Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Cats of the Park
Right, PC has made it that Cats of the Park is it's own rank. I think now it's for PCA to decide about the charart. Do we make a new one? Use the loner/rogue blank? I also think that giving the loner blank a little tweak, (like the Clan leader and healer blanks or something) is not a bad idea either. 05:16, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Loner 07:38, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

I think loner would be more appropriate than rogue 12:50, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a loner should be used, but maybe we could do a small edit so it's noticeable that it's from the CotP. 12:53, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

For some reason I keep on thinking about giving them ribbons. I agree with that, but what should we edit? Maybe make their tail higher? Or make all four of their paws on the ground?? 13:18, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Possibly - or the neck could be raised, so that the cat is looking up. 19:02, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

We should definitely use the loner blank. And I like Sorrel's idea of having the cat looking up. 20:57, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe we can tweak the loner a bit to look like they are meditating a bit. Maybe legs a little straighter and on the ground like Bramblesnow's idea, or Sorreltail's idea where they are looking up. (with eyes closed?? So they actually look in meditation?) 23:02, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Personally, i like Sorrel's idea. Perhaps we could just have the cats looking up with all their paws on the ground? I don't know, it seems to diferintiate it a little more. Im up for whatever ya'll decide to do, though. 23:31, April 16, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, the cats looking up is a good idea, however is it possible for us to confuse the loner blanks and the modified versions? 0:12 Fri Apr 17

If they aren't loners, actually, they shouldn't get loner blanks, in my opinion. 00:20, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

True. I thought of that before, that they do live together (aka not alone), but Ravenpaw, Barley and Jingo's group all used the loner blank as well. Anyway, if the loner's heads are raised with four paws on the ground, that'll just be exactly like the to-be blank. 00:55, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Why tweak the loners? They aren't loners. Also, if we tweak the loners we would need Mounty's permission, which she isn't active anymore. 02:36, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that would be difficult if the OA isn't around. Maybe a new blank is a better way, because they are not really "alone" and certaintly not rogues. 04:11, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

As I said, Jingo's group got loner blanks too, so I think it's kinda... yea. But then I don't think we should stop things just because a user is no longer active - I'm not trying to offense anyone, but that's true. 08:38, April 17, 2015 (UTC)

We need the OA's permission to tweak a blank- I think that's the rule. And the loner blank would be used on loners, which they aren't 11:46, April 19, 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to OA's permission to tweak a blank. It's the same ruling for PCA images- once they're posted to PCA's pages, they belong to PCA, letting us do with them as we wish. Otherwise, we'd need to ask permission to tweak for shorter tails, ripped ears, ect. If they can be tweaked, then do so. I can tell you though that Jenrock isn't really going to care and she doesn't have any of the files she had when she was active here.

I'm against tweaking the loner blank for the cats of the parks, but that's just me. 06:26, April 23, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should, the CotP remind me of BloodClan in the way they are being presented as a group. (if that makes any sense. Probably not) Anyway, I was thinking we could modify the Loner blank by moving the legs so it looks like they are standing instead of walking, moving the lifted paw up higher, having them look up, and maybe changing the position of the tail just for kicks. 15:30, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should either use the loner blanks for them or make untimely new blanks. I'm not totally for a new blank, because they aren't a extremely main group, not appearing in most every book or anything, but if that is what we need to do, I won't mind, but if it was up to me I would give them loner blanks. I don't want to tweak the loner blanks either though. 😞 ~  Sunstream   ☽☾ Ruler of the Darkness  22:59, June 1, 2015 (UTC)

If they're that distinct to have their own rank, then I think we should just create a blank for them rather than tweaking an existing one. 04:26, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see your point, and I don't disagree with it. However, there are only two cats (Arc and Ripple) who are CotP cats with descriptions who would ever use it. But then again, there are only four healers... 23:59, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

If they're a distinct rank that means they get a new blank. They're in no way related to the Clans other than River or an equivalent to a rank in the Clans like the leaders and Healers. 21:00 Wed Jun 17 2015

Can we get some comments on this??

Tbh I don't think there's much point. Since there's only two of them, it seems a little pointless, and I think people may fight over who gets them. 15:29, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's better to just use the loner blank, to be honest, since that's what they basically are. 15:57, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

Always agreed with what Beebs just said.

Looking over this, even if they are a distinct rank, I have to agree with Sorrel 23:55, July 1, 2015 (UTC)

There's really no need to have an actual "Cats of the Park" blank. It should be a loner blank. 01:15, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

If they are a distinct rank that means they should get a new blank. I'd also like to point out that healers only have like, 3 cats and soft paws have, 4. 16:06, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

If you count alts, there are 5 SPs and 8 healers, I checked. There will only ever be two of these cats. As long as we make the CotP a little different, I don't see a problem, we don't need a whole new blank. I feel that if we make a new blank, there will likely be at least some sort of a fight over who gets them. 17:37, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

I still think that if they are a distinct rank, they should get a new blank. But to maintain the peace in PCA... I'd honestly rather go with loner blanks if it means no more fighting. 17:41, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

We shouldnt rule out a blank just to avoid arguing over who gets what. Its first come, first serve, just as its always been. The main page's edit history will show who reserved first, therefore there really wouldn't be anything to fight against, showing as the proof is right there. As I said before, im sticking to it. If they're distinct enough to have their own rank, then they should get them. Number of cats getting it shouldn't be a factor, since the healers and softpaws only have a handful. 21:31, July 12, 2015 (UTC)

Have we decided what to do with this? If not, I suggest archiving it and come back at a later date, since the argument is going both ways.

I sort of agree with Breezeheart, and i stand by my old opinion that they should get new blanks, regardless of the amount of cats that would use them. 03:58, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

I say new blank, regardless of how many cats we use it on. Who knows? One of the authors might released the description of Dart, Shine or Flutter. 04:17, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Good point Stealth ^^ and yes, I agree distinct ranks should get distinct blanks, and I guess people will still want the images if they're on a tweaked blanks... I'm honestly kind of conflicted, but I would support making a new blank. 23:59, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Have we come to an agreement on this? 04:28, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

The majority appears to agree with new blanks- and in this wiki, majority rules. I believe we can move forward with that if no one else comments within three days.

I really don't think they should get a blank. There's only literally two or three cats within that rank, and imho, I think we should just tweak the loner or rogue blanks. There's not going to be anything else written upon the Cats of the Park. I mean maybe in the future when or if the authors decide to do an e-book or something about them, then I'd go with a new blank, but for now, I really don't think we should have a new blank for them. 16:11, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

If they are a distinguished rank from all the others, then they should get the blank- The number of cats who will use them shouldn't rule out the use of a blank, as per Breeze. Heck, the soft paws and healers only have a little handful, if you think about it, it didn't stop them from getting their blanks. 12:07, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

I say like the new queen process, people can choose to either tweak a different image or make a new one. Simple as that. 22:09, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Because the discussion seems to settle on either tweaking the loner blanks or making new ones, I went ahead and created the Fourm for the blank artists. Members who want to tweak the blank may submit their entries there, and members who want to create a new blank may also submit new blanks. 07:13, August 6, 2015 (UTC)

Wait a minute, why would you create an article like that when we didn't even decide on what we were going to do? Some people have still disagerde and I'm not even sure we came to an agreement even with what cloudy said. I don't know. 17:26, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

The majority of people were going new blank or loner tweak, so that covers it. I agree though it was a little quick to create the page, but it's a bit too late to go back. 22:01, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Apprentice Tutorials
So I see that they are being "re-vamped", but no one is even touching them, can someone please explain what is going on? 08:41, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure, to be honest. I think the project is just trying to get the main objectives (the chararts needed for articles) out of the way beforehand, so were able to put all of our focus into the tutorials. Thats what i thought we were doing, anyway. 16:58, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not unlocking that page. People were posting tutorials without permission, and tbh, a lot of them still have outdated information. We should sit and talk about what we'll do, because otherwise, I will not lift the protection for the page.

I think we should have a tutorial approval page, and maybe agree on which tutorials need updating? 00:49, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Ehh...kinda sounds like a lot of work, but I'm not totally against it. I think it should still be locked, but have some people submit some tutorials to snowy or beebs, and then they can upload it on there themselves. Storm &#9835;  00:51, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with above :) Also, I think some tutorials are still needed.

I think in the last discussion, tabbers were mentioned, yet not necessarily fully laid out. I'd say there'd just be tabbers concerning different types of patterns, with the foremost one being basics (shading, placement, eyes, earpink color, etc). As for "approval", many of the final products from the tutorials (finished cats), realistically, would not pass approval. The "tutorial approval page" would probably just be the talk page of the tutorials and would just need a vote, if we even wanted approval to that extent. 01:23, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Contents that are kind of new (texture, smudged shading etc) are still missing in the tutorial page.

Alright, what's going on with this? Honestly, I think we need to approve each tutorial before it goes on the page. It's not good to be teaching people methods that aren't entirely true (some of the older images have even said that using pure white is forbidden, for example; this has been proven false), or older methods that are no longer in practice. Including texture would be interesting, as would including smudged shading.

We definitely need to have them updated, they are pretty outdated, and I support adding new tutorials like texture. I agree with Atelda that we should use the talk page of the tutorials as the approval page, that way it won't clutter any of the other PCA pages. 14:45, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

So far I see the following could be updated/added:

-The shading placement tutorial needs to be redone, with the new blanks and the redone blanks. Some of the placement is wrong too.

-Texture tutorials

-Pupil placement needs a revamp

-Based on our current standard of how we do shading, most of the shading tutorials could be improved a little, but not necessarily redone.

-There should most definitely be more tutorials focused on different types of torties.

-Smudged shading tutorial

-Tweaking the color of an image

-Fixing the texture

04:06, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. However, I do think the pupil placement tutorial is fine, other than the fact it needs to be updated with new blanks. I also think the black and white tutorials could be updated; as Snow pointed out the white tutorial says you can't use pure white, and the black cat looks kind of dark gray. 16:02, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

I've already created an updated version of the pupil placement, more for myself but hopefully it's good enough to be added to the page. I agree with texture and smudged shading needs to be added and updated, and also white and black cats tutorials too. Also the colour against the ear pink, does that need updating? 21:42, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

We should do this. Totally - those tutorials have helped me so much when I first started, but I didn't realize almost half of the images don't have light sources (and problems like that).

Can we have some comments? 06:51, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be agreeing. And I do too, it would really help our new members if we put more attention to the tutorials. 07:09, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice for the original owners of some of the tutorials (the owners who are still active) to maybe, re-do theirs? I have a tutorial on there, and I have grown in skills since then, and I wouldn't mind redoing it. I agree that some of the tutorials are outdated. Maybe if the original owners of the tutorials aren't active anymore, then someone could volunteer to redo their tutorial for them? Some of them, however, I say don't need redoing.. but I guess we could maybe nominate certain tutorials for tweaking/redoing, like you would a charart? 00:34 Sun Aug 2

Is this agreed on? 04:14, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with it.

I'd love to contribute some of my skills to the apprentice tutorials :) 16:36, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and some of the original artists of the tutorials can redo theirs of they want. I also agree that approving these arts at the tutorial talk page is better than here. 03:39, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

So is this agreed on?

ok so
ok im really gonna be that person but cats like rosetail, specklepaw, birdsong, etc. isnt it an assumption to assume that theyre all pinkish-orange in rosetails case, or completely speckled like specklepaw is when its only his head described. like sure it might look dumb and not realistic, but warriors has never been about realism. so. my onion is that they should be tweaked to have said patterns/colours/whatever only where they were mentioned to be. 18:33, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Not just because i nominated specklepaw, but because if theyre only mentioned with one part specifically colored, then they shoukd have that 20:09, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Just saying, the cite for Specklepaw's description, it says he has "a pale brown freckled head" - so technically there's nothing saying the rest of his body as pale brown, unless there's another time he's described I missed. So using that idea, the rest of his body could be gray or white or something - we don't know. Obviously that doesn't make too much sense, and I'm not taking either side, just pointing out... 00:03, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably going to sound like a jerk since I just woke up but... Technically, we are all making huge assumptions when we make chararts- we don't know that this character is meant to look like this or not, and when we give a character a torn ear, we have no idea if it's its left ear or right ear, and so on. I think in this case, it's okay to make such assumptions, since it's pretty obvious that the rest of Specklepaw and such characters look like the way they are now. 00:16, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of vague descriptions like that. Ravenwing for example has a thick-furred leg, but he is listed as thick-furred. (that's more an example, thick-furred doesn't affect the art). I say if it's realistically possible a cat can have just a speckled head or a striped tail then go ahead. I definitely know a different coloured-tail tip is completely possible, and there's enough to say that Rosetail only has pinkish fur at her tail. (her name for one...) 03:42, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

'its obvious they look like that' but you dont 100% know that. and we're working from a description- as long as it matches the description, then its not an assumption, we're working from what we think they look like, but we also have proof. it doesnt matter if its that obvious, we dont have the proof, then we shouldnt add it. chararts are allowed to be whatever type of tabby and such because of artistic liberty, true, but if we went off 'we dont know what they truly look like', there'd be no art in history ever, honestly. 06:22, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

You kind of missed my point there- I was saying, if we make assumptions big enough to make art, then I think these images could pass off fine, since charart making is already a rather huge assumption. 09:52, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to slide in here and say that we decided to change Rosetail's coloring, since that was the only color we had for her... I seriously don't think we should change the chararts based on that alone. If it's realistic, then change it, but if it's not...just let it go.

Rosetail is a tabby, therefore she's default brown, she was named after her tail, so only her tail should be pinkish brown imho. 13:32, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

ok but: making a cat thats been described as a certain kind of cat is not assuming. it's following the description. it's absolutely assuming to say a cat like specklepaw is covered in speckles - it only says his head. we can hardly call ourselves a factual wiki if we go and assume this, when we arent allowed to assume anything else. 18:29, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Okay. It makes sense to have a cat with a let's say "brown tabby tail" and no other description, to be brown. That does not mean he should be a tabby (striped cat). That goes the same with Specklepaw. Rosetail was said to be tabby and brown, with a pinkish tail, but nobody said what brown she is, so I guess she could be pinkish brown? The color and pattern are totally different things in a cat imo, but many people are saying that it's the same - Why would a cat with brown tabby tail get gray fur? If it's not the tail that's what makes the cat special, why not say a striped cat? I believe they specially described Specklepaw to be unique from a usual spotted cat by saying he has a spotted head? I just can't explain it, but to me it's just common sense... Very sorry if I'm rude, that's just what happens when I can't explain what I desperately want to express. Ugh. All hail my explaining skills?

I'm aware it doesn't make sense - my point of saying this was to say it didn't. The only part of Specklepaw ever to be described was his head. I'd agree totally with you if they called him "a brown tom with a freckled head" but they described him with a brown freckled head. They weren't specifying that just his head was freckled, they were just describing a particular part of his fur... it's just as likely to be brown throughout as is to be freckled based on what description we've been given. Does this even make sense...? 13:42, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

they specifically called him brown - they didnt call the rest of him freckled, only his head. so why are we adding the entire thing when it was never said? and its nothing special in warriors. we've got grey cats with brown legs. i dont get why we get to assume this when theres a strict no assumption policy. and as for rosetail omly her tail should be pink as well, its the only part ever said to be pinkish and its still an assumption to think shes all rosy coloured too. 18:37, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

They did not specifically call him brown. I have the book (not with me right now though) and it says something like: "Daisytail could remember when his freckled, pale brown head..." it's whoever put the cite on the wiki that called him a pale brown tom, not CotC, it only describes his head as pale brown, unless I'm missing something 20:13, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

well OK dont snark at me because i havent read that book. whatever i dont know if he'd keep his charart or what but yeah, it still needs tweaking if its decided to not be. i dont care if its as obvious as a fantails tail, it needs to go. now are people gareeing or disagreeing on this or what? 20:33, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Triangular/Y Tabbies
Alright. After Cody's queen was nominated and passed, I felt the need to bring this up. I nominated Redstar, who was very, very clearly a Y and triangle tabby, and suddenly all these images are being nominated for the same reasons. Some of these really did need it; Rowanstar, for example, but Cody? Her queen in particular? There are no triangles on that. They are fine. Honestly, it's getting out of hand and it's getting very irritating. At this point it feel like we need to set up a standard for what exactly a damn Y-tabby or triangle tabby is, because people are nominating images for one stripe that looks slightly Y-shaped and they're passing. I'm suggesting that people stop nominating for triangle and Y-tabbies unless it is glaringly obvious that lots of the stripes are that style, or that we stop nominating for this altogether for now. I'm sick of this. It just feels like a need for every single damn image to be redone. 12:28 Sun Aug 9

Nominating the Y-tabby images naturally arouses intense interest in the topic- tbh, Rowanstar was not a really-obvious y tabby, imho. A lot of users here have the "this image passed so this should" thing that is perfectly natural. Many of the other images nominated were actually similar to Rowanstar's old versions, which is why i voted yes for the majority, but they did not pass.

However, I agree that things are spinning out of control, and this does need to slow down a lot, and things really need to settle down over what is not and is a Y tabby or a triangular tabby. 13:09, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

I decided to go looking for what was, in the past, considered these tabby types. This is a y-tabby and this is a triangular tabby. Some of the images we've been nominating only barely resemble these, maybe have one or two stripes that could be questioned as y/triangular tabby - they're fine. So yeah, after that I do agree with you. 13:42, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Thank god this has been brought up. I keep going to the tweak nominations and it's all triangular/y tabby - the nominees are often fine and have no need for change. I definitely agree. 16:31, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, I couldn't agree more. Its really starting to get out of hand, and frankly irritating. Redstar and Rowanstar I can see why they were nominated, but Cody and Poppydawn? No. 16:54, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Rowanstar, Bramblestar, Cody, and Poppydawn are not y tabbies. Redstar is borederline, but looks a fair bit y-like. Y tabbies and triangle tabbies are like what Icebreeze linked above. Having one or two y stripes or triangles does not mean the entire pattern is unrealistic.

When did this start? It's happening so much left and right that I'm confused as to what a y tabby or triangle tabby is. 21:58, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not very happy with Feathertail being redone. She's not a Y-tabby at all. I couldn't separate a Y-tabby and a mackerel tabby?

Feathertail was a tweaked y tabby. This was the original version, and all that was done was the stripes were smudged. Given that her images didn't match each other, it made sense to redo it, and there were also other problems with the set that you couldn't tweak. Google shows cats that look nothing like Feathertail's images in the least. It started because people are taking things way out of hand in order to be able to redo images to whatever they see fit. While some of them I didn't have a problem with (like Feathertail and Redstar), others don't necessarily need to be redone.

since when do we follow google for pelt patterns though? if we did then we might as redo every tabby that doesnt look like a 'real' one. :/ 13:52, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

join
May i join?Raptorsong (talk) 22:37, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Of course! Welcome to the project. Read the guidelines and the tutorials if you need them! 22:41, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

question
okay so here we go. in the allegiances of AFD, Birch and Pebble Heart are once again listed with their commonly occurring wrong descriptions. they're 6+ moons as of this book. However, they're still listed as kits in the allegiances. Would this warrant them alts or not? 16:12, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

I think it should warrant, since they were rogues in the story. 13:04, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree. The allegiances specifically call them kits, and I think since the cite is from them we should go with what they say for the rank, not what something said later on in the book. 13:17, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Early Settlers Blank
Alright, since we held off on making the early settlers a blank until we knew whether or not they'd become "warriors" so to say, and I think it's obvious they wont be classified as so until atleast Mothflight's Vision. I say a new blank would be needed considering they are an established group. 23:54, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

We definitely ought to give them a blank, they're far more organized that rogues, yet not Clan cats yet - they are their own group, and deserve blanks to represent that. 01:58, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

They're an established group with at least some form of basic hierarchy, with leaders. They're also called former rogues in The Blazing Star, and also aren't even listed as rogues in the allegiance lists for any of the books. The fact that they're a group with a form of community is enough to qualify them for a blank, tbh.

I think using the ancient blank is just as good- they are ancient cats. 03:03, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Throughout The Blazing Star and A Forest Divided especially they have proven to have a similar hierarchy to the Tribe at the same point in the series, just split into five different camps. They are not exactly rogues at this point, nor Clan or Tribe cats. Agreeing with the above, they are their own established group. 03:14, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Burnt, the ancient cat blanks were for the ancient tribe and the ancient tribe only. After they left, they were no longer ancient tribe cats.

I think they need separate blanks, as they have their own ranking and all of that. 14:20, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Closing the Tweak page and Nomination pages- atleast temporarily.
A few of us were discussing this in chat, and it could be really beneficial to close down the tweak/nomination pages for awhile, once the current tweaks and nominations are out of the way. The project is going overboard with this whole realism thing- to the point where its making members leave. This pickyness is getting out of control- I honestly believe closing down these pages for awhile will give everyone a chance to chill out and realize that the goal of the project isnt to be hyper-realistic, or to nominate images for redos just to have a cat to work on. We'll have a bunch of new cats to work on in September, so this could help ease the tension between users. 00:26, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

No complaints from me, and I was one of the ones supporting it. The only tweaks that should probably be done are torn ears, or additions to descriptions due to author comments, cites in books, ect. Aka, something that's actually important.

I was the one who brought this up, so I'm fine with it. 00:38, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

PCA is usually always a bundle of drama. It comes with the territory. If we closed certain aspects of the wiki every time opinions conflict, we wouldn't have an improving wiki. 00:46, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

It honestly doesn't matter to me, but I just wanna point out that this has been an 'issue' for 3 years. There have been countless discussions and arguments about realism and stuff of that nature and nothing has changed. I don't really think you can do anything to stop stuff like this. Do I think people go overboard? Yes, and I have been thinking that since 2012. It's just really hard to tell people to not redo this, and not tweak that, because when it comes down to it: it's a vote. Some people will say it's fine, while others will agree. I am personally beyond pleased with all the art on this website. Will people find flaws in them? Of course. Will a lot of them be redone in the near future? Obviously, and there's nothing you can really say or do to prevent that from happening. "Realism" has been an ongoing issue, and you either realize that it's going on, or you don't.

So, yeah, I do believe some images are redone for trivial matters. Close the tweak page if necessary, but all I'm saying is that temporarily closing tweaks will only prevent the redoing of more images and arguments until it starts back up again. 01:11 Wed Aug 12

I would support this, because some of the nominations really seems to be people being picky and wanting art to do. It's causing lots of arguments and images are being tweaked and redone unnecessarily. We should still have a way to tweak images for really important things (basically new information about a character's description) but I think that closing these pages at least temporarily could do the project some good. 01:55, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Splook. I don't support or not support closing the tweak nominations, since this problem has been here for ages before I even joined this project. 02:59, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I'm 100% in support of this. I'm getting sick and tired of seeing nominations for things that really do not need to be tweaked. Honestly bringing back the idea of tweak week isn't seeming like such a bad thought anymore. 06:21 Wed Aug 12

Okay, I take my comment back. There is way too much drama on the tweak nominations page and I now fully support closing them down since people are leaving because of it. 13:00, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Mallowfur
On Mallowfur's page, it says she's a tabby-and-white, yet there's a charart for her. Songheart (talk) 00:47, August 12, 2015 (UTC)Songheart

Default tabby coloring is brown, hence why she has a charart. Swiftbreeze was (or still is) the same case, as was Dawncloud until we found a cite for her.

leaving
yeah you probably already know this but im leaving, ive had it with this wiki and the amount of images being redone for shitty reasons. i know a lot of you will be glad to see me gone, but whatever. its not like i liked those people anyway. bye. 10:10, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

awe, i really didnt want to see you go... 11:30, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I hope you come visit us sometime, PCA will miss you. 12:06, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

We will miss you - we aren't all glad to see you go. I hope that maybe you'll come back someday. 12:36, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

...! I can't believe you are leaving, Skt. I highly doubt people will be happy to see you gone, you were an amazing artist and PCA thanks you for your dedication to the project. 12:56, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

No, Trolly. None of us are glad to see you leave. We'll miss you. And ... if you don't like them, that's fine...but I like you. And I'm gonna miss you and I know a lot of people will as well. 14:34, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Nutmeg ( TR )
I just saw Nutmeg's ( Tallstar's Revenge )  page, but they have no character pixels. Do you have any idea if they're a rogue, loner or kittypet as I want to try and to do them.

NeonDawn (talk) 10:02, August 12, 2015 (UTC)   NeonDawn

Discussions like this belong to the talk page. 12:09, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be on the talk page, but while it's here, we don't know her rank, so she doesn't get a charart. 12:40, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

No rank, no image. Sorry. 13:03, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Should I take this down or something? --NeonDawn (talk) 13:27, August 12, 2015 (UTC)  NeonDawn

Don't take this down. A senior warrior would archive this promptly. But others may add their point below. 14:19, August 12, 2015 (UTC)