Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

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 People were posting tutorials without permission, and tbh, a lot of them still have outdated information.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We definitely need to have them updated, they are pretty outdated, and I support adding new tutorials like texture.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?

i'm pretty sure this is, however an admin would need to unlock the page in order for this to proceed. 08:57, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

We might want to get some tutorials in process for approval before we scrap it all. Just shoot either Skye or I a message when you feel editing should begin. 19:20, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

So are we gonna undergo a "vote" as to what tutorials are to be redone? An example of this would be proposing what tutorial that is wished to be redone (OA's obviously have priority over their own), and explaining the changes that would be made. OA's can redo theirs automatically, and if the OA is not active, anyone can propose to do the tutorial and could undergo a vote/approval stage. I think the best way to go about this is to create a forum to make this organized and clean. 22:56 Sat Aug 22

Sounds good to me. 08:27, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 04:12, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Nope! Any ideas on when we're gonna put this through? 14:53, September 12, 2015 (UTC)

i think we could have a couple of tutorials going first. maybe somebody upload an example of a new tutorial? If it goes well, then I think the page can be unlocked and the approval and elimination process can carry out ^^ 02:33, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

Does this one work...?

Are these going to be example tutorials or are they actually going on the page once it gets revamped? 18:21 Sat Sep 26

I think they should be on the page when they're getting revamped. 13:46, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Should we have something like a Tutorials Approval Page..? 15:45, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should put someone in charge, as this is kinda a major part of the project (preferably a senior warrior+) 05:17, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

If someone is taking charge, could I do it? 05:19, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

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)

The only description we have of Specklepaw is a pale brown speckled head. That's it. It seems to me the Erin's thought it was good enough for the readers and left it as that. Hawkfoot is the same too, only her description of her head and nothing else. 08:21, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

(I literally just woke up so) It's an assumption to say she has other colors. If we have a citation for her tail, then she should have the same color everywhere. 00:56, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 04:12, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

no, she shouldnt. the only colour we have is for her tail. by all rights she probably shouldnt even have an image, but since we've got the brown tabby thing, thats what should be used. youre still assuming shes entirely pinkish. HotTeacher69 (talk) 11:09, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

We have ONE color of her- it's an assumption to say she has other colors, we aren't assuming she's entirely pinkish- she /has/ one color, and we have no cite for other colors. She should stay pinkish. 02:37, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

it was only ever her tail described, you are assuming the rest of her is pinkish. we shouldnt be picking and choosing what we describe- if its her tail only, then it should be her tail only. this is the entire point of the brown tabby option; if we dont have a colour, we use it. HotTeacher69 (talk) 02:40, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

She was named for her tail, not her whole pelt. It even says just her tail 03:09, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

We are still assuming she has other colors, we have one color, so what if it's her tail? We don't know if her legs and bodies are going to be other colors, we have one color of her fur, we don't have others. 03:11, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

Shes specifically stated as tabby is she not? And isnt default tabby brown? So what if she has one color for her tail, it should still only be her tail, it was specifically aaid just her tail 03:15, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

we're not assuming she has other colours though. we just don't know what her main pelt colour is. that's why we use the brown tabby, because otherwise cats like speckletail wouldn't have images. she's called tabby, yeah, and it'd be false to say that she's entirely pinkish. HotTeacher69 (talk) 09:59, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna butt in here and say that Winter is absolutely correct for Rosetail's case- she would need to be a brown tabby with a pinkish-orange tail..which makes no sense whatsoever, but it's what we have.

I still think that "brown tabby" default is foolish. It's an assumpation and I thought we were heavily against those here. Whatever. we can bring that up another time. 12:13, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

It is not an assumption at all. Didn't you guys ask Kate what the default tabby is? And isn't she the one to go by?? 12:50, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

One of the Erin's confirmed that otherwise specified otherwise, a tabby is brown. I still think it's an assumption that Rosetail is completely pinkish. 22:11, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

k so dropping specklepaw, but as a reminder if theyve only got one description, write it out as its said, because his wasnt. and are we (mostly) in agreement she should be brown main tail pinkish, or need more input? 17:08, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, and honestly I don't mind tweaking the set again if that's what the conclusion ends up being. 20:47, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Yep. All good to me. 05:01, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Minor characters
Since PC is pretty close to making this minor characters page, I'd like to suggest an idea for chararts for the page. Since there are probably gonna be a lot of cats and we can't just put 'Minorchar1.warrior.png', 'Minorchar2.warrior.png' etc. forever, I say we should have a few generic images made up for this page, with basic patterns/pelt colours like, like brown [tabby], black, silver [tabby], etc.. It'd be a lot easier than making an image for every single minor character, plus naming would be a lot easier. Thoughts? 07:19 Tue Sep 8

Sounds like a good idea to me 13:51, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

i think having like five different images for each pelt type [like, for example, five different types of tabby, or five tortoiseshells] or something would be okay as we could just reuse them. 19:14, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in that. They're all described differently - why would we need a generic image? They don't all look alike, and if anything I actually don't see why we're making a minor character page. Does this mean all of the minor character articles would be deleted? 19:42, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

No, Icy. There is no way that's happening. This page is for minor characters that aren't named within the series, but do have descriptions and a slight bit of history.

tbh not every cat with the same description would look the same as each other. That wouldn't make much sense. 11:11, September 10, 2015 (UTC)

^ Accuse us of wanting more art if you want, but then again, this is like making a tortie image for every single tortie cat in Warriors :/ Cats looks different and none of their pelts match- tbh, do we even need chararts for the minor characters page? 01:46, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

So you guys are prepared to come up for different names, correct those names when more characters are inevitably added to the list, and make hundreds and hundreds of images for characters that really are barely worth a second glance? It's too much work. One image for each common pelt type will make it so much easier to have people focus on other things. Like putting the actual page together. Because if we do make this page, it'll take forever to be written. It'll take even longer if people are more focused on the art than the page itself, which is what will happen if every single minor character gets an individual image.

But hey, if you guys want to ignore the encyclopaedic areas of this encyclopaedia for cat pictures, whatever. 06:25 Fri Sep 11

I'd say that we don't need any art for this page. i mean... These characters barely have any significance and their history would be less than one sentence, the art would take up too much space on the page and look awkward with the one-sentence history.

But if we are going with art, cats don't look the same. It doesn't matter that they are minor characters? They should still get the individual image. It's like giving every single character a basis image- cats have different pelt patterns. but TBH, there shouldn't need to be art on a page where histories have only one sentence. 06:54, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

So...do I go and edit the template I've made up? It's going to look a bit bland and..strange without the image.

Speaking of the template, I was told to make the history part of it. So it wouldn't look 'odd'. And so what if they all look the same? If you don't have an image, the page is boring and unreadable if you have a short attention span. I actually do have trouble reading and editing the longer articles because really...there's nothing interesting besides a long wall of text. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but for me and others with issues with attention spans, yeah, it wouldn't be a very easy page to even look at.

There would be nothing wrong with several characters having the same image. Absolutely nothing. Because you do find cats that have very nearly identical pelt colours/patterns in real life, and don't tell me you can't. Every black cat has the same colour, and every white cat has the same unless they're going yellow, which we wouldn't have proof for for any of these cats.

Besides, who wants to bet that a few months later we'll have people demanding that the page have images anyway. lmao. 13:26 Fri Sep 11

I think just go with what normally is happening with pages. We haven't even sorted how many charaacters/which characters we will be adding, so try not to assume. This was posted too quickly honestly. 08:29, September 14, 2015 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? 13:47, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait and see about the amount of characters that will be with the page, then decide what to do with it. I think that'd be the best course of action right now. 20:46, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Tweak Limit
Alright, so seeing Stealthfire's thing on Stormtail got me thinking. When we implemented the week limit for tweaks on the tweak page (not the claim time), we had a fair bit more members than we do now, and it was like that to prevent people from hogging tweaks, or uploading them...like... every six days or something like that. Since many things that are tweaked are brought up after the image is approved for tweaking (a very good example is Stormtail, in this case; Stealthfire was asked to fix the shading and ear pink, among other things), and some of it isn't easy.

No, I'm not calling anyone here inexperienced. That's hardly what I mean. Different colors are harder to work with than others. Lineart tweaks are another thing that are easy for some (like Berry), or harder for others (like me). What I'd like to do is promise eliminating the tweak limit of one week, and either extending it to the two weeks, like redone images, or just get rid of it altogether. I would think that it would lessen the amount of.. rushed tweaks, so to say, because people are so adamant on getting it done within one week. It might take some of the stress off people too, imo.

Now, again, I'm not talking about the claim time, because one week is pretty good for that. I'm talking about once a tweak is posted on the tweak page.

That makes sense. Rushing images sucks >.> But I actually think there should be a limit to the amount of images a user can claim though...

We usually do have an unwritten limit, and if someone feels that another user is claiming too many, then they usually speak up. I think we had it on... three or four images, or claiming an entire set of images; like say if Flametail were redone. An entire set would be his kit, apprentice, mca, mc, and StarClan image, but since you can layer the mca/app lineart over each other, that counts as one image..and maybe one or two small tweaks. I've spoken up before when I think someone's claimed too many tweaks, and if you want to set a limit in stone, that's fine with me.

This also isn't an invitation to nominate someone else's images just because you like the character and you know they are unable to claim them. (I am not saying anyone in particular; I know this has happened before and I do not want to see it again.) If I ever see anyone doing it, I will automatically decline the nomination and I would even like to consider barring someone from claiming tweaks for one week. I've had that done to me before and it's one of the rudest things someone can ever do.

Yeah I think really lengthy tweaks and redo's should be longer, cause really redo's are like creating a new image, and I was lucky my last approved image just made a week. I looked through the guidelines and this is what it said: A user can have a maximum of three images claimed via the tweak nomination page at a time, excluding images in a set. 21:27, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. Extending the limit or trashing it all together could relieve a lot of stress and hassle in the future. 02:37, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

Anymore comments? Or does anyone want to put this up to a vote? 13:49, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me - honestly, I always hated having to have a short amount of time to complete tweaks, and having an extended time on completing them would make things so much easier. I think it'd be a good idea to put it up for vote. 20:40, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a good time to put it up for a vote. I find that 1 week isn't really enough, because rushing tweaks really does suck, as Silver said. 0:05 Fri Oct 9

Question for Photoshop users
So I've been seeing people (who probably don't use Photoshop) talking about putting shading layers on multiply. It's apparently supposed to make everything outside the blank disapear. When I do it with the highlights they just entirely disapear, and with the shading nothing happens at all. So, does this method not work with Photoshop? 15:03, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

I've used Photoshop since I was incredibly young, and I've never heard of shadows 'disappearing' outside any lines after Multiply.

The reason your highlights vanished is because Multiply makes things darker depending on how dark or light the layer's color is, e.g. a light gray would make everything barely darker, while a pure black would make everything pure black... if that makes sense. White would do absolutely nothing under Multiply.

If you're looking for a way to easily erase all the waste, here's what I've been doing: on the lineart's layer, use the Paint Bucket tool to paint the background a bright color. Then, once you're done with your picture, use the Magic Wand tool to select all the bright color, and delete it. While still selected, go through all the other layers and press delete on each one; this should delete all waste in the selected area, which is your background. Then deselect when done.

To answer your question: I've never heard of such a 'method', and it's easy enough to delete the waste without going through it with the Eraser tool. So... *shrug* --ZootVine (talk) 18:34, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

I do use that method you suggested. The multiply-making-shadows-disapear thing is mentioned in the apprentice tutorials. Maybe in Gimp or Paint or something like that Multiply is something else? Thanks for answering! 21:35, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

What multiply does is to use the colors from the top and bottom and multiply them together, it results in a darker image and usually, using this layer mode on highlights isn't a good idea. I'd suggest the layer mode Overlay, it combines the multiply and screen blend modes- it gets rid of the waste and usually makes the highlights look more natural. I hope this helped ;) 23:53, September 19, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make the waste disapear for me. 01:32, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't for me sometimes. Layer modes don't work exactly the same on GIMP and Photoshop (I know because I use both) I think you should just get rid of waste by deleting it - if you want to prevent from needing to blur it again (I know it might be hard for new users), just duplicate your layer and make it invisible before deleting waste.

When you set it to multiply, the waste won't automatically disappear. It will disappear once you've got rid of the background. 23:40, September 25, 2015 (UTC)

But there never was a background... 01:06, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

Ne, the base color.

But even after I remove the base color from the outside of the blank, the waste still does not disapear. 19:20, September 30, 2015 (UTC)

I use a clipping mask in Photoshop- what it does is basically clip the upper layers to the bottom one and actually prevents waste. This is Littlecloud's file, for example. What that does is eliminate the waste, if there was any, and only shows in the area that matches the bottom layer (ie; my bottom layer is always the base, so it will only show the other layers if they're in the same place as the base). I use Photoshop CS5, and have for a while. I don't think this option is available in GIMP, though...

I actually have started using multiply on my shading layer, not because it's supposed to remove waste, but simply because I think it looks better. 23:18, October 1, 2015 (UTC)

What multiply does is that it allows colors from previous layer to show through the layer you put on multiply. This is extremely useful with shading as it: You should not use multiply for highlights. Instead, I reccomend putting the layer on "Overlay", like Burnt said. What multiply does is it makes the layer lighter instead of darker. Also intesifies the color of thre highlight. For example, if I were to make the highlights a pale peach color over an orange base, it would intensify the orange and make it seem brighter.
 * 1) Makes the shading darker.
 * 2) Allows markings such as dapples/stripes to show through the shading.
 * 3) And does not show the waste after you make the image transparent. (That is, after deleting the waste the first time, it will never show up again).

Hope this helps. :) 0:03 Fri Oct 9

Claiming Tweaks
Okay, honestly. The fact this even needs to be brought up is a tiny bit disappointing. We need to stop with the super-quick claiming of tweaks, especially if the OA is still active. It's annoying and it's leading to a lot of arguments that could be very easily avoided by using a little bit of common sense.

I'd like to suggest that we make it an actual rule that, if you know the OA is still/might still be active, you ask them before you claim. None of the "if the OA doesn't want it I do!!" crap, go to their talk, notify them of the tweak, and ask them if you can have it. If you miss out on claiming the image, tough luck. It's better than having the OA upset over losing their image. 04:11 Sat Oct 3

I 100% agree. I read that whole argument last night, having just noticed it, and I had to admit I was somewhat appalled by the arguing that was going on. Maybe a tweak cannot be approved until the OA says whether they want their image or not? 08:14, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

And if they're notified, give them a chance to respond. Especially if it's an obviously passing nomination, like Songbird or Thistleclaw's recent ones. Don't just assume someone doesn't want it just because they don't answer within a few hours of you messaging them. I know in some cases, many of the people here are in school, (like Jayie, Breezey, [who works and has class], Berry, Beebs, ect) or in the cases of myself, David, and a couple others- we have full-time (or close enough to it) jobs. Or, some like Leggy, Ivystripe, and Paleh, who might take a day or two or three to respond, depending on what their day-to-day activities are. Give them ample time to respond (like, say, 72 hours), before you claim the image for yourself.

It honestly feels like the respect for the OAs is dwindling to near nothing because they aren't quite as active as some of the other members here. Just because a user doesn't edit non-stop or check the wiki every second, doesn't mean they cannot be contacted. We need to start showing more respect for the users here, even if you think "it's just art and if they're not around anymore" or something like that. If an image needs to be redone for a legitimate reason, and the OA is still fairly active and you'd think they would want to redo it themselves, then reach out to them. They don't bite.

Yeah people can be away for hours for things called work/school and sleep. I think there needs some more guidelines for this. 19:52, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said by the above users. The winter/fall and spring seasons are busy for most people, including me. I have class five days a week along with work after school, so I barely get a lot of time to check all the project pages, let alone the nominations. I'm sure we could all benefit from this, and it will cease any more arguments like what happened on Thistleclaw's dark forest redo. 20:29, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

i'm for 3 days, a week is a bit too long and it's enough time for someone to check. after that it can be a free for all. 11:05, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with asking to OA first. I appreciated it when both Skye and Stealth came to and notified me of pending tweak nominations. Honestly, I have been in the situation when someone tweaks my image without my permission/they don't tell me about it, and that angers me. Even if they aren't very active I request that you go to the Oa and notify them. I say this pretty much in general. I mean, it's easier to tweak the image if you own the file anyway, thus I completely agree with the idea.

Also, I find that timezones really obstruct times when nominations and reservations happen. For example, I could be asleep, at school, or working when something comes up. I may not be able to get on it on time, either. A 3 day wait is actually quite a good suggestion. This is an example for me; I don't speak on behalf on anyone in PCA except for me. 23:53 Thu Oct 8

Shellheart elder
There is a pervious version with no ragged fur, should we revert it to that? 05:15, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

jay's wing/jayfeather
shouldn't they look exactly the same? technically, Jayfeather travels back in time as himself, but just changes his name. ~ Blossomstream The War Is Over 08:48, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I have thought about this too. There is evidence it's possible but it's not really specifically pointed out (I think). I agree though, they should be treated as the same cats. 08:59, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

They are literally the same cats. Jayfeather travelled back in time and basically /was/ Jay's wing... 10:02, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't Jayfeather reincarnated from Jay's Wing? If they are, then they're two different cats. That'd be like saying Cinderpelt and Cinderheart are exactly the same. If not, then yes, they should look the same and classified as the same. 10:42 Tue Oct 13

Jay's Wing existed before Jayfeather went back in time. They're two different cats- Jayfeather became Jay's Wing, sure, but it is very much said they are two different cats. If this were the case, Lion's Roar and Dove's Wing would need to be addressed, and there is outright proof they are their own cats.

Reincarnation is actually a touchy and unclear fact in Warriors. I think that from the perspective, they are the same but...also aren’t. Half Moon tells Jay’s Wing she will wait for him forever, and Kate says that Half Moon and Jayfeather will walk together in the skies, and Jay’s Wing won’t go there. I don’t know if that’ll help, but eh. Pardon me. I’m tired and dead inside. 14:17, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I personally think Cinderheart should actually look exactly like Cinderpelt, personally, as well as the Three and their previous incarnations. 16:46, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

But if they're never said to look exactly alike, then why should we get rid of some wonderful chararts based on something we have no proof for? Being a reincarnation does not mean they look alike. Unless we have a cite that says they look exactly alike, there isn't any reason to redo their images that has been presented so far. I question if people realize that Power of Three exists... Dove's Wing, Lion's Roar, and Jay's Wing are very much their own characters and are not Dovewing, Lionblaze, and Jayfeather. It's the same for Cinderheart and Cinderpelt; if you can find something that says they look alike, then sure. Also, Cinderpelt is not a tabby; Cinderheart is.

What grounds do you have for saying they're separate characters? It's reincarnation. That's when someone comes back from the dead. They don't have to look the same since we don't have a site for that, but they are the same character. Sorry that this is a bit rude, I just felt that I had to say this. 17:39, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

yeah except he only came to be jay's wing when he came out of the tunnels. but that doesnt matter to this. theres no evidence saying they look the same, thats assuming. especially cuz jay's wing is u know. not blind. 17:45, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

What grounds do I have, Princess? I have the book Long Shadows to support me. I do not see anything that supports Jay's Wing and Jayfeather being the same cat, especially since it was established that Jay's Wing existed before Jayfeather went to the past.

Whatever, think what you like. 17:50, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

How am I thinking what I like????? I literally have book evidence that does not support this. Book evidence takes priority over an opinion or theory. This book clearly establishes all three as their own characters. There has been nothing brought forward in the books thus far that supports making them match. Especially in the case of Cinderheart and Cinderpelt; they do not have the same description, and if we made one match the other, we'd be making them both solids or both tabbies, and either way would be wrong.

I just did not interpret the book that way. But you did, and anyway I haven't read the books in a while so you're probably right, although I still do not agree with you. I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you. There is no need to be hostile. 18:06, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

But I'm not being hostile... I just read Long Shadows a couple of weeks ago, and I constantly use it when I'm working on articles. I know people are entitled to their own opinion, but there's a difference between facts proven by a book and a theory that someone likes.

I simply fail to see how it is proven that Jayfeather wasn't reincarnated from Jay's Wing. (which would make them the same character) They weren't in the same place at the same time... 18:43, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I never said they weren't reincarnated; we have proof that says they were. Cinderheart, Jayfeather, Lionblaze, and Dovewing are reincarnated from Cinderpelt, Jay's Wing, Lion's Roar, and Dove's Wing, respectively. I'm saying that they should not be treated as the same characters, as it's been proven in the book that they aren't. Heck, Cinderheart's entire character arc is about how she is not Cinderpelt, for example.

True. Ugh, I hate Warriors reincarnation. But that's off topic. You've convinced me. :) 18:50, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Jayfeather literally /was/ Jay's Wing. Sure, we don't know if Lion's Roar and stuff were the same, but he literally /was/ Jay's Wing. The real Jay's Wing died in the tunnels and apparently Jayfeather came... back. I don't think this is anywhere near the same with CInderpelt's case. 02:02, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

it doesnt mean they look the same? wouldnt you think they would have freaked out if he'd suddenly come back looking...different? sure you could argue he always looked the same, but there's no proof for it, so it doesn't matter. you can't redo it based on non existant evidence. 10:09, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

Shattered Ice
I've been looking at this guy for a while and why does he have a warrior image? He's not even /listed/ as a warrior. If the case is that "every cat in everyone's group is now a warrior", then that should honestly go for every cat. Also, him being a tunneler perplexes me in which I'll probably bring that up with PC after this is settled. (Him being a tunneler was cited in TR. Shattered Ice wasn't even alive then.) 00:28, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

I have realized my mistake. Tunneler =/= warrior. But still. He shouldn't have a warrior image because he was never /cited/ for being a tunneler, and honestly, back in those days we don't even know if tunneler equals being a warrior. There were also literally no warriors. 00:30, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we even have proof that the shattered ice in TR is the same as the one in DOTC? 02:04, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this a PC discussion? 02:08, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

No. He has a warrior image in which he shouldn't. 02:12, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

This is very much a PC discussion to decide whether or not being listed as a tunneler counts as a dual cite for a warrior. We handle the art, not the cites. He got the art due to having a citation for a warrior rank. If the cite is wrong, then it needs to go to PC, not PCA.

Categories
Alright, I just went through the "uncategorized images" page, and I found a lot of approved PCA images in there. Here is a nice reminder to all leads that categories must go on approved images when they are approved!! For example; if Leafpool was called black. The categories that go on that image would be: Now, that being said, only approved images get these categories. Declined images do not, and should promptly be tagged for deletion if they will not be used in the future (such as an unwarranted alt). There's no point in tagging images that will end up being claimed and used. It is much easier, cleaner, and generally nicer to have everything categorized.
 * Approved Character Images - since it is an approved image.
 * Warrior Medicine Cat Character Images - don't ask; it's been in use for longer than I've been around.
 * Alternate Character Images - as it is an alternate, this category is necessary.

Some of these images have been approved for well over a year and didn't have a category added to them. I know I've said this before, but I've seen that many people still have not been doing this. It's extremely important to PCA to have these properly listed and categorized. Any questions, please ask!

I'm probably only asking because I'm dead tired. How do I 'tag' the images for deletion? I'm pretty sure it's not the same as an article. Also, for tweaked and redone images, if it's declined or withdrawn we would revert it to before, right? 02:44, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Tabbies and Tortoiseshells
Okay, I know this has been brought up before, and I'm here to finally close this discussion once and for all. I know many of us think differently, but here goes:
 * Tabbies:


 * "All tabbies have an 'M' on their foreheads". If they got stripes, they're tabbies, are they not? Whether it's only on their heads, on their legs, or tail, they're still considered tabbies. Here's some more on a tabby cat.
 * Here's another reference regarding the tabby striped kitties.


 * Tortoiseshells:


 * "Also called Torties for short, these cats combine two colors other than white, either closely mixed or in large patches". Notice how it says other than white. I know this one is going to spark a lot of anger in tortoiseshell-and-white lovers, but honestly...honestly, if they're not called tortoiseshell-and-white, they should not have any white on them whatsoever.
 * Calicoes are different than tortoiseshells. Why? They're tortoiseshell-and-white cats. Oh, you may think that it's just the North American term for tortoiseshells, but it is not. I kid you not, it says there in that wiki page, "Outside of North America, the pattern is more usually called tortoiseshell-and-white," which is most more than likely why Vicky said once that she thought calico and tortoiseshell were the same thing.

This brings my points to a close, but one more thing. I do remember a lot of PCA and PC leads telling us younger users that try desperately to find cites for family, descriptions, etc., that thinking and a definable yes or no is not the same thing. Another reason why I brought this up was regarding Firestar's alternate kittypet image. If I recall, I could've sworn he had an M on his forehead? In which case he is a tabby, and it is not a warranted image.

Now I know this may cause a lot of drama, and for which I'm honestly greatly trying to avoid anything bad happening. And I know Warriors is not realistic in any sense, and I'm not trying to force realism on this Wiki (and if you think I am, well 8, but this is something that seriously needs to be addressed, as these are very valid points I'm trying to get across. 03:01, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

I've recently studied tortoiseshell colouring actually. Tortoiseshells (nothing else), are black and orange, no stripes. Diluted tortoiseshells are cream and blue-gray. I'm not sure how strict you want to get with the tortoiseshells colouring, but those are two example of tortoiseshells. 03:20, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Warriors have never been realistic. We've always used white and sometimes not in some torties. Theirs no point in redoing /every/ torite. Thats just rediculous. Its been like this for years- so says the approved Charart list. 03:28, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

I just read a little bit more on tortoiseshells and it says "very small amounts of white can be seen on occasion." (from the wikipedia), and in another case, it read under a picture of a bi-colored tortoiseshell "Individual white hairs and light-colored hair patches are visible, but they are small compared with the orange and black patches." So in other words even if it doesn't pass to just redo the torts, at least reduce the amount of white so that there's little to none if they're not specifically called tort-and-white. 03:32, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Before I exactly say my opinion, I want to say that I have no intention of being rude in any way, but tbh does it really matter about the pattern? Like Bramble said, Warriors has never been realistic. And PCA is about expressing yourself through charart. If approved chararts such as Daisytoe are able to have some unrealistic (but very amazing) patterns, then I don't see a problem with this. There's no point in redoing/tweaking every single tortoiseshell charart just because in real life, tortoiseshells have X amount of or no white fur. ~Skiddley Riddley ♫ ♪ 03:41, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

But didn't Icy say that she has seen firsthand the Mickey Mouse ear pattern? So it's not unrealistic 03:45, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

There's honestly no point in redoing so many beautiful tortie images just for the sake of realism. Also, the graphic novels depicted all tabbies in a certain way, in that case, Firestar was obviously not a tabby. 03:52, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Winter, Wikipedia has never been a good source to get info. And why do we need to have everything match the law of genetics for a fantasy cat series? Its seriously just Charart. Not a beauty contest to see who can be the most realistic. Im sorry if I'm coming off rude, but to be honest, realism isn't... something people worry too about when making Charart. Some things yeah, but this Tabby, Tortie, and Calico thing is just pushing the wiki to be a genetic cat ruling wiki. 03:54, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I saw that Mickey Mouse pattern. Hey, guys, I'd give my hand to go back there and record the clip I saw. (Next time? :o) 03:59, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has never been a good source to get info"? Then what's this? I'm sorry if it's rude, but that's just what you're saying: this isn't a good source for info. And I am not doing this for charart or for the sake of realism, and I'd rather you didn't point accusing fingers at me. Yes I am a realism artist, yes I am trying to get a point across, but nowhere did I say I wanted to bring realism here. I know this is a fantasy series. Obviously these cats freaking talk. Yes, it's not real! No it was never meant to be, therefore realism is something that's not heavily influenced here. I am trying to get a point across that tortoiseshells and calicoes are something completely different... And @Fox about the tabby thing in the graphic novels...wasn't it said somewhere by someone that all people depict what cats look like differently? So couldn't the artist of the graphic novels have thought of Firestar as a solid cat with an M on his forehead? Plus the fact that Firestar was never actually confirmed as a tabby until just recently..... 04:01, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

People can edit WIkipedia, so says my teacher- im going to listen to him. It seemed that you wanted torties to be genetically correct (well thats what i thought the definition of what you typed, because, that sounded like it :I ) Besdies what's the point of bringing this up if your just trying to make a point. I dont think people will take the time to make the torties and calicos corrections. :P 04:07, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

The point of bringing this up was to make a point, as we were discussing it in chat before you came on. Skye told me to bring it up with PCA 04:09, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

A tabby is a cat with distinctive pelt patterns. Having a couple of markings on a forehead- regardless of it being an M, is not a distinctive tabby. Heck, it's not even a pointed tabby. Also, um, posting a huge wall of text because of /one/ image is really overreactive tbh. 04:13, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

No, I was there, I saw the commet, i just didnt reply because he said if you wanted to. And i had no clue you where acctully going to do it. 04:16, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Then many of the cats with a couple of tabby stripes on their chararts, and being called tabby, shouldn't have just those tiny amounts of stripes? And my point here is that Firestar was not confirmed as a tabby until very recently, meaning that the graphic novel, whenever it was released, was way before he was confirmed as a tabby, meaning that the artist of said graphic novel, could have depicted he just had an M on his forehead, meaning tabby. 04:18, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Um, couple of tabby stripes is still distinctive pattern, pointed tabbies are one of the many rare tabby patterns in the world of genetics with merely markings on the legs, the tail, and the head, markings on the head is totally different from any, it's not distinct. Also, white is seen /very, very/ commonly in tortoiseshells, there is absolutely no need to redo a bunch of beautiful images because of genetic accuracy. 04:21, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

A couple tabby stripes is a pattern! Yes, just as an M on a forehead is a distinctive tabby marking. And those are calicoes....not tortoiseshells. Tortoiseshells are bi-color. And can have very very very small amounts of white 04:24, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Can we please stop trying to force hyper-realistic things on everyone? The series is not reaslitic. It does not matter and takes away from the fun of the project. If you want a project that enforces it, why not make your own wiki with a charart project?