Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Tweak Nomination Voting - Warriors?
Hi, all! Because it seems as though the discussion was archived without a conclusion despite a relatively clear consensus, I'm bringing it up again. I propose that warriors should be able to vote on tweaks and the number of votes needing to pass should be raised to five. 21:09, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. I agree with this, and always have. A good portion of the warriors are skilled and knowledgeable enough to be able to vote properly on nominations, and with raising the vote requirement to five instead of three, things could be a little better. If this does go into effect, those currently on the page would not be affected by this change, however. That's not fair. I actually closed the nominations because of the massive amount of things on that page...so perhaps we can open that up again after everything's settled?

I agree with this, not because I'm a warrior, but because it might speed things up a bit and benefit the project. Right now only about five of the SWs consistently vote on the nominations, and with some active warriors thrown in it would make nominations sit on the page for smaller amounts of time than they currently are. x3 22:07, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Duck. Like, we've got tons more warriors, and they have experience. They've the judgement to tell if an image is fine or not. It'd speed thing up ''a lot. '' Ca  na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 22:42, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Ya definitely. It'll hopefully speed up the nominations too xD 23:30, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I agree also, ya'll took the words right out of my mouth. 23:51, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Besides, those guys are also the ones tweaking the images along with SW's. They should have a say in what they have the ability to tweak. 00:11, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think, Leggy. I definitely agree~  00:46, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree 01:15, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what all the others have said. After all, it would make since for the people who also tweak with the seniors to have the ability to vote. Bb un   legs  01:39, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this idea, but if I remember correctly, last time this was discussed it went all the way to a vote...only for it to be suddenly decided that there needed to be more qualifications for a warrior to vote - the main one being that they'd done at least a tweak or two. I feel it should be asked if we'd still want any qualifications other than being a warrior, just so we don't go so far and change our minds again. 04:24, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that the warrior should have some sort of experience in tweaking before they can vote? That way, they should have some knowledge of what will happen to this image with the tweak, and perhaps understand what else needs to happen to the image. So, like a requirement of two tweaks and one redo, or something of that manner? I am with this idea; however I think adding some requirements to it will give me a little more of the peace of mind I have with SW's voting. 17:48, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Restated what was above, sorry. 17:51, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

I think raising the voting to five would be enough to check each others' opinions, plus keeping track of all the warriors who have done tweaks and redos seems something of a nuisance. 17:56, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 'teldy on the requirements, imo it would be an unneeded nuisance, besides that, in order to become a warrior you need three originals, so I think that that's requirement enough. 23:01, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well I personally would like new warriors to go through one tweak before being able to vote. Most new warriors are very unfamiliar with tweaking and what's entailed in it when they are made a warrior. I don't think they'd need to do anything more than one, but making sure they have a little experience on tweaking would be good. Easier to judge what can be done as a tweak, what needs to be a redo, and all that.

And how are you going to figure that out and keep track of all the warriors voting? Also, it really depends on what tweak they do. You can't tell what needs to be a tweak and what should be a redo by just gray scaling, or even shading due to the other elements of the image. Plus, I stick with my thoughts that requiring five votes for a nomination to pass is plenty enough to keep in check the warriors. 19:29, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point. I do think it'd be good for them to have experience before being able to vote, but I guess it would be too much trouble if you had to keep track of what kind of tweak they did. I still think it really wouldn't be that hard at all to keep track of who's finished one tweak, but you have a point in how it really depends what kind of tweak they're doing whether it helps give them experience to know what to vote on or not. *shrugs*

It wouldn't be that hard to keep track of tweaks. No different than keeping track of the number of images an apprentice has approved. We could always bold the names of those ineligible to vote on the table or the Current Projects to keep track. 2:54 Thu May 30 2013

I agree with Raelic and Paleh; it shouldn't be too hard to keep track of warriors. We can just bold usernames like Raelic suggested, or even have someone just keep a quick list on a private document. It just puts a little experience to our warriors, so they know what they are voting on, and what it may require. Tweaking is different than doing original images, and a bit more intriguing if you don't have the file. After completing images and being around PCA in the time required to be a warrior (you can learn much about chararts and art from giving and receiving critique), I should think only one or two tweaks would be plenty enough of a requirement to vote on tweaks. A small requirement such as one tweak is also simpler to keep track of. 04:30, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Except, like I brought up earlier, tweaks range extensively in difficulty. Making an image gray scaled or adding ragged fur to an image is a quick little tweak using just a filter or another layer in comparison to defining depth in shading or trying to match another image which takes further skill than looking up a filter. Also, not to mention that having the file with all the layers makes tweaking multiple times easier. That would also create an incentive to easily choose quick tweaks rather than having that small incentive in trying to challenge your abilities as an artist. Should we go by tweaks, we'd have to outline which tweaks would give you the experience to vote along with which combinations, and so on which would also require a record of every type of tweak every PCA warrior has done. Having a requirement of certain tweaks would just make this excessively harder than need be as it's already been said that after having the experience of having several chararts approved and critiquing is abundant experience to have someone be able to decide whether a charart needs to be look a different way in some method or another. I also believe that a five vote consensus should be able to counter a "not quite spot on" vote. 02:15, June 23, 2013 (UTC)

I've only done two very minor tweaks- adding the pale underside to Bramblestar's kit and warrior. That tweak was incredibly easy compared to some other tweaks I've seen put up, where patterns had been defined, or shading had been given depth. Granted, I didn't have layers besides a lineart layer and the actual art on either of the tweaks I did, but that was an easy tweak. Took me about 5 minutes in total to do both. Anyway, yes, keeping track of what kind of tweak had been done by a warrior would be a little complicated, considering the amount of warriors and the amount of tweaks we have. While we have very talented warriors in this project, very intelligent too, I think that the votes for tweaking should be kept to the senior warriors, as they have had much more experience in what it feels like to tweak/redo art, and they'll be able to judge the nominations based off of that experience better than a warrior who has less of an idea of what can be done in a tweak, compared to what needs to be redone, or what needs to be left untouched can, because of lack of experience. 15:12, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

There's really not that much difference experience-wise between a warrior and a senior warrior. In fact, multiple warriors have more experience then some of the senior warriors currently, therefore, I don't find experience a real issue to prevent warriors from voting on images that they might later do. 18:43, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Since this has gone quite some time without comments, I have set up a vote here according to the last one. 21:06 Sat Jul 13 2013

I would like to be a warrior in this project. I like to design. I luv warriors. I know a lot about them. I'm new but I have a lot to offer.--swimming extraordinaire 13:31, August 3, 2013 (UTC)IQ253

Limit on claiming tweaks
Hi all~ I don't mean to point at a few users, because I've seen this since I've been on the wiki, but I propose that we have a limit on claiming tweak nominations, some users have gone through and claimed four and over tweaks, that other users should have an equal opportunity to claim. I propose that we have, let's say, a three claim limit, unless you're the OA, of course. x3 03:12, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's already supposed to be that a user can't have more than one image reserved for approval and two for tweak/redo. Claiming a tweak is really just reserving an image and I believe two or three is what the unwritten rule for claiming images has always been - unless it's in a set or you're the OA of all of them. Shall we just go to adding it into the guidelines, then? 06:00, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. If you're the OA, then you're allowed to claim the image so it's easier to tweak, and if they're in a set- so everything matches, ect, things like that. I see no problems with adding it to the guidelines.

So what's going on with this? Shall we add it into the guidelines? 19:54 Tue Jun 4 2013

Yeah, I think it should be added to the guidelines, with three images being the maximum that can be reserved at one time unless you're the OA or it's a set. Bb un   legs  19:55, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I'm bumping this again. The opinions of four users is not nearly enough to call a consensus, or to have anything definite enough to vote on. So c'mon guys, how many images should be the limit, or do we even need a limit in the first place? 0:22 Fri Jun 14 2013

Yes, a limit would be wonderful, and I think we need to implement it, that way /other users/ can have images to tweak without people taking them all. A limit of about three claimed images (not counting what you've already reserved on the reservation chart or if it's an entire set) seems ample enough to me. So, if you have two reserved on the table already, the most you can have is around five (depending on if it's an entire set or not), which is more than enough, imho.

I would love a limit. 22:07, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Vote here. 13:42 Sat Jul 13 2013

Blank Time Limit
So I don't believe we ever completely came to a conclusion on this before, and since the queen blanks may be putting up soon, I figure this would be a good time. Do you guys think there should be a time limit on how long blanks can be up, and if so, how long do you think would be good? I believe we were debating between anywhere from 2 months to 6. And while on this topic, what should be done if we decide on giving them a time limit and they get declined? Should another vote be held, should there be rules requiring an edit of the blank already up or keeping the same pose, and how will we regulate how much they can change it after taking over? Thoughts guys? Let's try and get something worked out for this before the queen blanks are posted.

I think four months is ample enough time to have for the blanks. It's a good, even, in between number. I also think that if they do get declined, it should be discussed whether or not to keep the same blank. Since we did vote on a specific blank, it's unfair to the original artist of the blanks to see their image go to waste like that. If they do, a revote is the only /fair/ way. That way someone else doesn't come in and totally change everything, thus changing the blanks that were voted on.


 * Honestly, I don't think we should have a set limit of time until blanks are declined. I think it'd be quite unfair to the artist if their blanks are declined when they were just an upload away from being CBAed, plus, as we saw on the last blanks, lineart can go for days without being commented on or CBAed, and people work at their own pace with art. We shouldn't punish artists just because they don't have time to work on it 24/7 or because users aren't commenting, therefore a set time limit probably should not be resorted to.


 * Instead, how about just a simple call from a few users, lets say three or even two (I'd rather not have a certain ranking or higher on this since there is all chance of possibility that a user not even in PCA knows the complete dynamics of cat anatomy). If the blanks seem as though they're taking too long or they're not progressing well after a beneficial time period, the two-three users could either comment on the lineart/the PCA talk page and suggest a vote or they could just set up a vote so long as there are two-three senior warriors who are willing to signature the forum. Should the lineart go to a vote, I think it would be best if there are the options to: keep the lineart the current artist is working on and allow them to continue working on it, open it up to new lineart entries, or keeping the lineart the same (and potentially a section where users could provide tweaks that the artist can use with their jurisdiction but of course that opens up potential issues with cooperation and such).


 * I'd also be open to an time of immunity to this, potentially a month or two, implementing a type of laissez-faire policy on the new blanks where users may not suggest a re-vote due to insufficient time of observation. 01:57, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

'Teldy's idea sounds good to me. It can take people quite a while to perfect lineart, but as long as they're working on it it shouldn't be declined. Although, voting first on whether the blank should be declined in the first place should probably be a separate vote, and then voting on what to do with it should it be decided to decline it. (I think the system should lean toward the artist keeping the blank and making it harder to decline it - and that would certainly help.) And then either the artist can choose who they want to work on the blank, or we could go to whomever got second on the initial vote (and then third, etc.). 20:00 Tue Jun 4 2013

I agree with Breezy and Teldy - I honestly don't think it should be declined as long as they're working really hard on it. 22:08, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Kittens
Hey, I was looking down the list of blanks, and saw the ones labeled "kits". I guessed these were kittens, except looking at them, the anatomy does not match that of a kit. Though I haven't done these types of digital art, I've worked on creating animals before. The tail on the shorthair is not canon, the ears to small and rounded, and the eyes are small. This is just a suggestion, so if you don't want to change the blanks, it's fine :)) Kelpsey (talk) 05:21, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Shields self from disagreements  I have thought about bringing this up, but I wasn't really sure if it was a big enough deal. I agree with the anatomy, though. The paws actually look more like little blobs, honestly. I think they're adorable, don't get me wrong. Some things just aren't anatomically correct. 22:32, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The eyes do need to be larger. The blanks aren't really a kitten, imho. They're more like miniature warriors. They need to be tweaked, at the very least. /gets shot. 23:25, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'm gonna disagree here, though. Although I see what you mean on the Kit blanks, and although they are harder to color in, I think they are fine. The eyes look fine in size to me. The image looks as if it refers to something like this:, and it seems to match it the best you can with such a small area to work with. There is a broad range of different anatomy on the growth stage of a cat between 1 moon/month old, and one that is 6 moons/months old. Younger kits tend to have smaller legs and other weaker features along with smaller, rounder ears, and this blank displays that just fine. It shows the growth stage of the cats between when they are kits to apprentices, and that's an important feature to those who refer to Warriors Wiki to see. So, I'm going to say leave the blanks as they are. 03:44, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think they're fine. 19:31, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I don't think a tweak wouldn't go amiss on the kits. They're rather...off, around the legs and tail as well as some of the face, as well as the fact that the longhair's talls look like bent bananas. not to mention the fact that they are the most annoying mothers to art with. 07:40 Fri Jun 14

I'll agree with Berry, a tweak might do, but I don't think a complete redo would really be necessary. I'll say that before some thinks so. 08:07 Fri Jun 14

To be honest I really don't think there's enough that should be tweaked to warrant changing so many images that currently use the blanks. For the most part they're fine, no matter how much people complain about the size, and the anatomy issues are quite minor in comparison to the other blanks that have been tweaked.

I know I brought this up almost 2 months ago, but thinking about it again, I think a cat that young probably wouldn't be able to sit that way. Correct me if I'm wrong because I'm no anatomy expert lol 14:58 Tue Jul 30

I think they are perfectly fine, although they are very hard to work with indeed. 16:33, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Kits to Apprentices to Warriors
Okay, Breezy just had an insane idea that she figured she'd share.

Basically, it's nearly impossible, especially in dead, inbetween-the-books times like these to find images that need approving to do, and in order to become an apprentice or a warrior, a user needs to have images approved. Now this bothers me because there are always images needing tweaked and redone, but only a few users get to do those. Which, in all honesty, isn't really fair and seems like hogging images to me. So my thinking is, how about an alternate route?

We could keep the system we have in place, but a user could also have periods of activity that get them promoted to apprentice, and then to warrior. Say, if a kit is active for three weeks by commenting constructively on images and participating in discussions OR they get an image up to 80% complete, they then get bumped up to apprentice. Another three weeks of commenting OR getting three images approved, and they are bumped up to warrior. A month and a half of activity is plenty to show dedication to a project and a month and a half of critiquing is enough to help anybody grasp charart skills. It's not like it would be easy to do either - it's hard to sit and watch other people do things you want to do that you're not allowed to do yourself - but it would be better than trying to grab at the sparse number of images needing made, especially since they are often snagged by older members. 20:26 Tue Jun 4 2013

Hrmmm... I think this is a good idea. Knowing how to comment, what to say, and things like that, is just as important as knowing how to make an image, and this has my full support. I know what it's like to be stuck in a dead phase and things like that, and some of the apprentices that have skill, can't even tweak or redo images because they're for warriors and leads only.

I'm agreeing with Skye here. When I wa an apprentice, I waited almost four/five months to become a warrior, because there were no new images to do, and I only had two images approved. So, I think this would make sense, rather than keeping apprentices/kits waiting for so long. Sho ond erp  Like nobody’s around~  20:46, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about them being promoted to warrior in just three weeks, probably a bit longer would be good, as sometimes even the amount of time it takes for most apprentices to become warriors the normal way it juuust about enough to get them experienced enough to really be able to tweak and redo well and such. I think three weeks would be a bit quick. But otherwise, I definitely support this idea! It can be hard for members to have to wait much longer than they normally should just because we're inbetween books/series, and plus that would also mean we'd get basically no new warriors after the series eventually finishes. We definitely need an alternative method of getting warriors that doesn't involve getting original images approved, and this seems like a great way of doing it.

I remember that, when we had warrior nominations, the user had to be a member for a month. So maybe if the user hasn't been around for a month after being an apprentice for three weeks (because maybe they got an image to 80% the day they joined), they are held off from becoming a warrior until they hit a month? 21:06 Tue Jun 4 2013

I don't think my comment is contributive to the above 2 comments, but I just want to say, it kinda almost makes me sad to see everyone doing tweaks and not being able to contribute, so whoever started this is a genius.. 8D 22:57 Fri Jun 14 22:57, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

This idea is brilliant, and I fully support it. I remember when I was a new user here, waiting to become a warrior. It took months for it to happen, and its not a pleasant experience to wait, as a number of you understand. It's not fun to wait for a set of blanks to be redone, or a decision to be made to make all Dark Forest cats into rogues, or wait for a new book. This idea has my full support, and I really can't wait for the project to gain new, very useful apprentices and warriors out of it. <span style="">14:38 Sat Jun 15

It's really all been said above. It's a brilliant idea. I became a warrior rather quickly, but that's only because we were doing the StarClan images. It also helps get kits and apprentices more involved in the project. 03:07, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'd really like to get this wrapped. As is, I understand that it will go like this:
 * A kit may be promoted to apprentice if they:
 * a. Have been active in the project for three weeks.
 * b. OR have gotten an image up to 80% completion.


 * An apprentice may be promoted to warrior if they as long as they have been in the project for a month and:
 * a. Have been active in the project for three additional weeks since being promoted from kit.
 * b. OR have gotten three images approved.

Sound good? <span style="">21:04 Sat Jul 13 2013

I'm not trying to interrupt this, I'm just not sure why I really noticed this post until now. I'm just saying I thought it was nice when there was nominations to become a warrior, because you were nominated based on your work and such. Where as if there's just a few guidelines such as be active for three weeks after being a kit, or get three images approved, they have have gotten those three images approved over a long span of time and maybe aren't all that active. So that brings me to where maybe 3 images approved could come with a little 'As well as active project participation' or something along those lines maybe. *shrugs awkwardly* I really don't know how to word that any better than I did. x3 06:44, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Once you get three images approved, there's a lot more to be active for so I don't think that it needs to be an AND, just an OR. As for warrior nominations, I really don't think we need to go back to those. They tend to put people on pedestals and make it even harder to become a warrior in the first place. I personally think that it should just be up to the individual SWs as they are reviewing the member list as to whether they think that the apprentice or kit is active enough. But if we need to put a stipulation, just editing two or three days a week is plenty active if you're just commenting. <span style="">2:02 Wed Jul 31 2013

Realism
Okay guys. So I was checking for grammar errors and stuff in the guidelines, and came across something that I think needs to be noted. Do you all know how apparently realism in chararts for approval is mandatory, and that triangle tabbies aren't allowed? Well, it's not mentioned in the guidelines anywhere, nor is anything banning triangle tabbies from being made. So, here's the short, sweet, and to the point story; either we add the realism to the guidelines with a vote, or we stop enforcing a rule we do not have. I'm being blunt, because we all know how picky PCA has gotten, and I've about had it. We're enforcing a rule that isn't a rule; it's an opinion and unless it's in the guidelines, we're not allowed to enforce it. We can suggest it, but not command others do it. ._. So yeah, blunt and short. What do we do? Do we add it (not just randomly, it needs to be done with a vote like any other thing we do), or just drop it and lighten up a little bit?

I have to agree. We can't enforce a rule that was never agreed upon. Either way, I think we're getting kinda picky with "realism" and what's "acceptable" anyway. We have to make sure we're being fair to everyone. 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, as well. Yes, a triangle tabby might not appear in real life, but we have no right to enforce a rule that isn't already in our guidelines. I think we've become rather picky as of late, and like Ivy said, we need to be fair to everyone. 03:23, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to dress this up. The mere fact of the matter is that unrealistic patterns look bad. They do not meet the standards we have come to expect from the artists and that's why they get redone. While yes, we can be picky, we have the tweak nomination page to say "no" to any pattern we think is fine. That's part of the reason we have it, after all. The placement of shading so that a light source source isn't in the guidelines, but we enforce that. Neither is the need for smoothed shading, or that the earpink can't be neon green. But yet that is expected and grounds for a redo or tweak? If the art isn't pleasing to the eye, realistic pattern or not, it gets redone, and if the SWs disagree with the nomination it is declined. Simple is that. There's no need for guidelines on our standards since they are always changing anyway. <span style="">4:11 Sun Jun 30 2013

Not all unrealistic patterns look bad, Breezey. And even if we say "no", the image would get nominated again and again, especially if the pattern is deemed "unrealistic". It should be mentioned /somewhere/, especially if we're basically forcing users to do certain things, like make realistic tabbies. Which to some, it's not fair, as they can't make tabbies, thus taking away the enjoyment part of the project. Anything that we're enforcing should be mentioned somewhere. Ghost rules shouldn't be enforced if there's nothing to back it up. Honestly, I'm for just getting rid of the realism in general; Warriors isn't realistic to begin with.

I don't see why quality standards must be lowered because somebody doesn't come in instantly knowing how to make a tabby. We're not here to teach people how to make art, if somebody can't make anything other than a triangle or y-tabby then that's their problem. Art takes effort, time, and practice to learn. Just because some Warriors patterns aren't realistic doesn't mean we shouldn't at least ask for some realism in the patterns. These are cats after all, not alien life forms that have butterflies and smiley faces all over them. That's what you're suggesting when you say "get rid of the realism in general." Take a look at deviantART. <span style="">4:53 Sun Jun 30 2013

This is just my two cents, but. The realism thing is really out of hand. It can be relaxed a bit, and I think that's what should happen, I saw a lot of unrealistic images on dA, that looked very nice, actually. Just because the pattern might not be the most real thing, doesn't mean it should be redone. Like, yes, y-tabbies are even more unrealistic than Blackstar and Weedwhisker, and shouldn't be done, but not all unrealistic images need to be totally redone. I thought a lot of them could simply be tweaked to look a tad realistic, and really, it's not in the rules. And anyway, everyone nearly shot B the first time Piketooth was nominated, and he was a Garfield tabby for Christ's sake, which is really unrealistic, and no one wanted him redone until I being the OA, wanted him redone. Everyone thought Piketooth was fine, and he was unrealistic, so really, if the image looks good enough, why redo it because it's not realistic? Ca na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 17:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Except Piketooth is also prime example of how PCA isn't completely strict concerning realism. However, I feel as though setting a guideline as to what's realistic or not is getting a bit extreme. To say that only these tabbies are allowed is ridiculous. And when you start with what tabbies are permitted, we might as well also add that shading, a realistic eye color, and a realistic earpink color is required, because we enforce those "rules" as well and that's what realism comes down to as well. As I see it, realism isn't so much of a "ghost rule" but rather an expectation that we would like our kits to rise to. 16:47, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, honestly, it's not fair to some of the users who can't make realistic designs. To have the process to get an image approved on such a high pedestal is outrageous, and it needs to stop. Everyone's getting far too picky, and they break CBAs on perfectly acceptable images for something as small as "ear pink being slightly unblurred" or "shading needing to be darkened or defined" or "lightened" and stuff like that. The comments about PCA being an elitist group are because of this crap, you guys. We're far too picky about what's acceptable and what's not, and it's getting to the point where people are seriously getting into /fights/. Not all unrealistic patterns are bad, as I've said before, and it's unfair to newer users who want to have /fun/. This project has changed so much over the course of the time I've been here, I can hardly recognize it as the PCA I joined back in 2010. These users who go around acting like they're better than others because of their "skill", and things like that, well... it needs to stop. A peaceful project without images being nominated left and right and users getting flat out disrespected because apparently a style they worked hard on /isn't good enough/ for the project, is something that would be nice. At this rate, the project's going to be on a higher pedestal than the chat. Being promoted in this project is harder than becoming a chat mod... ._.

What Cloudy said is so true, being promoted /is/ harder than being a chat mod in many ways, but in other ways, I think we're being to slack in promoting people, sometimes we just give people a nomination because their art is "pretty," which is wrong, we are supposed to look at other factors, including leadership qualities, commenting, etc. But anyways, I think that we /do/ need to have some realism rules, and being picky is absolutely fine imho, we want to take pride in our wiki, the content, and the charart, etc, so if people are being picky, so what? Being picky has made more than one stunning pieces of artwork, and being picky helps other people to see what some of the SW's do in their artwork and helps them improve imho. I think I got way off topic, but whatever. x3 17:10, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

There's a fine line between being picky, and constructive comments. Whether you're being picky because of personal preference, or not, I don't think is the problem. Sometimes, it seems like others are forcing their styles and ideas on others, thus taking away from the originality of the chararts being made.

And sometimes we are, yes. But people are so afraid to speak out against this elite group known as the PCA leads, that it makes me wonder if perhaps we should all take a step back and realize what we're doing. Perhaps see it through someone who's never been a lead, and see how we act then? Honestly, the atmosphere around the project sometimes has made even me consider avoiding it for a day or two. Hardly anyone speaks their minds anymore, and I think this could be the root of the problem.

The thing is, we're not suggesting that we're going to approve of garish pictures getting through, we merely mean that this is a ghost rule that we've never voted on to be approved of, and that we are being way too strict on what's acceptable and what's not. You need not look further than the manga for unrealistic looking cats, as well as Bluestar's fur color in the cat guide. 19:49, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Now hold up. Having standards is not elitism. It's expecting actual work and not wanting extremely unrealistic patterns for the chararts. Warriors may not be realistic, it's a book about talking cats for Heaven's sake, but there should at least be an attempt at making them look like actual cat patterns. I don't have a problem with putting it on the endless list of rules you people love so much, but this "elitism" thing you're ranting about isn't in expecting some realism (which I will not take back what I said about unrealistic patterns looking bad; their place is not in chararts) in images, it comes from this idea that we actually need apprentices and kits and that people can't just come in an tweak a charart if they want to. It's the wide gaps in ranks and the dictatorial attitude of a lot of SWs. <span style="">5:23 Sat Jul 6 2013

I'm popping in because I was an early propagator of realism in PCA and I feel I should say something... this has gone too far. PCA isn't just demanding realism, it's demanding beyond realism. Breeze, look at your own chararts. Have you ever seen a cat like that, especially in the wild? Tabby cats. Your chararts. If anything your chararts prove that unrealistic chararts do not in fact have to look bad. It is in fact getting to the point of elitism. And pushing people to make stuff that looks amazing every time just isn't reasonable. If someone tried to get me to put out stuff like yours every time I made a charart, I'd never have gotten anywhere in this project. And you can't be asking every user to do it just because you don't think any charart should exist that doesn't try to highlight every piece of fur on the cat. So all I'm saying is that everyone should chill. People that want to make stunning ultra-realistic-to-the-point-that-it's-not-really-realistic-anymore chararts should go ahead and do that. And people that can at least make it look like a recognizable cat should do that as well. Realism's fine. But don't push it too far. 16:46, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Not my point. My point is that we need realism so we don't get cats that are purely triangle tabbies and such, like this. My personal chararts have nothing to do with it, as there are others that don't have layers of texture and other junk to make it shiny that can produce fantastic chararts that represent the pattern of a normal cat quite well (and are by-far less busy). In the end I think it just comes down those voting on images (SWs, and hopefully warriors soon) as to whether or not that individual pattern is suitable to be redone. Add it to the rules that realism is grounds for a redo if need be, but leave it open for the voters to decide where it caps. <span style="">17:29 Sun Jul 7 2013

Now forgive me if I ramble or don't make sense, I've just woken up and am a little groggy still.

May I just point out that the project guidelines basically have nothing about making images in them? They don't have anything about shading, they don't say earpink is required, they don't have anything about the pattern having to be blurred rather than pixelated, they just don't have anything. And they shouldn't in my opinion. But that doesn't mean those things can't be enforced. The quality of the image is decided upon by the users of the wiki, and if a triangle tabby is deemed not good quality by them, even though it's not mentioned in the guidelines, why should that critique be gone against any more than shading can be gone against?

While I agree the the realism going way too far lately on what people will redo an image for, that does not mean I think it's a good idea to completely forget about any realism standards at all. I see no reason why things like tabbies and such should be treated any different than shading or earpink or any of that, in the way that anybody can critique any part of it regardless of whether there's something in the guidelines about it. Realism looks good. But then again, realism isn't the only thing that looks good. Basically, there should be no realism standard, but realism and quality should not be ignored.

And on the point of it being unfair to new users, if a user doesn't know how to do basic charart skills like drawing acceptable stripes, that doesn't mean it should be accepted. A lot of new users don't even know how to do shading or blurring. Should we start accepting images without that then because it's "unfair to new users"? It's not that hard to make a good tabby pattern with practice, and so long as hyperrealism (which is nearly impossible on stylized cat blanks) isn't required, there's no reason to change things around for new users who haven't learned much yet.

As for Warriors not being a realistic series, as it's been pointed out time and time again, a couple partially unrealistic cats are no reason to lower standards. The series being fantasy should not effect anything really. Descriptions are for the most part realistic, and are based off of how real cats look. Should we allow extremely stylized cartoony or anime blanks because Warriors isn't the most realistic cat book out there? No. It should have no effect on our standards for images looking good. Nobody's going around saying "Hey, this charart has to look like Mounty's or Whiskey's ones!" we focus on getting the best quality as we can, no matter who the user is. If that ends up being Mounty or Whiskey quality because the artist is talented, great! But nobody's requiring it. My only problem with the current realism standards is that a good number of people are ignoring quality of chararts when it comes to nominating for redos and such, and only focusing on the realism. That's when it becomes a problem. Often extremely unrealistic images such as a complete triangle tabby that looks basically like Garfield end up appearing much lower quality. And so the stripes should be changed to be better quality, though not necessarily extremely realistic.

So to sum it up, I think there needs to be absolutely no change on the actual guidelines or quality expected, and the only change that I see is needed is that people need to focus more on the quality over realism when it comes to redoing stuff. A good quality slightly unrealistic image should not be nominated because it isn't hyper realistic, it should be nominated only if it isn't as good quality as it could be. (which overly-unrealistic patterns could cause) That's our goal. And that's what we need to go back to focusing on.


 * Popping in* I believe that realism should not be stressed too much... To me, if there was a strict border of what my art should be like, well... I wouldn't call it art or my own.. Everyone has a different perspective of things, and everyone has a different way of symbolizing that this art style is their own. Just like any natural living being, every charart (or piece or art) is unique. And somebody's way of making chararts might not be that realistic, but to prevent them from using that style is not right. Okay, I don't mean that making chararts without shading or stripes as cow-looking shapes or adding wings to the chartart is right. You get what I mean.

My point is, we don't need to worry about the realism of the chararts that badly, but still uphold the basic needs and guidelines of making chararts. Honestly, I've liked many triangle/y-tabbies. Also, I believe that viewers will not be stressing out whether the chararts are realistic or not, but will care about the individuality that each charart has in them. I could be wrong; that's just what I think.

Tallstar ~ Kittypet Charart?
In Tallstar's Revenge, he was kept in a twoleg nest with Jake for a few days and was taken care of by a Twoleg. Would that mean he'd get a kittypet charart? 16:17, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

In my  opinion, yes. It's like Leafstar. 16:53, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read that part but from what you described, I'd assume so 19:46, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Probably, as long as he didn't reject their care unlike Willowbreeze, since that's why she didn't get a kitty pet charart. 20:11, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he gets one just for being under a twolegs care for a few days, wouldn't Barley get one since the same thing happened to him? 05:04, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I would image they both would. <span style="">2:45 Wed Jul 10 2013

I think in this case, Tallstar and Barley would both get kittypet chararts, going on the information displayed above o3o 03:12, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think both, especially since characters that were only taking food from Twolegs got them. 03:22, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Default Coloring for Tabbies
Hi guys I like bringing up stuff. Anyways, it's currently said that brown is the default coloring for a tabby...and we give chararts to characters that are only described as tabby. A perfect example of this is Longtail, before the silver cite was found. He was simply a pale tabby with black stripes. Since the default coloring was brown, that's what he was. Then we found a cite that said silver, and well...we all saw what happened with that.

So, anyways, I'm here to propose that we get rid of the default coloring, and say that only having "tabby" as part of a description isn't grounds for an image. Since, contrary to popular belief on the wiki....brown is not the most comment coloring of tabbies, and honestly, it's a cheap way to make an image.

Yes, I realize this would probably eliminate a couple of the images we have, but I honestly think that people need to stop making up reasons to make chararts. Plus, technically, we're assuming that the character is a brown tabby, and if we don't assume for other things, why should we assume just because the word "tabby" is used, eh?

I can agree, although the most common color for tabbies is indeed brown. If the character only mentioned as "tabby", we should wait and see if there will be a cite saying the color of the tabby. And it is true on what your saying about assumptions, Cloudy, because if we can't assume for the trivia section in articles, why be able to assume what color the tabby is? And plus, PCA is not the only thing you can edit on the wiki, you can edit articles, etc. 21:12, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, in all the cats I've seen, I'm less inclined to agree with that, Hawk. Around here, at least, the most common coloring I've seen is actually ginger, or a silver-gray-ish coloring. I hardly ever see brown tabbies around here. And you bring up a wonderful point about the trivia sections, and for that I thank you. If we can't assume there, then this is the same thing.

You are right with the silver/gray. But for the brown tabbies, its actually the most common in the real world. That's what I meant by most common. Sorry for the jumble-up. 22:24, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, I think it's not the most common in the real world, Hawk. I just disproved your point by providing a real world example. o.o I understood what you meant, and my point is, that it's not necessarily true. I wasn't talking about characters in the book series or anything; I was actually talking about /where I live/.

Oh. Okay then. =3 22:32, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

According to the University of Florida, brown mackeral tabbies are the most common tabby coat color. I should think the default stays. <span style="">4:48 Sat Jul 6 2013

Well, we're still assuming they're brown tabbies, though. Even if it's a default color, how is that any different from adding theories and assumptions to family sections, or even the trivia? Honestly, tabby doesn't seem like enough to make an accurate charart, and it's misleading to some.

We could possibly link that part of their description to the trivia, where it states that we don't know the cats definite color, and that it's a default one. For I do agree with Breezy, the default should stay. In my opinion, them being said to be a tabby is enough to get them a charart. 05:01, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

How is it misleading? "Tabby" is a pelt pattern; it is darker stripes on a paler background. Not specifying the color doesn't mean it isn't a valid description - nobody knows what color anybody's collars are, or where exactly their markings would go either - and the Erin's use just "tabby" all the time. I don't see how it is an assumption, since a brown tabby is in fact a tabby cat and the most common color, too. Using brown just gives everything a bit of consistency. <span style="">5:05 Sat Jul 6 2013

The same could be said for tortoiseshell as well. While most are black based with ginger markings and possibly white spots, who's to say it's not a dilute or if it's a calico? I honestly think that the default is fine, like Breezy said, if we go this route then we can't assume for eye colors or collar either and wouldn't warrant an image for said assumption. I do see what you're trying to get at  05:19, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I disagreed to default coloring when it was first being talked about. When a description says a cat is a "tabby", it doesn't give a color. We care so much about accuracy, so why are we going to just use brown when a cat is noted as a tabby? We want this wiki to give the real descriptions of the characters so browsers won't get thrown off when visiting the page. Sure, a brown mackerel tabby may be the most common color of cat, but does that mean all tabby cats are brown mackerels? Certainly not. If a color is not given, there's no grounds to make the charart off of, considering the color is, you know, everything. So yeah, I'm still giving the same opinion I gave when this thing first started off: if it's color isn't named, it shouldn't get a charart, despite it being noted as having a tabby pelt pattern. Patterns aren't everything, the color matters a lot in making the charart too. And to Ivy: eye colors and collars are easy fixes if said in the book. If an image is made with blue eyes but noted to have yellow later on (and same with collars), the OA can just edit the image and not have to put it on the tweak page. If we give a cat a default brown tabby and do the same with all of it's images and it's later said to be a silver tabby, /all/ the images are going to have to be redone. I know you all like redoing images, but really, it could be avoided.

They may not even be given a description other than being called a tabby. If so, then that's that. They're a tabby, with no color. Hey, if we're giving them art, just make them a transparent cat with stripes. Just kidding.

Anywho, this is my two cents. And before someone says "but we can just redo the image with said color", yes I understand that. But just giving them a blank page will give you an open canvas to do the art if a color is revealed. <span style="">20:15 Tue Jul 9


 * I must agree with the fact that there should be no chararts given to cats that are just described as "tabby". We don't know their actual coat color, so assuming that they're brown conflicts with how we try to enforce how assuming isn't acceptable on the wiki. Sure, brown may be the most common color, but it doesn't mean that every cat is brown. 20:35, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to type out a lot right now, so I'll come back to this later, but I just wanna mention that if we decide not to give chararts for tabbies because they have no color specified, technically we shouldn't give chararts for torties, as torties can be a number of different colors and it's rarely specified in the books which they are.

True, but torties all have one color pallet (usually) involved. There's no gray tortie (although colors may resemble gray in diluted styles) or a brown tortie. Tortoiseshells are all based around the same colors, whilst tabbies can be a variety of different colors. I know there can be diluted torties, but we haven't come across one yet. As Paleh said, no torties are really described thoroughly and are seen as one generic description themselves. <span style="">18:25 Wed Jul 10

It's not just as simple as plain torties or dilute torties though. Need I list off all the options that a tortie could be? Black and ginger, chocolate and ginger, cinnamon and ginger, gray and cream, lilac and cream, fawn and cream, all varying in exactly how they look, ginger sometimes looking more yellow/golden or more brown, the different dilute colors varying a lot in how dark they are, and add on torbies which probably wouldn't always be described, and you've got a ton of options on what a tortie could be. And we don't even go by those options! Anything that resembles the pattern of a tortie is just fine, even if the colors aren't any of those. And I'd also like to point out that there have been a lot of different varieties of torties canon in the series, such as Silverflame and Stormkit for dilute torties, and Spottedpaw and Daisytail for chocolate torties, though they are not always described specifically as tortie, just as gray tabbies aren't always described as just plain tabbies.

So why should we disallow images for cats described as just tabby when we allow tortie to be accepted and not even regulated that the colors are colors torties could actually be? Tortie is basically free game, and yet a set default for tabbies, which is the most common color is being opposed? That makes no sense.

Not to mention the fact that in real life, brown tabbies are often called simply tabby cats, whereas gray, ginger, cream, etc. tabbies rarely are. The vast majority of the time they have their color specified, however plenty of people call brown tabbies things like simply "the tabby kitten" or "that tabby girl over there" etc. without specifying the color. It's a very common thing, and likely carries over into warriors.

Longtail was a bit different, as we had his shade and pattern, but not specific color. And also, the cream Longtail wasn't started simply by us. It was wikipedia and various popular artists along with us slightly. And just one false trend that happened in the fandom that we were a part of doesn't seem like nearly enough reason to disallow the tabby default. That trend likely would have started even if he didn't have an image.

May I also point out that we also assume eye colors and skin colors and white patterns and tabby types and fur lengths? We honestly have to assume a lot of things for chararts as the erins will rarely go into complete and total detail. And it's never caused us any problems really aside from Longtail, who again, wasn't just us.

To be quite frank, PCA is based on assumptions. If we're gonna get picky about a regulated assumption, almost every charart should be thrown out because of the ridiculous amount of assumptions made in them. We can't get too picky about assumptions without PCA being forced to close.

Assuming is part of the project. You design the cat to what you picture it to be. Yeah, I agree, PCA is based of assumptions, but we work with what we have. When the cat is just a "tabby", yeah it would be fun to make it brown or whatever you want to do with it, but we don't have a /color/. Whereas torties (although there are many, like Paleh listed) are structured off of color alone. Keep in mind that these are forest bred cats, and I'm not a pro in genetics or anything, but they're going to keep the same genes that have been illustrated in more detail descriptions the Erins have given. I'm not trying to diss your point or anything, Paleh. I understand there are many torties and we're assuming most of them, but we're making logical points about designing them as regular tortoiseshell (black, orange, and white) until further stated.

Now, I know what I just said contradicts my point of going against the default color tabby design. I'm trying to say, tortoiseshell is a description within itself, or it has been for the number of years this project has been functioning. A tabby is not a full description. There could be various colors that come with tabby, as well as design, but we make that up as we make the charart. To make the charart we need a pattern and a color, and the rest is up to you. We don't want to take the bit of creativity out of making chararts, do we?

PCA is not going to close, we're always going to assume, I realize this. The things we assume are things that are just us depicting the cat. We can to that, at least. Be creative. Anyways, my point is that tabby is not a complete description in of itself, whereas tortie is more of a complete design than that. <span style="">00:33 Fri Jul 12

I'm not sure you quite realize the amount of colors for torties compared to the amount of colors for tabbies. Let's compare.

The general description of tabby is a cat with a paler base and darker stripes. Tabbies can be brown with black stripes, brown with chocolate stripes, pale cinnamon with cinnamon stripes, (all three of which are accepted under the same description of a brown tabby) ginger, cream, fawn, (cream and fawn both accepted for a cream description) gray, lilac (both accepted for a gray description) and lastly silver. So the actual descriptions possible, and not just appearances, are brown, ginger, cream, gray, and silver. Colors that aren't possible and white are not accepted here unless described.

The general description for torties is any cat with more than one color. Torties have nearly twice what I just listed for tabbies considering we have no rules on whether they have to be solid or can be tabby when stripes aren't described, and whether there's stripes or not makes a huge difference on the appearance. And the various color schemes aren't all combined under the same five descriptions like tabbies are, as on torties is makes a much larger difference in appearance than tabbies. Also on solids, smoke is possible, which does make a big difference appearance wise. That is not possible on tabbies, as the tabby equivalent is a silver tabby, already listed. Plus the combinations of colors that aren't possible on real cats, such as black, brown, and ginger, black and cream, black and brown, varying shades of all brown, and brown and cream. And then on top of that, it's doubled when you include the white that's completely artist's choice. Added up I believe that's more than five times the amount of colors accepted as tabbies are.

Now tell me again that tortie is a description with a color and tabby is not. Go ahead. Again, it can be argued that when someone says tabby alone in real life, they almost invariably mean a brown tabby cat. The generic tabby. Just as much as someone who says a tortie without any other specification generally means a black and ginger cat without stripes, the generic tortie color.

If we're going to disallow a regulated assumption for cats described as just tabby, you can't ignore the assumptions we make on tortie cats. There's no getting around that. If tabby goes, tortie needs to go with it, otherwise we have a double standard which would need to be addressed.

Maybe we could just grayscale tabbies or something along those lines if there's nothing else specified? Because, despite what some university says, brown is not the most common everywhere. That's just a general observation, and doesn't speak for the entire world. I know in the state of Pennsylvania, I see more orange and gray cats than I do brown...and in all honesty, I think I've seen probably like five brown tabby cats? If we grayscale those seen in the graphic novels, but make those unspecified brown, isn't it a double assumption? Why do we grayscale the graphic novel images, but not those seen in the books? What exactly is the difference? A simple picture? Because if that's the case, then we either need to pick one color and stay with it, or find another solution. Because why should we do one and not the other?

Grayscaling the image would be the best way to go, considering gray is a neutral color. And Skye has a point, with the graphic novel tabbies. There's no color to the picture, unless the cat is pictured on the cover, so can we really just pick a color an go with it? I'd been meaning to bring this up, but Skye beat me to it. <span style="">16:44, 07/12/2013

Actually no, brown tabby is the most common color in the world. I don't care whether in your area you haven't seen as many tabbies, I'd bet money on the fact that there are more brown tabbies in the state than other tabbies. We voted on the default color and it passed as brown. I see no reason to change that when it is the most common color, no matter what you say.

The difference with the graphic novel tabbies is we're visibly seeing a gray tabby cat. To make them brown would be assuming what we're seeing isn't what they really are, which may be right, but would still be going against what we've seen of their color. On cats simply described as a color, we haven't seen anything. We're not going against any description they currently have, as they've not been shown. To make the manga tabbies brown would be like saying let's make the brown tabbies ginger, cause hey, after all the erins make mistakes so the brown description may be wrong. I know that it's slightly different because we know they're grayscaling, but it's still an appearance we'd be going against.

Unless you have scientific, citable, evidence that there aren't more brown tabbies in your state then you just wasted your time typing that comment. Personal observations are completely useless in this sort of scenario. Because there are more brown tabbies - I already linked to one source, where's yours? I don't see a study presented of the cats in Pennsylvania.

I can say that Paleh is completely right about how many many more variations of tortoiseshell cat than there are tabbie, one of the main reason is that torties can be both at the same time, i.e. torbies. I see no point is changing the tabby default from brown, nor setting a tortie default. How often the Erins actually specify what kind of tortie? They usually don't, but they later specify the color of tabbies many times. Tabby most commonly means brown tabby, so that being the default is far from an assumption. <span style="">17:02 Fri Jul 12 2013

Just because I am not backed by scientific studies, does not make my opinion wrong. ._. It seems unfair to me that we make one set of tabbies one color, and one something else.

I withdraw my opinion and bow out, since I'd rather not snap and say something I'd regret for not having the same opinion as someone else, and I just don't want this to turn into another fight over something else for letting personal stuff get in the way of what /was/ a nice discussion, which seems to have gone sour due to my lack of thought behind my words. I apologize if I've offended anyone, and bow out of the debate.

It doesn't make it wrong not to have proof, but it means you can't argue your point against one with proof. I understand that there are many things that may be right that can't be proven or cited, but when we have proof here that's actually been linked, unless you have something that directly goes against it that can be proven, it can't be argued.

I understand that a few people have issues with having two different standards depending on whether the cat was in manga or not, and I get why, but my point still stands on the fact we'd be going against something we've actually seen to make the manga cats brown.

Also, though this really shouldn't make much of a difference, contrary to popular belief it's as easy and probably actually easier to change brown into another color than to recolor gray. It may use a different method, but it's still equally easy to change either one for the most part. Just wanted to point that out. So that's no reason for brown to be changed under that reasoning.

And my point still stands on the fact that any assumption we make on the tabbies is ridiculously less than the assumptions we make for torties. This applies for having a default color or choosing brown over gray, which actually has more backing than just picking one randomly.

Yes, Paleh, I understand how many torties there are. I know how many mixtures and color combinations there are, alright? I understand your point, and was just expressing mine. A tortoiseshell has been a description in of itself on this wiki for a number of years, and nobody has had a problem with it or has questioned it, whereas a tabby is more of an accessory to a description. I know what you're saying, there's no need to correct me. I'm just expressing what the wiki has seen for a number of years beforehand.

I'm going to have to follow Cloudy and bow out of this debate as well. I've expressed my opinion and, like her, I have no proof to back up my claims as well because they were just outsmarted. This discussion has went south but I hang my hat with my stance on the subject: to throw out default coloring. I understand this was the decision in the beginning, I was there. I didn't support it then. As much as I like arguing, I don't want to argue on a subject coming from my opinion that is shot down and has no proof.

So, uh, yeah. I'm following Cloudy on this one. Sorry if I offended anyone. <span style="">23:59 Fri Jul 12

I wasn't pointing out the number of tortie combinations just for you, I was doing it to make a point that everybody could see when reading over this discussion. If you already understood that, alright, though I still don't see how anyone can call making tabbies brown an assumption while we allow all those torties. I know you said you're bowing out of the discussion, but am I just missing something completely? I honestly don't understand, and if I'm missing something, please by all means, tell me. I just don't get it, and I would like to if I can.

I know it's how PCA has run for ages, though the amount of time something has been allowed shouldn't influence changing it in any way, but I'm not in any way suggesting we change anything to do with torties. I'm pointing out that these are the kind of assumptions we make on many characters, and that's just fine. But with that in mind, you can't disallow a small assumption at the same time.

I don't think there should be a change in the way we make torties, but there's so many ways tabbies can be-not only colorwise, but patternwise also- that it seems like a cheap way to deal out art just to keep the project busy. We shouldn't just deal out images because they're "tabbies" because that's almost like dealing out images because, "hey that character has eyes!". Sorry if that was offensive, I just wanted to participate more in these kinds of things ;3 <span style="">19:50 Thu Aug 8

"Somebody else said I could redo this image..."
Okay, I'm sorry, but this has got to stop. We have a tweak nomination page for a reason. You need three "yay" votes to redo an image, and going up to a SW and asking them if you can completely redo an image defeats the point. After all, many images are denied for redoes but approved for tweaks. Doing this is going against the purpose of the tweak nomination page. Any and all redoes, whether they have been approved for tweaks prior or not, need to be nominated on the tweak page. That's why it's there, so we approve every tweak or redo that needs to be done. This should go without saying. .-. <span style="">19:37 Fri Jul 12 2013

Perhaps it does, but there are sometimes where tweaking an image is impossible to do. I recently did it with Barkface after being given permission. I see no problem if you asked another lead if they could do it. If you're just asking someone randomly that isn't a lead, then no, you shouldn't be allowed. But honestly, it's a double edged sword with this; everyone does it.

The fact that everybody does it is a reason it needs to stop. The whole point of the tweak nomination page was to stop people from just editing or redoing images without the rest of the project knowing and/or agreeing. There are a lot of images that could have been tweaked that end up redone because they get permission. No, I'm sorry, but they need to be renominated. Even if you think it's just a silly extra step, there is a very strong chance that the redo would not pass because the voters don't think it needs redone. Skipping that step is disregarding the nomination page and the opinion of the project. <span style="">19:55 Fri Jul 12 2013

Then perhaps every image that's on the tweak page, or has been in the past like two weeks, should be reverted and renominated? I have no issues with it, since it's not really that much of an issue, but hey. If it's got to be done, it's got to be done. I have no issues with renominating Barkface if I have to.

This should probably be pointed out about solids, imho. It says in the guidelines that if the leader or deputy (like Scar or I) gives permission, then it's allowed. It also says that "Characters with a solid pelt style may either be tweaked or redone, depending on the tweaker's discretion. As it is a one solid color, there is not much to keep if the tweaker so decides to redo it."

Then I am highly for changing the guidelines so that all images must be renominated, no matter what the circumstances. <span style="">20:57 Fri Jul 12 2013

Well, perhaps we could start a forum discussion on changing different aspects of the guidelines, since this appears to not be the only thing that needs to be changed? Like, the matching alt thing, too, and what is and isn't acceptable in images, ect.

As I said in the realism discussion above, I don't think any of that needs to be added to the guidelines. And the discussion on the matching alts should at least be started here and talked about a little first. Honestly I think all the separate discussions should just stay here until there's more agreement and it looks like the guidelines will be changed. Otherwise with three or more topics in one forum, some of the subjects will be lost in discussions of one of the other two, and it'd just generally be a bit less productive until there's a little more agreement.

I completely agree though, one single SW who isn't even required to be named by you giving you permission to do something that should take three votes if it were being done right? No. That's not right. It may be convenient, and the images often do need to be redone when someone asks a SW about it, but that doesn't mean it's alright for a single SW to give permission. The guidelines should definitely be changed removing that whole thing, and specifying that asking permission to redo is no longer accepted.

On the note of "everyone does it," that is in no way a good reason to keep it allowed. Everybody made triangle and y stripes constantly before things were changed too. Along with countless other aspects of the project that have been changed. Everybody doing it has no effect on whether it's a good idea to change it or not.

I very much support this suggestion though.

I must agree with this. It's not one user's opinion hat matters most, it is the project itself. It's better to have others' opinions than completely redoing and image that is perfectly fine. Although realism kicks in, the Warriors series is not meant to be realistic to begin with, because some cat's description don't even exist in the real world. Just because a user says you can, doesn't mean you should without the permission from the other project members, because, all in all, the images the project creates belong to all of us, and we should be giving opinions to decide what happens with the image. And, to agree with Paleh, asking for permission from a single user alone shouldn't be acceptable to redo the image. 16:21, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

SWs and their duties
Now, I'm probably going to get shot or murdered in my sleep for this, but it's a trend that I feel needs addressed. Also, some feathers are most likely going to be ruffled by the topics and general idea of this discussion, so you've been warned.

For as long as I've been on WW PCA has had senior warriors, and senior warriors do good things for PCA, but recently a trend has been happening where some SWs have practically abandoned the project, maybe posting a charart once every 3 months, voting or commenting once a month and that's it. Now I might be the only person to feel this way, but I think that's wrong. When you were nominated into the SW spot you basically agreed to help the project by doing the basic duties, archiving, voting, CBAing, and approving, but some of the SWs haven't been. I think that PCA should have an addition to their guidelines that a user must remain active, by active I mean more than sitting in chat all day, in order to remain a SW and I think that when a SW is removed from the list they should not be added back in until another nomination has passed, this will ensure that SWs will be active and if not will be removed, and the project will have to agree with their reinstatement. I think that this is only fair to the SWs and other members, too, who are working their butts off for this project.

Also, chararts sitting: some chararts on the tweak and approval page just sit and sit there, if this should be instituted it would insure that users wouldn't have to keep asking for comments (though that is by no way a bad thing) and chararts wouldn't sit there for three days with no comments. It would also help the project run more smoothly.

Just to clarify, I do not mean this towards leads that have other obligations, camp, family, etc, I only mean that if a user clearly has enough time to sit in chat half of the day, then PCA should have lead activeness rules.

Yeah that's all. x3 00:53, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with this. Same thing with the tweak page, some tweaks just sit and sit there for days without getting approved and such, and warriors can't do this kind of stuff. And that's true what you say, Duck, If you have time for chat you have time for PCA. Laziness is not a part of this project, and if someone's leaving, please clarify it to the project before leaving. 19:58, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oh and another thing I forgot, some leads have recently been accepting only their images or only certain people's images and this is just as bad as letting an image sit, now some people could argue that it's because theirs was the only one ready or that one was the only one ready, but that isn't true there are obvious images that have been sitting there under CBA or just sitting for much longer, and that is also wrong, that suggests that you're only approving your images so you can get another one before other people that cannot approve, or that you're showing favoritism, which is blatantly wrong. I can think of three times this has happened in the past few months and it very well could have happened more than that, but that also, needs to stop. PCA is supposed to be fair, that is why we have the reservation dates and time limits. owo 20:05, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I know sometimes I only approve certain ones, but that's because I often go by my personal clock, not the wiki clock, and I keep forgetting that they're not the same. Or, I do happen to overlook the images, and/or misread the timestamps. I try to go through every couple hours and see if there's something to be archived, but as I've been known to do, I do forget sometimes. x.x I apologize, but if I do it, it's totally accidental and nowhere near intentional.

I didn't mean to be accusing anyone, I know thy might be accidental, but in case they're not, I wanted to address them, and it happened 3 times by 3 different leads, so I wanted to address it, if it happened once I wouldn't have said a thing about it. 20:28, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

More often than not, an image is only sitting there because it has comments on it. Also, SWs are to only CBA something if they think it's ready. Not because it hasn't had comments for nearly a day. However, that doesn't mean we need to make something, and often times something about the image can look like it isn't ready, but it's hard to pinpoint what, so it's usually waiting for somebody to come along and point it out. I'm sure we all know what I'm talking about.

And another note, begging for comments and CBA's does not help anybody. It's rather annoying and a waste of an edit. I've never seen a time when PCA has ever rushed to crank images out, and either way images get approved a lot faster than nominations in other projects. We will get there eventually. Just be patient.  <span style="">20:57 Mon Jul 22 2013

If you cannot figure out what it is, maybe try to describe what you think looks off about the image to another user and they can point it out, because regardless it is not fair to any user for an image to sit there for three plus days with no comment. And yes begging is wrong and a waste of an edit, but asking when your image has sat for three days is fine. It even says on both the approval and the tweak page that you can politely nudge a lead to archive an image after 48 hours. I agree that every day is too much but after a few days it is no longer begging. And yes many users are being patient, though some aren't, but if a user can sit in chat all day then they can contribute to PCA if they're a lead. And anyway I started this discussion as a way to not let leads make 5 or so edits every 3 months and still be a lead, which is not fair, not for the images sitting rule, which I branched off into, but there are some problems in our leads that have gone on for too long to just ignore anymore, PCA has been getting more and more exclusive and hard to make any rank in, and it's turning back into the 'cabal' that it was when Iceheart was the leader. PCA needs to go back where kits and apprentices aren't afraid to comment and even warriors rarely comment anymore now. We need to have /active/ leads that will be a benefit to this project, not a name just sitting there. kthxbai 21:12, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Duck, no. The cabal comment is uncalled for, and I wish you wouldn't bring that up. x.x We're past that...or at least I thought we were. Asking for comments on an image that went 48 hours without comments is okay with me, but not 24, as more often than not, a vast majority of the real active PCA leads are away, and do have jobs. Myself, Sheepy, and Breezey being three of them. You cannot sit there and say that you expect us to stalk the PCA pages every five seconds, when at least three of us work a good seven/eight hours a day, and come home tired. ._. We are not a cabal, and have not been for well over a year. I would appreciate that you not compare us to that time, because that's extremely offensive, and really doesn't sit well with multiple members. We're not a cabal, and just because users do not get images approved in two days like some others can, does not mean we're not paying less attention to them. Something's telling me this is going to snowball into something else, so I request that we cease and desist all "cabal speak".

Fine, the cabal comment was a bit much, I'll admit that, but PCA is getting more and more exclusive with images and users. Anyway, no, nobody expects that from the leads, what I'm trying to say is some leads do barely anything for PCA, contributing wise, and the job - this cannot hold water for some leads, because they're in chat all day, and the approving thing sprang up after some users are approving only certain images and are letting things sit, while they're CBA'ing other images that are of the same quality. And yes like I said I think that asking every 24 hours is way too much, I'm just saying that if a user asks for comments after three days or if an image sits for three days a lead should do something about it. 21:52, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Then make inquiries about those users. However, I must specify that leaving their username in the chat does not always mean they are online at the present time. I leave mine up most of the time, and I'm not always at my laptop.

Yes, I know that, but a lot of the time I'm on, they're active in chat, also, if they have enough time to even get into chat, they have enough time to do something for PCA, there's join requests or they could comment, there is /always/ something to be done, it's the same in every project and all over the wiki, I just think that PCA should have some sort of guideline where even though the user is online, in chat, they cannot be a lead unless they are active in PCA. I by no means mean ten or even five edits a day, but a couple edits every couple of days would be enough, I just think that PCA needs to make sure their leads are active. 22:04, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to jump in here. In my opinion, the leads are fine. They aren't the only ones who can comment on images, warriors, apprentices, and kits can do it as well. As for approving only certain images, the leads CBA images that they feel are ready to be approved. It's a matter of what they think of the image. 22:40, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I understand that everyone has lives and being a SW also means having ample duties, but when there's fourteen leads and it still takes seven days to add a new user in, a major overhaul seriously needs to happen with the leads, probably something more than just a few inquiries. Like, how many of the senior members still actually want to do all the duties they're charged with and are they even aware of them? It's not like PCA is struggling for user activity and therefore aid in leading the project. I'm aware that everyone else has a part to play concerning activity in PCA but it is the leads' activity that will matter more since they keep the project "in order". 22:54, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

That is basically what I've been trying to say all of this time. ^ 22:56, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

If you have problems with leads and don't think they're doing their jobs right, then set up inquiries. I do agree that not all fourteen leads are doing their jobs as they should, time restraints or no, even if there are some people that just need to be patient. That system is there for a reason and there's no need to be nervous about doing so. <span style="">1:07 Tue Jul 23 2013

I know I rarely contribute to PCA, but I frequently lurk the pages so yeah. In regards to the topic at hand.. While the begging for comments thing can get annoying, I find it justified after a few days- especially when other images are being CBAd at the present time. I understand completely that everybody has a life, but Teldy has a very good point. As for the chat-room thing; not everybody is at the computer when they are listed in chat. I know for a fact that Cloudy and a select few others are listed in chat, but may not actually be there. -shrugs- -- 01:33, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

This still stems from the fact that if you have problems with the activities of the leads, you're not going about it correctly. If you don't feel they're doing their job properly, or at all, place an inquiry for them, as we've done before for PCA leads. It's not all that hard.

*jumping in.* Please do keep in mind that it is summer currently, and many of us are out on vacations and going through with our personal lives. Although I do agree that select leads aren't being active in commenting and approving everyday (myself included), but our lives come before the wiki. I apologize for my lacking recently, but I've had week-long activities and my mom is fairly restricting my internet access in these months. I know it is not just me that has a summertime agenda, and we shouldn't blame them for not putting PCA in front of their family and friends.

Not just this, but there's school that will begin soon, and a majority of our leads attend it. We can't afford to be on top of things all the time. I try to come on and comment, CBA, and approve images when I can, during all the months. I'm sure everyone here tries, and we thank them greatly for their commitment. There should be enough of us to balance out our agendas to approve, comment, and CBA even when a few of us are away or offline. We should work together as a team of SWs, and not just have this "every SW for themselves" thing.

I'm not dissing your point though, Duck. I see that many SWs don't show their face often as of late (again, myself included). I'm just trying to get across that we do have personal lives that are to be put first. I don't think we should demote them just because they haven't put up an image recently, or don't jump into discussions. They earned their right as a SW by showing great commitment to the project, and I wouldn't like to see it get taken from them. wow that was longer than it needed to be. <span style="">20:48 Wed Aug 7

Hai. Imho, if there are inactive senior warriors (just saying yes I know people have jobs, work, lost of irl stuff to deal with which come first), but if you come on once a month or so, then face it. In my opinion, the right thing that should be done if you know that you can't keep up with a project is to just resign when you know you're not up to it. I kinda agree with Duck's pint^^

I do agree, but I think it should be treated on a case-by-case business and treated as such. For example, for life events that could not be prevented, I don't think they should be demoted for, but if it's just because they're being lazy than that seems a tad more appropriate. Now I know that I haven't been the most active SW, either, but I have been trying to show effort despite my offline obligations, and I really think that effort is demonstrated at least more than once a month that that should be taken into consideration as well. Just my (albeit confusing) two cents  23:17, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Redos
I noticed that tweaks and redos are only for W+, but since redos are closer to new images than tweaks, do you think it would be fair enough to let everyone redo? Or at least apprentices? <span style="">23:52 Tue Jul 30

I believe it's fair that we keep it the way it is. Being a warrior+ and having a few images approved shows that you can handle tweaking and redoing, in a short amount of time and so on. Having the images approved before you move onto this step is like it's preparing you. 03:23, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Misty on this one. Being a warrior and up is more than just doing art, it means more experience and skills. Not saying that apprentices and under don't have skills, I'm just saying that the older PCA members have the ability to understand the constructive criticism being given and understanding of what is being proposed. The older members must looks at the image and ask them self; "Is it fine?" "What throws the image off?" "What should be changed?" Apprentices- simply do not have the experience needed to comprehend what is being given of them, and that handling other's images to make them better is much responsibility. For now, we should stick with the fact that only warriors+ can tweak/redo because they understand what is needed in the image and what may throw it off or make it better. 16:15, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Warriors are warriors for a reason. Kits are here to learn how to make an image and what makes an image acceptable, apprentices know how to make acceptable images but they are still in the learning process with different kinds of pelts and styles (not saying that all kits do, but most kits start out with a solid style and work their way up) and to me, warriors are pretty competent with most, if not all the pelt styles and how to match. Ahh I hope I worded that right  19:08, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Stepping down
So as I'm sure you're all aware, I haven't been very active lately. Life's a bit hectic, and I've lost interest in warriors a bit. I love this wiki, but my motivation's just kinda been shot, along with the time I have to do things here. So because of this, I'm going to step down as a SW in PCA for now. Perhaps when I have more time and motivation, and can really get active on the wiki again, I may try and earn the spot back, but for now I'd like to stay as just a warrior. To be honest, the only reason I didn't step down earlier was due to me having strong opinions on tweak and redo nominations sometimes, and I wanted to be able to vote still, and that was probably a bit silly of me. But now that warriors can vote too, there's no real reason for me to be a SW with how inactive I am.

I'm sorry I've been neglecting my duties before. I won't be leaving the project or the wiki or anything, just simply going back to being a warrior. I'll be about as active as I have been these past couple of months, just popping in occasionally.

You're fine. Offline life comes first and it gets to us all. I'll move your name right now. <span style="">20:39 Thu Aug 1 2013

Join Request
Hello! May I join Project Character Art? I love to make digital art and I read Warriors a ton! I hope you'll accept me! 8DSilverberry (talk) 16:28, August 8, 2013 (UTC)