Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Queen Blanks ~ Warriors and Above Only?
I have been thinking this for a while now. When the new queen blanks are approved, will the old ones be redone only, or would they need an entirely new charart? What I am saying is the fact that we will be redoing the queens, will only warriors and above get to tweak/redo them, seen as apprentices and kits cannot tweak/redo? This is all relating to the guidelines of PCA. 14:35, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

The softpaws got new blanks. Fallen Leaves, Dove's Wing, Half Moon and Fish Leap got entirely new chararts, so it'll be same with the queens, I'm assuming. But this time they'll have to match their other charart patterns and colours as long as they have more then one blank. (i.e. Minty. She is a rogue and was a loner, so she got a rogue and loner blank; the colour on her new queen image will have to match) Also it won't really be fair to kits and apprentices. 14:48, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

I know most of what you said Sorrel, no worries. But okay. 16:07, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure on what you mean "redone only" and needing an entirely new charart. It's technically an entirely new charart, but the difference is you would upload the new version over the old versions rather than making a new file. It would probably be open to all users of PCA considering it's a new position, and therefore needing a new design that still conforms with the other images and/or description. 18:51, June 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry! I guess I forgot to ask if they were going to be redone (examle: tweak nominations) or given an entirely new charart (example: when a new book comes out they need a charart). 20:23, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

No, they'll be posted on the main approval page, like we've done before. That's unfair to the users that can't tweak or redo images.

Thank you, Cloudy! That is the answer I was looking for. 16:51, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunstar question
I saw on Sunstar's page that he was called golden as a deputy, but if I'm remembering right, didn't he already have a golden deputy image before the orange was deemed to be his main pelt color? Or am I just remembering things wrong? I can't seem to find it in the history but I remember one existing 19:46, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he did, but I believe it was lost due to the new dep image being moved to that file name and overriding it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Join request
May I join? I have practiced on pixlr, although I need some help. I contribute regulary to warriors wiki and have done a couple of simple charats before, however this was using a completely different program to pixlr. I have practiced a blurred cat, but I am not familar with layers. I would like a mentor, however I only have pixlr,so I would like a mentor with this program as well. Please consider me.--Ambershine223 (talk) 15:03, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll add you in right now ^^ If you need any help learning about the project, just look over our guidelines, and you can look at our mentor program to get someone to help you. Other than that, we also have apprentice tutorials for some tips. c: 04:23, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!! Ambershine223 (talk) 17:55, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

Kittypet Images for Bess and Algernon
On page 142 of Tallstar's Revenge, it is said that Bess and Algie were owned by Twolegs. Shouldn't they get kittypet images for that? 16:15, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

I would think so, Blue. I see no reason as to why they wouldn't get an image, based on that.

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

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