "sibling", and the meaning would stay the same.

As for Ivytail, that's actually a completely different matter. But even if she had been a loner or whatever before joining the Clans, she'd still be less than six months old, and thus, a kit. 15:59, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

"Littermate: One member of a pair or group of animals born in the same litter." Official definition of a littermate. Like I said, the word in itself is referring to the litter that their mother had. Referring that they were once kits. And no, from what I've seen they only say littermate in a strong connotation, it really does mean something for them to mention that they were once vulnerable kits together. I really think if cats get chararts for just having their mentor named and cats getting queen pixils for being a cat's mother, I don't see why the useage of littermate wouldn't warrant an image. They are all similar situations and are all just about as vague since they were never seen. 16:42, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ohlook I'm back They still shouldn't get kit images for that. Littermate does mean sibling, however you put it, and that's something that they always are. They don't stop being littermates once they're adults, and therefore that has no mentioning of kit behind it. For the other images that have been made, such as Ivytail, the characters have just gone from one rank to another. Meaning they were just in that rank and should get an image for it. If we make images for littermates, we also have to make them for normal mentions of being siblings, and mentions of parent/child relationship mentions. No. I don't agree. They shouldn't get images. So that's my opinion. 17:19, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Well then I don't agree with any cat getting an image for a rank they weren't seen as. 18:18, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Ivy, we agreed on those a long time ago. If you didn't want them, you should've said something then, because now there's a lot of them.

Also, official definition of twin: "One of two children or animals born at the same birth." Sound the same as littermate? Because that's what littermate means: twin. 18:36, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Inactivity
I know this should go on the vacation list, but I'm on a phone and I have little battery left - and PCA's talk page was the only link I could click.

Anyways, I just wanted to warn y'all (excuse if this shouldn't go here - as I said, this was the only link I could click, and with little battery left, I can't go to another pag) that I might be inactive fora c ouple days - I am without internet and it might not be fixed for a bit - we're currently waiting until Saturday but there is a large chance it can go longer without it. I wanted to warn everyone, and I woulf likr to request thatBlossomkit is declined - I'l put it up later. May StarClan light everyone's path, 22:53, July 19, 2012 (UTC)

Update: I might be gone longer than Saturday, for we have family drama and no one can really fix my computer atm. But, it /will/ be fixed soon, so I will return. Thanks, everyone. Icestorm not signed in

Back c:
Alright everyone~! I'm back from all of my vacations :D I'm now ready to work c: Just figured I'd let everyone know so no one would suspect that I was dead or anything. :3 *scurries away* 00:46, July 23, 2012 (UTC)

Resignation
Please read this. Thank you. 16:24, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Stop-WWiki-Theft on dA
We now have a group where you can go if you see any of our blanks being used on dA! (Or any other website for that matter) I know it really bothers me to see our blanks where they don't belong, so join here if you want to help out too ^^ 18:11, July 26, 2012 (UTC)


 * You guys know how I feel about this stuff, and I have the same protective feeling as any of you about the PCA blanks. However, there is one issue: we have no right to attack anyone for using them. The blanks aren't copyrighted. Being on wikia means they're in creative commons unless otherwise specified.


 * If you guys want to really protect the blanks and the images made with them, first you need to actually put up a copyright tag on every image. And, beyond that, a watermark as I suggested before would be the most helpful. But setting up groups on Facebook and deviantart with the goal of attacking preteens that take the images and aren't technically doing anything wrong legally isn't going to help anything. All it does is earn this wiki a bad reputation among other websites. 18:26, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

We're not attacking anyone. How is asking them to remove an image and telling them they're using lineart that isn't theirs attacking someone? Our goal is to get rid of the lineart, not attack people. o.O

We're most definitely not attacking people. Telling them to take down an image that is considered art theft is not attacking them. And just cause we don't have watermarks on out blanks doesn't mean we have any less claim on them. They're marked as only for the wiki, nowhere else. And since the artists of them made them specifically for the wiki, we have right to enforce that. It'd be like making a request picture for someone and not watermarking it. You did it. You made it for someone other than you to use. You didn't mark it. But that doesn't mean anyone can take it and use it. It's still art theft and we have full right to tell them to take it down. It's in no way attacking people by telling them that. 18:46, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Shelly, what on earth are you talking about? "Aren't technically doing anything wrong"? It says right above the blanks that they're not allowed to be used anywhere besides this site. How would you like it if I took one of your drawings, tweaked the colours, and then re-posted it as mine? I know I'm not happy to be seeing my rogue blank used elsewhere. Just because they're blanks doesn't make them any less a piece of art. And I, for one, don't appreciate my art being stolen.

And "attacking"? That's a little overboard. You think I would do that? You think I would go to an image, sit myself down, and comment, "WHAT THE YOU WORTHLESS PIECE OF  TAKE THESE --- IMAGES DOWN BEFORE I HUNT YOU DOWN AND MURDER YOU WHILE YOU SLEEP." No. That's not the purpose of this group nor the purpose of this Wiki. I've been patrolling dA for blanks for a couple months now, long before this group was created. I only created it so there would be a place where people who don't know what to do about the theft can report it.

I'm glad to see that's how you think I'd handle a situation like this, though. Good to know that's what you think of me. 18:52, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

We still have no copyright on those images, even if we ask people not to use them off of the website. And no, I did not say that I thought that that's how you guys would handle it, but when you gang up on people and form groups just to protect these images we don't even have a right to protect legally, then people take that as an attack. 19:11, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

And Paleclaw, yes, I've made images for people without watermarking them. But I upload them to deviantart, and DA automatically puts a copyright on images for artists. Wikia does not. 19:13, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I realize that the blanks are for the Wiki's use only, but Shelly is right, though attacking is a bit of an exaggeration (the word). I think that we all need to calm down and think this through carefully. Many people don't know what they are doing when they use the blanks; several don't read even big red text. There is probably no other way to get the message through unless we copyright the blanks ourselves.

And Loonie, Shelly was not trying to make this personal; that last comment that you wrote was a bit harsh to her. How did her opinion turn into an opinion about you? 19:13, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about the fact dA puts automatic /legal/ copyright on images. Making and image gives you automatic claim over it and gives you full right to ask people to take it down. 19:19, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Since the blanks aren't uploaded to DA by the Wiki (as far as I know, anyway); then our images /aren't/ copyrighted. I think that we should simply let this go; people aren't always going to obey rules and such. It's too much extra effort to search dA and make people take down the blanks. Plus, who knows how the people will retaliate? We could lose a lot of respect from people everywhere. 19:21, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

No, we're not letting it go. We do have claim on the blanks and can ask people to take them down. Just cause people will always break rules and may dislike us if we tell them not to do something that they're clearly not allowed to do doesn't mean we should just let them use blanks that they're not allowed to. 19:23, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's lots of effort to take down murderers too. And people are always gonna do that. Are you saying we shouldn't bother with that either? I honestly don't see your logic. 19:24, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

We have the right to say where our images go if we made them. Sometimes, I come across the useage of our blanks somewhere else, and I'd report it. You don't have to have a time where you search for our blanks. You'll come across it eventually. But as the creator of the blanks, we have a right to say "Take it down." 19:27, July 26, 2012 (UTC)