Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Non-Clan Leader Blanks
I was talking with a few users in Discord and they suggested I bring this up here. The non-Clan leaders are pretty much the cats that lead their little rogue/loner groups, I suggest a blank for the Non-Clan leaders. Since they technically get a rank of being leader but aren't actually Clans I think it'd be a great idea to have a blank fit for them. The leaders that would more or less count for this would be like Darktail, Harley, Jingo, etc. I don't really think BloodClan would considering they were referred as a Clan in the books. Thoughts? 09:15, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a reason to give them a different blank. There really isn't much difference from a Clan leader besides the nine lives, and even then Nightstar and Mothpelt were leader with one life. Stoneteller has a blank because that role is a medcat and leader hybrid. 9:43 Wed Feb 13 2019

i still think at the most it should be a somewhat minor tweak of the current ones if anything at all. another idea (that would be pc's jurisdiction) would be adding clan leader as the thing in the infobox, instead of just leader as it is now. 09:58, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they'd need a different blank. It's sort of like making blanks for clan queens and non-clan queens, which would be pretty unnecessary.

Agreeing with Fox and Breezey here. Another blank is not necessary. Those cats are still technically seen as leaders, even if they don't have nine lives. 18:18, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with above. They're not all that different from clan leaders in terms of role. 14:10, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary for them to have separate blanks. In the end, they're all leaders, whether they have nine lives, or are in a Clan or not. 14:31, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not another blank but maybe a tweak to their art to show their non-clan like Da ud said earlier. 16:13, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I think we should tweak the current one to show some difference; there is a notable difference between Clan leaders and other leaders. It isn't quite just the nine lives, it's the rules they live by, their duties, how they act - all of which makes them so much different from cats like Jumper and Fog.

We could definitely tweak them.... but we also made a cotp blank for fewer cats than we have cited as non-clan leaders. So really I have no preference to how we go about this. 18:25, 02/15/2019

I agree there, that's why I brought this up. A blank was even made for the rank of mediator and CotP and I think non-clan leaders would count too. 18:52, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have a non-clan leader blank, but I think it should just be slightly tweaked,  maby a new blank in a simalar position? ❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 22:18, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Kinda divided but since this stalled... any other comments before a vote on whether to make a tweaked version or no?

I honestly think it'd be a waste seeing as a big defining difference between non-Clan leaders and Clan leaders, from what I remember, is their faith (the whole nine lives thing) - which isn't a physical thing. A leader is a leader honestly - seeing as they do the same things. 21:33 Thu Feb 28 2019

I'm going to agree with Max. There is zero difference, and leaders are leaders, non-Clan or Clan. 00:56, March 4, 2019 (UTC)

I do feel there is a difference between Clan leaders and non-Clan leaders. For one, the nine lives. The other thing is the Clans are very rigid with their rules. They don't switch leaders like The Ancients did, and they have strict rules on who is next in line and the warrior code also demands loyalty to their leaders. Other leaders do not really have that.

Although I don't think a whole new blank is necessary. Perhaps just a tweaked version of the leader blank? Like we did with the old healer blank.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:00, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

I think tweaking the blank would be good enough. Anymore comments?

16:16, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

If we're tweaking the blank, which I still don't think is necessary, I want to do it. 17:37 Sun Mar 24 2019

I don't think tweaking or adding a new blank is necessary. To be honest, I don't think the non-Clan leaders should be given a leader blank at all since they're really just rogues, but they've already been given art so I can't really speak much about that. But, like previous statements are said, non-Clan leaders are just leaders of a different group of cats, but they aren't physically different or do any different tasks. How would the blank even be tweaked to represent non-Clan cats without changing it entirely? If it's only going to be tweaked slightly, then I think that it's more work to do that for a small number of cats than to just leave the art as it is now. 19:25 Sun Mar 24

Agreed with Splook.^^ 22:26, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with tweaking the blank. I do think non-Clan leaders should still be given the leader blank, they are still leaders of their groups, but I don't think they should have their own separate one. It just seems unnecessary to go through the whole tweaking/making a new blank process when in the end, they are all just leaders of their groups, guiding the cats around them. Any other comments? 16:38, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Non-clan leaders should still be given a blank because they're still leaders. Even though they're a rogue, they still have a semblance of authority over the other cats, like how Fog represented her group in TS. As for creating a new blank/tweaking the leader/just give them the leader blank, I don't have any preference.

Non-Clan leaders should still get the blank, as they are still leaders amongst their cats, but, I don't think we should tweak/make another blank for them. I'm sure the books even directly state that the only difference is spiritual or something, but still. Leader blanks are leader blanks nonetheless.

Alternate Charart Section
Some characters, like Tawnypelt have so many alts that the gallery looks a little clunky and disorganized. Perhaps we should have a separate gallery for the alts? This way the chararts look more organized. It might also be helpful to have all the non-alts in one section for visual purposes. Thoughts?

I like this idea! Half the time, I look at the art for a quick glance, and I think the wrong one is what the really look like! I 100% support this. Welcome, to a world  of wonder,  and beauty!  Now follow me,  into the light!  04:50, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for it. Especially for cats like Brackenfur and Bluestar, too. Sometimes all those alts together can be quite an eyesore. 05:00, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

absolutely since mistakes are so prominent in this stupid series 09:17, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Would this work?

Could also just reorder the images so the same alts are together. 11:20 Wed Feb 20 2019

I think that might end up looking messy for characters with a lot of different mistakes throughout the series, and it might get trickier to organize if that is the case.

for extreme cases like Tawnypelt and stuff, sure, but not if they only have an alt or two; just in the interest of section counts it'd be good to just do it for those that need it imo

any other comments?

Not really good at coding or anything, but would it be possible to put them into seperate tabs within the gallery? 21:13, February 28, 2019 (UTC)

hmmm tabs?

Ooh yes, I do like the look of those. 19:12, March 3, 2019 (UTC)

Yes that tabs would work great! Tawnypelt is getting so long and confusing ><Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:01, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

Any more comments?

16:17, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Popping in here to say I agree and that Tawnypelt, Bluestar, Sol and others could use this. 22:46, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

i worry those tabs might not work for some people, as evidenced by the attempt at official art tabs

Is there any specific reports of what people are having trouble with? It might be something fixable. On another wiki I was on I had to custom make a new tab system cause of some kind of issues on different devices or something (I can't remember the specifics), and it ended up working fine after that.

Unsure if this is helpful but here is the attempt at integrating the tabs: [//warriors.fandom.com/index.php?title=Firestar%2FMain_article&diff=1351841&oldid=1351364 https://warriors.fandom.com/index.php?title=Firestar%2FMain_article&diff=1351841&oldid=1351364]

Unfortunately I don't have a screenshot of what I saw but basically the page wouldn't load and kept on refreshing itself. The gallery itself wouldn't show either. Maybe it has something to do with tabs being in a tab

Comments? 16:38, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Minor Characters Images
I'm loving all these chararts we are adding for the minor characters pages, but I'm noticing a problem regarding characters we cannot give a blank to. If you check Omen of the Stars page, I've been filling in The Fourth Apprentice and I'm not even done yet, and there are so many characters we cannot give a blank to.

So I'm wondering if we can find alternatives to these characters, instead of cluttering the pages with Noimage.png. For example, perhaps with Clan cats we can give them their Clan's symbol?

Spooky also mentioned a new blank (yay more!) where it's a general adult cat blank for cats we have no idea of their rank, but still have a description. The Super editions page is a great example. There is so many on there we have no idea their rank (or even Clan) and so we cannot give them a blank, despite having a description.

What do you think?Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  22:14, March 10, 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how I think about a generic blank...I think it's not too far off to just give them a blank closest to what they might be. Not a rank, that's PC, but saying a Clan cat gets a warrior blank if unknown, Tribe gets a cave-guard, etc. would work. 10:54 Mon Mar 11 2019

Could we just use the unknown residence blank when one gets approved? But in my opinion, as Breezey said just using a warrior blank, or cave-guard would work better. 18:15, March 11, 2019 (UTC

could a new ¨unknown rank¨ blank workWillowstep21 (talk) 14:02, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

I mean personally I don't think these characters have to get images, but if it's agreed that they should, I think whiskey's idea sounded good. I guess in case we would just vote on which blank would be considered "standard" in certain cases?

I don't think we should use pre-existing blanks for characters that don't have a cited rank. By using the warrior blank, it appears as if we're assuming that some Clan cat is a warrior when the character could just as well be an apprentice, queen, or elder for all the information that's in the book. Making one of these blanks "standard" distorts the actual meaning of the blank and would likely be misleading for readers who don't know all the reasoning behind the choice. I don't think it's necessary to give these characters images anyway because of how minor they are, but if we did I'd favor using an "unknown" blank instead. 19:50, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Mean to get to this sooner, but I agree with what's said above ^. I personally don't think it's necessary to give the unknown rank minor characters images, and we already have much to do regardless. 19:56, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I'd imo an "unknown" blank/adult cat blank could be used; ofc after all of this and probably in like 2020 at this point but rip

Yeah I don't think assuming a rank will work it'll just create confusion.<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  21:18, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not assume ranks. That's a problem we've had before... If we entertain the topic, it really should be after everything else is done... which that's going to take a while as it is. ​​

If we plan on giving these characters images, they should be given their own blank rather than assuming ranks. Right now, I think we have enough on our plates, but perhaps we can bring it up again in the future when we're less swamped. 16:25, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I agree we can't do a new blank right now. What about using clan images? There are so many cats we have no description of so cannot give a blank, would giving them their Clan's image be a good substitute?<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  23:49, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we should give them any blank. It's a huge assumption about their rank, so unless these characters are featured in the future, I say no for the moment. 00:51, April 14, 2019 (UTC)

It's still an assumption to give them Clan images, even if it's just a substitute. I think it would be better to wait until we have time to just make them their own. 16:46, April 16, 2019 (UTC)

Alt Image Cites
So lately I've noticed a lot of alt images going uncited because it's usually clear what they're for (mostly for the official art or family tree alts), so the cites don't get prioritized and end up either slipping through the cracks or taking a really long time to actually get on the page. Since PCA has always had a policy of requiring cites for images, I feel like these shouldn't be any different. In the past, cites were required before the image could even be reserved, but considering the family tree and official art alts are voted on beforehand, maybe it should just be the alt's artist that's ultimately responsible for adding the cite if it's not already there by the time they post the image.

And while we're on the topic of alts, I actually had a suggestion. So despite the incorrect description being listed in the trivia section, for a lot of character it's not always clear which alt is for which mistake/cite, especially for characters with a lot of alts like bluestar, tawnypelt, firestar, and so on. I feel like a nice solution to this would be to add the description of the mistake along with the cite to the image's description. You can see an example of this in my personal image's description. If the alt had more than one cite, as is the case for some common mistakes like brackenfur, all the relevant cites would be added, the same way they are in the trivia section. This should make it a lot easier to tell what the alts are for, not only for the readers of the wiki but also for us, especially when trying to figure out if an alt is still required/valid, and whether it's in the same set as another alt. Thoughts?

I agree with this. I've removed an alt once because it had no cite for it and it almost became an argument until I was told what it was for. Please add a cite before reserving/posting an image!<font color="#0F52BA" face="Segoe">Stealth <font color="#FF0000" face="Segoe">f🔥re <font color="#0067A5" face="Teen">❤Warriors Forever!❤  21:20, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, because even I lose track of what's what anymore. There are too many alts on the wiki anymore;;; ​​​

Agreed^ Any other comments? 16:46, April 1, 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps any comments on the specific wording that should be used in the image descriptions? That would be helpful.

If I get what you're talking about.. Maybe it should say "Brackenfur was mistakenly called [pelt color] in [book name]'. I've seen a similar style to this on the Stacyplays wiki, where if there is a character mistake they list the episode the mistake was in. 16:26, April 6, 2019 (UTC)

Any other comments? The concept passes through consensus as of now; and we can throw the wording issue at PC for properness.

Tortoiseshell color ruling
Alright, so as per this I believe we should do the same as we did for the tabbies and nuke this "tortoiseshell cats have to be black and ginger" rule. It's really limiting all of our artwork possiblities, and really in general, just making most of the tortoiseshells that we have art for look the same. I'm not saying any of the art is bad, no, so don't take me wrong on it. It's just that I feel any tortoiseshell should be any color you want it to be.

And no, I'm not talking about nuking the no white rule (sorry jayce :P )

TL;DR, nuke the tortoiseshell has to be ginger and black rule, and let people make dilute, torbie, chocolates, or blue torts if they want to. <span style="">11:48, 3/30/2019

Isn't there already freedom to do so? There are many smoke torties and chocolate torties around I believe.

My point is that a lot of people think there is a rule, so we should make it official that people can have the freedom they want to do the color torts they please. Paleh was saying to add ginger onto that image, and I disagreed, thus starting this. <span style="">11:56, 3/30/2019

Tortoiseshell colored cats are by definition a form of black and a form of red. That can be black and red, brown and red, blue and cream, lilac and cream, and any amount of white or pointed. Coloring a tortie just a black base or just a black base is like coloring a blue tabby red. I'm not opposed to not caring if there is more than one shade of black or red in an image, but there should at least be those two present. <span style="">14:17 Sat Mar 30 2019

brown is a form of red, so finch's charart is valid and doesn't need any other form of ginger or cream. <span style="">14:44, 3/30/2019

theres never been a hard rule on it having to be ginger ans black unless said in the text? i have several smoke, a former chocolate and a couple dilute torties, theyre not banned. black and ginger just tends to be the ones people think of first i guess. 15:05, March 30, 2019 (UTC)

I think unless it's said in the text, the coloring of a tortoiseshell should be up to the artist....given we just nerfed the stripe rule due to "realism", I don't see why we should continue to limit people. Let people be creative, it ain't going to kill anyone. And even then, not everyone is able to make hyper-realistic patterns and it's hardly fair to force that on people. ​

There was never any rule on tortoiseshell coloring. I specifically said in my comment that pca's rules on it are very unspecific, i.e. it doesn't actually say anywhere what's officially considered a tortie or have any specifications about what colors are allowed. Adding ginger or cream or something was just a suggestion, since real life torties don't come in gray and black, it was never meant to imply there was any rule about it. And given PCA's general stance on realism atm, I don't think there should be a rule. Though it might be good to officially clarify what pca does and does not consider a tortie (and maybe also tabbies for that matter, since there's been plenty of "that doesn't look like a tabby/is that considered a tabby/ect." situations), just to avoid any confusion in the future.

Like I said, brown is darker form of cream, which is also a filtered form of ginger. I think Finch's image looks chocolate to me. It doesn't look gray imo <span style="">16:13, 3/30/2019

In cats, brown/chocolate is a shade of black. <span style="">16:15 Sat Mar 30 2019

Any other comments? Given there's no rule... nothing'll really change save for being able to reference this for rebuffing comments, really. Imo, as long as it looks tortie, we'll be okay. We can't run wild, though, either - so as long as it meets the written text then it'll work out.

Bluestar pale gray vs pale alts
So it was decided by PC that pale gray is considered distinct from blue-gray, and also that the "pale" (not "pale gray") cites for bluestar are considered mistakes since she's meant to be the same shade as mistystar. But since that's two separate reasons for considering each of those two descriptions mistakes, it's not really clear how it'll work with the alts. Is there gonna be an alt set for all "pale gray" descriptions, with no blue tinting, but then an additional pale blue-gray set for when she's only called "pale"? Since "pale" would usually be added on the the base coloring (blue gray) in cases like this for other characters.

It seems a bit excessive to have two alt sets for such similar descriptions, but I'm not really sure what would be a better solution. Making them all pale blue-gray would contradict the decision PC made to consider pale gray different from blue-gray, but making them all pale gray with no blue would be an assumption that the authors didn't intend "pale" to mean "pale blue-gray" in those cases.

Any ideas?

Brokenstar's eyes
They are cited to be orange, but his chararts show them as yellow/amber. Should these be tweaked?

Yes! 16:23, April 6, 2019 (UTC)

No, they're orange enough <span style="">12:27, 4/07/2019

nah it's alright. --

14:01, 4/07/2019

as the OA of the df, the eyes are blatantly yellow so yes they need to be fixed 01:14, April 13, 2019 (UTC)

The same thing happened with Yellowfang a while back, they should be fixed. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#000080; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.22em; font-size:90%"> Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 02:29, April 13, 2019 (UTC)

As the leader’s OA I agree, they are definitely more yellow than orange and I’d be happy to tweak to match ththe description better. 11:50 Tue Apr 23 2019

Any other comments? I agree, easy enough of a tweak and since the OAs want to they can have at it

Feathertail UG Alt
I looked through the charart list, and noticed Feathertail's warrior alt for Ultimate Guide was still listed. I actually did this image in December, File:Feathertail.warrior.alt2.png. Does this need renamed to alt3 or was this an oversight? I just don't want my image to be replaced, especially since it was the first in that set. <span style="">22:06 Tue Apr 9

I think it was just an oversight and for the redo warrior blanks. ^^ 18:13, April 12, 2019 (UTC)

Linear Art Matching
^ We need specific guidelines on whether someone should match the other's linear art.

In my opinion, they should match because different linear arts make two chararts look completely different. It's almost like scar placement in a way. But no matter what I'd be fine with making either clear on the guidelines so long as it's enforced consistently.

its not the same. ragged or messy fur can easily change all the time and there is no reason to force someone to match it, especially at different parts of life. this is supposed to be about being creative, not limiting it. 23:29, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

It depends on what the alt is for, as sometimes it does need to match in certain ways (eyes, scars, ear tears, lost limbs, Brightheart), but generally I agree with skt.

Unless its major tweaks, like Spooky said, I don't think they should match and I'm agreeing with what David said, PCA should be encouraging creativity not limiting it. Also, by having people use the same base that someone already has had approved, no one would be learning lineart tweaking skills as much and I personally think that people should learn how to tweak lineart at some point. 23:41 Thu Apr 25 2019

Agreeing with above. If it still matches the description, why does it matter? Doing your own line art tweaks is fun, why discourage it? Why does every fluffy/plumy tail have to look exactly the same? They wouldn't in real life 🤷 <span style="">23:58 Thu Apr 25

Thought I should add, I do agree though that where ever this discussion ends up, the guidelines should reflect how lineart tweaks/matching goes to avoid further issues in the future. 00:01 Fri Apr 26 2019

I agree with the above comments. We shouldn't be required to match line art, unless it's torn ears, etc. 00:14, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

to be honest, imo the linear art should match just because it looks more consistent in the art gallery: especially for things like plumpy tails, it just looks inconsistent/weird when you have 1 tail that is much larger/a completely different style than the other. but regardless of what happens, enforce a single rule consistentl and dont bend them for other people .-. 01:31, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fox and Burnt. The art just looks incosistent when they don't match and I honestly think the artist should match them. 01:51, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

So, many of you don't know me but I'd like to put my two cents in. I don't believe we should enforce a lineart to match, but suggest to keep the lines as similar as possible; of course, being artist's choice to comply or remain creative. Restrictions ruin the beauty of creativity and would destroy the drive for many to put in their effort for Project: Character Art. I personally joined this project to develop and better myself as an artist and personally would not be able to develop and enjoy the process if I just had to use someone else's work. Thank you 02:19, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a "set" style for ragged or spikey fur. Every charartist knows what ragged fur is and is capable of doing it themselves when the need for a ragged cat charart arises. Altering lineart is fun, it gives artists a chance to make their image stand out via their own style. However, if it's the same character (like if the cat with ragged fur has an alt) then I could see the reasoning behind getting the lineart to match? I think that might be the initial point Fox is trying to make. <span style="">03:12 Fri Apr 26

Honestly, I think they should match. Every one I've done I've been told to match the person's before me lineart. I do understand ragged fur and such but when it comes to characters that have major body characteristics such as Thistleclaw and Mistcloud I think the style itself should match. Like I feel we should be able to do our own but make sure the stule itself matches the one before it. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#000080; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.22em; font-size:90%"> Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 04:37, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

im not saying that we should use the exact same linear art for all the cats across the board, im saying that within the same character, the linear art should be the same because it will look consistent within a gallery– this applied especially for flat muzzles/torn ears/tail tweaks. 05:41, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

torn ears and whatever are fine to have to match, as theyre permanent. whats not fair is being forced to match non permanent things like ragged fur. as long as it matches whst the text is saying theres no need and frankly will lead to a lot of uneeded redos. feel free to nominate images of yours that were made to match where they shouldnt because how are people going to learn if they cannot experiment with lineart in their own way? 06:33, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't even talking about ragged fur. I was soeaking more of the permanent effects such as Cinderpelt, Mistcloud, etc. Like those should all match with tge same style so it doesn't look inconsistent because I have to agree that when we have different style on ine character it seems a bit off. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#000080; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.22em; font-size:90%"> Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 06:46, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

im agreeing with david on this, pca is about being creative. i dont think it'd be fun copying the same ragged fur design on a set as it limits creativity. cats like cinderpelt who have permanent injuries should be matched and mistcloud's spikey fur can be interpreted in many ways.

i dont think we should all have the same styles as it leaves the set boring and similar, and it will feel like a "code"

12:51, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

(my poor two cents) I feel like alts should match with the original image. Maybe not directly, but close enough so they don't look drastic. I agree with David that ragged fur in general should be artist's choice...let people learn and express their creativity, but I also agree with Ellie and Burnt that the major and/or permanent ones should generally match style. 17:57, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

for permanent things they ahould be being matched anyway if part of the true desc set, because those are permanent and consistently depicting the same true appearanve of that cat. though i feel with alts, if its a mistaken desc, is there really any harm in having different lineart? its a mistake and not their actual consistent appaearance, and i can onlythink of longtail and tigerstar even having their torn ears described in a very specific way. as long as it matches to the text its not going against anything and alts are often peoples only way to actually get lineart practice in because chararts often get taken quickly. 21:30, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the alt are just wrong colors, the alt and pelt styles themselves should still match imo <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#000080; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.22em; font-size:90%"> Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 21:32, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

why though is what im asking. its still an error and different lineart isnt erasing the description and the art isnt consistent to begin with anyway since its multiple users. 21:35, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

Jesus, it seems I've missed a lot. Anyways, I'm pretty much in the same boat as David here. Main images should match, but I kind of feel that alts, unless they depict a major thing (Poppydawn's or Feathertail's tail, for example, or Raggedstar's raggedness, since he was named for it), they could be left up to whatever artist is doing the image. In the cases of major things where a cat is named for it or it's been explicitly described in a location (Tigerstar's ripped ear was very specific I believe), then they should match... that kind of thing isn't going to change.

Cinderheart's TUG Alt
i feel like we should discuss this, so i'll be posting it here. i posted the vote since it looked shorthair but others who voted pass on it also said the colors looked off. we discussed it on discord but i felt like putting it here to hear more opinions about this. 04:35, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna throw my opinion in here. Cinderheart was never confirmed as a longhair and since TC doesn't have requirements like RC and WC, it shouldn't happen. The coloring itself is gray tabby which is what her other images are for. The added coloring comes from the lighting and it seems kinda unfair to allow this one when other images were declined for lighting. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#000080; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.22em; font-size:90%"> Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 04:47, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

fur length alone unless its named for shouldnt be an alt thing. it is utterly pointless to have 50 dark grey tabbies where the only difference is fur length. that image depicts what she is, aside from bushy fur (which she may only be medium haired, not even long. dont remember seeing that.) 04:50, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

if that alt stays for any reason, i feel like it would be because its not dappled when cinderheart actually is. the fur length stuff shouldnt be the justification 04:57, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm agreeing with David here, the TUG art's only true difference is the fur length. The artist's style in the work is notable, but, it does appear to depict her with her current descriptions (dapples and all - very minute to my eye, looking at the way the markings are painted).

This should, in my opinion, be taken to a revote to decide whether or not it is a passable alternate image though, as its only fair to engage everyone's opinion again.

i seriously dont see any dapples nor "smoke" on the picture. she looks more just of a plain black or gray tabby. 06:11, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I think she looks like a blueish-gray tabby with darker stripes and random brown blotches. Kind of like Silverstream's alts. Cinderheart is not bluish in color, she's smoky gray. I think this alt is okay to stay but I'm not exactly sure. 15:21, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

smoky if anything is likely referring to her colouring being similar to smoke, not the actual smoke genetics thing. since it doesnt specify, we cant really use that. and the brownish is very minor; ive had an irl grey one become sunbrowned. doesnt mean she wasnt still grey, and it very much does look to me like shes in the sun. 21:45, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't see enough of a difference between her normal description and The Ultimate Guide's artwork to really warrant the image. also, lighting can drastically change the color of a cat; I've seen many pictures of said cat David is talking about and she definitely looked brown in some and gray in others. (cause I'm pretty sure they're talking about Fluffy) Also, we're assuming 'smoke' refers to the pelt style and not a coloring, so that's definitely out the window with this, and I think that Wayne (who painted those) was only given a basic description and not some insanely in-depth one like what we have listed on the wiki. It makes sense that certain things like 'dappled' are missing, it's not necessarily a mistake. Those things were listed in the text, not the allegiances. Who are we to say it's an error when Wayne might not have even known about it?

As someone who's worked on projects from minimal descriptions, I can agree that it was possible that the artist, Wayne, might not have been given a complete description - like we have compiled on-site. I still don't think that the art itself requires an alt. image though, as it's only depicting her with short fur, which as mentioned, isn't enough to qualify an alt. to begin with.

Part of what is confusing to me about this and continues to be is that we really don't have proper guidelines as to what "dappled" or "smoky" or whatnot means. Like, I'd agree that the TUG alt isn't dappled but like...when I did her warrior it doesn't necessarily look that much more dappled just more complicated. It might be in PCAs best interest to just...define all of these more common descriptors and then come back to this. <span style="">18:09 Thu May 2 2019

Non-OA Pattern Redoes
I've been observing this for pretty much all my years here at WWiki, and I believe now it is the time to stop disregarding the old pattern just because the blank is redone (only applies to non-OA claims in a blank redo). And I'm not just talking about images in a set (yes, like Shade Pelt, if you were following the drama), I'm also calling out stand alone images (too many examples, if one wants them, I'll gladly list them out, but picking out my example, Scarlet). Yes, I'm as guilty of this as most of you are, and I'm willing to redo my images to match the old pattern if a policy is set in stone.

I'm not convinced that being the only image in a set automatically disqualifies the OA's rights to the pattern. Here's an argument I frequently heard on Shade Pelt's image, "the only reason it is not in use is because the blank is being redone hence it should be matched," but then also "if an image is the only one in the set, it can be redone." But for what reason? The OA of a single image shouldn't have less claim to the pattern than the OA of a separate image does. What is the difference? Is it suddenly less, quote "disrespectful" if the image is the only one in the set? I'm genuinely confused by most of your comments on Shade Pelt implying that redoing the pattern is ok if it's a single image, but not if it's in a set. If we are to force people to match patterns, then force it for all instances, not just one. Call for the redo of all images that were unfairly redone, not just ones that have other to-be redone images in a set.

I agree that in both instances the pattern should be matched due to respect for the OA, and this shouldn't change regardless of whether it's a single image or not. Currently there is no policy for this, and I would very much like it if all unused images - regardless of being in a set or not - were matched. I'd be happy to comply, but don't force it on a single person. If this is agreed on, either from now on (after Shade Pelt, because whatever new policy wasn't reinforced back then), match the original pattern regardless of the image not being in use due to blank redoes, or redo everyone's images prior that did not match the original pattern. There can be no double standards for this.

reinforce all, or reinforce none. redo everything from before, or keep everything. my two cents. morally speaking (yee tok), i think we all know whats the right option 12:04, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

what burnt said^^ 12:06, April 30, 2019 (UTC)Tybaxel

Agreed, there's no valid reasoning behind "the image is old." The image should still be matched regardless. I think that either all of these images should be redone, or enforce the rule AFTER Shade Pelt is approved so images can be matched from here on out. Edit: Just realized I repeated what Fox said at the end because I didn't read all the way through, but I'll leave it because I agree.- <font style="background:yellow">JArtz11  Oblivious to EVERYTHING!  12:34, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I will be redoing my images if I had redone them in a different way or form. I apologise for the lack of respect I had given to you, burnt.

13:25, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Just curious, did anyone even ask an inactive "original OA" how they would feel about their patterns being redone? Or are we just projecting random feelings to make arbitrary rules? Especially when images are redone or tweaked for silly reasons all the time in this project, like the fifth attempt at matching Firestar to Jake or whatever. I have watched, in the four years inactive or lurking, nearly two-third of my original images redone or tweaked anyway. It's something expected in this project and most of those inactive users redid or tweaked images at some point in their PCA career, unless they were around before tweak week and in that case their images are probably already redone years ago unless it was like a black cat lol

Honestly, I'd say try to make a reasonable effort to contact all the original OAs of all the old warrior or elders or kits and if they don't want the image/care about the pattern its free game to do whatever with the pattern. <span style="">13:57 Tue Apr 30 2019

Sure, we may not know how the OA feels, but changing the design of a character that already has a valid one doesn't make sense to me. Why should designs be changed just because? If a design still matches with the character's description we should leave it be. Also images being redone/tweaked is different from what's going on here. Tweaking only fixes mistakes and redoing chararts is simply just pasting their pattern onto a different blank. The design may need to be changed in tweaking, but its for a reason and isn't because the new artist just felt like it. - <font style="background:yellow">JArtz11  Oblivious to EVERYTHING!  15:01, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

There’s a lot of different ways to look at said issue, honestly. I do agree that OA patterns should be kept where feasible, but there’s a lot of times in which it isn’t. If an OA is here and active they’ve always gotten claim over everything. But, as an encyclopedia, we also evolve. Many older patterns and color sets aren’t things that would pass today. I personally don’t count feelings into it - I’m a bit of a cold heart, I suppose - but I believe in doing what is best for the wiki even if that means one of my favorites gets sacrificed for it. Validity is another issue because images sometimes get redone several times, tweaked beyond recognition from its original, fur length switches, all the things. We’ve been telling people, for several months now - if it’s the only image in the set you’re free to redo the pattern. It’s rverywhere in the discord. An issue now crops up - how is it fair to make them scrap their design, which achieved validity through the approval process? If this extends to deputies and MC redos, in which this happened some - some people who aren’t here anymore are going to get their stuff retconned. OAs are important, but I don’t believe it provides invincibility when it comes to pattern; rather, a right of first refusal type of deal. We should be better about the asking, and also about keeping calm in stuff like this. I think we could make it a rule going forward, and for anyone wronged previously, if they are here, they can contest that case. But, the state of the wiki has been somewhat fragile due to recent events, and shooting ourselves in the foot by adding to our to-do list isn’t something I support. And, since I’m sure this will be divided as heck, it’ll eventually go to a vote; and in policy changes, precedent holds that it doesn’t apply to the past, but only the future.

I agree with Spooky on this. 15:27, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

since ive never stated an actual opinion on this matter (ive literally just repeated "redo everything or nothing" over and over because i was, as some of you may tell, annoyed by the fact that i was being shouted down for doing something everyone did) ill just state it lol why not. practically, why go back and redo a bunch of also perfectly fine images (which contrary to popular belief it seems, the new artist did spend lots of time and energy into) for... what reason exactly? is redoing these images really the best use of our time right now, especially with the other blanks and stuff being redone? does redoing the images really add anything beneficial to the wiki itself? im against redoing every image before just to match the old OA pattern because imo its a big waste of time. i guess if the OA themselves comes back and is greatly offended or something, then sure let the poor guy keep their dignity and bring the pattern back lmao. in terms of whether or not the OA pattern should be kept, im not going to lie but im pretty neutral. both sides have pretty fair points that i buy. but really no matter what happens, the ONLY thing i am passionate about in this entire debate is to keep a goddamn consistent policy FROM NOW ONWARDS and dont just randomly shoot at random people to follow arbitrarily reinforced rules. also seriously lmao how is a single image suddenly redo worthy and a set not?? 15:48, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

That's what Im confused about. Why was the "if there is only in the set it can be replaced" rule put into affect in the first place? I don't see the logic in allowing this with singular images and not a set. I guess you could argue that if it was a set then you'd have to replace all, but it would have been a completely unnecessary change in the first place. - <font style="background:yellow">JArtz11  Oblivious to EVERYTHING!  16:19, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Spooky is 100% correct; this will only apply to future images, as per the precedent that we already have set. To apply to past images could be seen as rigging, just like the issue we had with the voting a couple months ago. We cannot apply current policies to past instances.

While I personally don't have a lot of images that weren't mine, I myself would also go back and redo the ones that didn't match the original pattern if it's feasible and possible to do so. I would also be fine with contacting the OA to find out if they want the image or want to keep the pattern; if they don't answer within, say, 72 hours, then the image is fair game. That's pretty reasonable and acceptable and another alternative that I would willingly support.

Also, it was never a rule, perse, and my thought process with the sets was: if someone makes an advanced or complicated enough pattern, that almost guarantees them an additional image in the set due to people not being able to or unwilling to match the new pattern. I have seen this plenty of times in the past, and chances are it'll happen in the future. ​​

Just gonna pop in and say that I have been working on a full list for the KP redos for the ones that weren't kept to their pattern. <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#000080; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.22em; font-size:90%"> Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 20:23, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Just gonna keep it short and say that future images should match the old images, just so we don't disregard the OA's previous work. 22:37, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

I'm throwing my two cents in on this - like might as well.

A lot of the past month or so have gone so quickly and so many images have been done anything has seemed difficult to discuss let alone enforce. If this has always been an issue then it should've been brought up before these big redos were done so that it could be enforced from the get-go. Past images shouldn't be subjected to this new ruling as it isn't fair to do so.

I think it should be from the decision of this, onwards so that we properly enforce it and such with a paper trail, I don’t think it’s fair to those who have already redone images as it does take time away from them if they’re redoing images already approved recently- if they do so wish to redo them to match old patterns, I feel like they should be allowed to nom those images them themselves.

I'm a firm believer in keeping the OA patterns, but redoing images and changing patterns has been going on for longer than just right now. My images have been redone and the pattern has been changed completely and it's discouraging tbh because you work on an image to get it approved and then your personal piece of creativity and artistry is covered up. On the contrary, I don't think it's possible to get every OA input when it comes to redoing an image, and some patterns are going to get covered up (especially from OAs that aren't around anymore to ask). I don't think the "let the poor guy come back and bring the pattern back" is a fair comment to make. It's not about that, it's about keeping the history of users who worked hard on their images alive even though they're not here to do it themselves. I don't think it's a waste of time. You're making an image anyways, and part of PCA is matching images to others, so I don't understand why it would be such a hassle to just... match another image. Summatively, I think the art of past users is to be considered because they did lend a hand into making the character come to life, no matter how long ago they left the site. <span style="">05:06 Wed May 1

Can someone please help me join PCA as I am having some trouble. Oceanpelt1532 (talk) 16:45, May 3, 2019 (UTC)Oceanpelt1532Oceanpelt1532 (talk) 16:45, May 3, 2019 (UTC)

TUG Alts
Forgive me if this counts as a duplicate section, but, I think it should be addressed.

Some of these TUG alts are seemingly only partials to a character's description, and or, depict cats with different fur lengths. I know the discussion for Cinderheart is still ongoing, but another recent one is Willowshine. Her new kit alt is for her appearance in the guide, but the only difference between that and her short description is for short fur (which isn't enough for an alt in the first place).

I haven't had time to look for other alts that also fall into this discussion, but, I think there should be a revote for these and or clarifications made to the guidelines to avoid these discussions popping up again.

I agree with max. Willowshine looks exactly similar with her description, and only the fur length was changed. I got to say Willowshine's vote was made before her description changed, but now that it did, I feel like the alt isn't needed.

You could argue that she looks different but I think the artist was just given a simple description for the cat. 10:22, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

The Willowshine issue was just a kerfuffle from the start, to be honest. She was listed as a dark gray tabby, which is why she got an alt for being light gray, as she appears on the tree (not for TUG, since that only showed the face). However, her description was overturned to be a pale tabby per that being what's canon, and thus making this useless and just never got removed as an oversight. For other cases we should make guidelines, but Willowshine's was never for TUG anyways, but for a prior version of the tree.

just a little request to join
ayyy can i join this request (and one fact,  i accidentally named my personal file as Snowstar.leader-0.png ,  i have renamed it yesterday,  but it's ok now i guess),  i was practicing charart for 2 years now (from learning and stuff)Casty AJ (talk) 13:46, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Yes of course. Be sure to read the guidelines and tutorials.

OA claims
Since a bunch of us are already uploading our claims (with permission), would anyone in the project object to allowing those of us who want to get our OA claims done first, to let us post them and disregard the alphabetized choice? This would only apply to OA claims and wouldn't make this a free-for-all. A lot of us have a bunch of OA claims and it would be easier for us to get those out of the way and leave the newer art for the rest of the project. I'm sorry if this makes very little sense- I've been sick the last few days. Basically in a tldr, a few of us want to focus SOLELY on our OA claims for now and I'd rather ask permission from everyone else first to see what the project thinks. ​

I don't really mind if it's just OA claims.

Yeah go for^^ OAs can do whenever and then they won't be tied up

I think it'd be a bit confusing at first, but I'm all for it. 03:21, June 1, 2019 (UTC)