Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Archive 96

Kittypets collars
Recently myself and another user have posted young kit stage kittypets with collars on. We were both told to remove them because in the books both kits aren't stated with collars but there are adult kittypets with collars that were never stated to have collars. I'm not angry just confused as to why adults get collars but not kits even if the adults aren't mentioned with them.

20:23, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

Kits aren't adult cats. Not all kits wear collars, and since they weren't mentioned with them at all, it would be an assumption to have them added. The word "collar" isn't even mentioned in Ravenpaw's Farewell at all.

I know I'm not in PCA, but isn't it an assumption to say that all non-kit kittypets have collars? 22:53 Wed Feb 3

I agree with Mapleclaw. If it's an assumption for kits I think it's also an assumption for older cats. 1:35 Thu Feb 4

I'm...honestly having to agree with princess and maple. THere are a lot of adult kittypets without collars. My cat is an example. Plus I've seen a lot of cats around my neighborhood without them on, and I know they're outdoor kittypets. The only one ive seen with a collar on, is my next door neighbors cat. So i mean if they arent specified with a collar, they shouldnt get one 01:59, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that if this is the standard for PCA (kits not having collars if not otherwise specified) then there are some images that go against this, where I know they weren't said to have a collar as a kit because they didn't even appear as one, such as Stormcloud and Millie. Should their collars be removed? 02:54, February 4, 2016 (UTC)

I just want to know when this was started with the only getting a collar if they are said with one because as stated above there are images with collars that shouldn't get them. Also I don't see how adult cats are different to young cats? 15:36, February 6, 2016 (UTC)

I only just noticed we were adding collars onto images that were not rightfully mentioned with them. It's very much an assumption to add them, simple as that. If they're not specifically mentioned with them (such as Riley, Bella, ect), then they should be removed. But once that are mentioned with them (Harverymoon, Ebonyclaw, Magyver, Firestar as a kittypet) should obvious keep those. Why should the ones that aren't specifically mentioned with collars get them? Because they're kittypets?

On the topic of kittypets, I really think those blanks should be tweaked/redone... Don't know how to go about suggesting that though. 02:57, 02/12/2016

I agree Ferk! They seem a little I don't know round? 20:26, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

why are we ignoring the fact that even deerleap says (most) kittypets wear a collar and such. they're usually recognised by their build and collar, and if anything the odd ones out are the ones who don't wear them. they should stay imo. and the blanks are fine. :/ 19:30, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

So what about kittypet kits? 12:25, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

for kits I tink remove them, since many of them would be way too young to even be able to wear a collar. 12:44, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comments, guys?

These days a lot of kittypets have collars (my cats don't because it really irritates their skin and their happier without it) but yes it seems in Warriors most kittypets have collars as if you wear a collar, you are assumed a kittypet. Kittypets without collars is considered a strange sight. Kits with collars... I'm not too sure. I guess if there is proof they get it in kithood then yes but cats stay childhood until six months, but it recommended for cats to get their first collar about 8-13 weeks or something.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:04, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

I'm 100% against redoing the kittypet blanks, but I think the kits should be tweaked to remove the collars. However I think adult kittypets should stay the same, agreeing with Trolly. 11:29, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

We need to remember that Warriors isn't realistic and it's not applicable to apply real life to the books. Like it has been mentioned, most kittypets have collars, so they should have collars unless specified. I'm not sure what to do about the kits. It's equally likely that they have a collar, as well as being without. I am also against redoing the blanks, they're fine and most kittypets are fat. Redoing every blank for a minor thing is excessive. 01:50, April 16, 2016 (UTC)

There's no point in redoing the kittypets so I'm 100% against that! sorry. They're wonderful blanks with no big anatomical issues, so...as for collars, it seems pointless to just tweak all these images to remove them? Just add them to differentiate, remove if they're said to not have them. Simple as that. 20:02 Sun Apr 17

Archiving. Feel free to bring up at a later date if you wish to continue this.

Minor Characters
Alright so the page has finally been made. I'd most of the cats are tabbies, a few tortoiseshells and a bit more of everything else. The blanks will most be rogues and Dark Forest, but there will be two warriors and four kittypets. So, what should we do? Give every character we can a charart like any other character? 05:45, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

They're given descriptions, so I don't see why not. There should be one for BW cats, one tortie, one tabby, and so forth. It wouldnt make sense to make each one different for unnamed cats. 12:38, 02/19/2016

But only having one tabby wouldn't make sense, would it? Same with one tortie. If there are tortie-and-whites, and different colored tabbies, then we can't just reuse the same image + colorize it + recycle it + add white... it wouldn't make a lick of sense, and imo, also seems a bit lazy. If you want one ginger tabby, one brown tabby, one gray tabby, ect, then I think that's fine, but we shouldn't have just one tabby image and then recycle it for each color... Honestly, each image should be given their own, unique image. They are characters and shouldn't just be.... idk, given one image and have it repeated multiple times.

There are a lot more minor characters in the series that haven't been added yet. I might be able to add them all when I reread the whole Warriors series.

Now that I think about it, I don't think these cats should get a charart unless they have a major appearance. They are way too minor and one of them even appears only once in a panel in one of the graphic novels.

I'm kind of neutral as to whether they should be given images. They are characters, but at the same time there is going to be a massive amount of them and they're very minor. If we do give them images, though, it doesn't make sense to just make one image for all tabbies and torties and stuff and kept editing it. 22:35, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

They don't need images. We don't even know what most of their ranks are, excluding apprentices and warriors. They don't need images and I don't see why we should put upon ourselves more art than we already have due to the deputy blanks being approved and TAQ coming out, not to mention some alts aren't even finished. 23:12, February 20, 2016 (UTC)

Uh, quite a few do have ranks, Icy. Given how quickly the medicine cat images were done, and the fact that most of TAQ's characters (allegiance list-wise, anyways) are already done, it's not putting too much on us. We have a rank and a description; that's enough to count for an image. Two others have gotten images based on that alone.

I think that even if we do the 'same image for every rogue tabby' or 'same image for every dark forest tabby' they'll still be a lot of images to make so I'd say go do that then do all the images we need. I'd say there is a couple of black dark Forest's and a couple of tortoiseshells. I think it'll just make the work load easier. 23:51, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

So this just died. Any comments, guys?

I guess if there are 10 "black toms" then they could all have the same image. To me, it would be sorta pointless to create a ton of images for cats that have the same description and all, and it would be a real hassle to name them all. Maybe not all, but at least some of the more detailed cats need images imo.

Reuse the same picture for common ones (tabby rogues, black dark forest, etc) and the rest will have their own. I've made sure no character has the same name so it should be okay if people are careful.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  01:04, March 30, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Stealthfire, but I think that we should have one for each color of tabby. Ie. ginger tabbies should have their own charart and so should brown tabbies, rather than one for all tabbies. 0:48 Fri Apr 1

I still disagree. That makes no sense. By having a simple base image that means to basically assume all of the descripted cats look like that. I don't think we should have any image for cats who have no given rank. Personally, I don't think they need images at all, but there should not be images for cats who don't have ranks, and even if we do take this into consideration, cats need their own different images. Having one single ginger tabby image means that apparently all ginger cats look like that and that makes no sense. 06:05, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a lot of images if every minor character with a vague description and rank gets a charart. Plus, how would we go about about naming each individual file? It's too finicky and hard to decide. A few different images for a few different pelt types would be fine, imo. Or like, I could just remove the image part of the template entirely. It seems sort of...I don't know, impersonal? To have huge clumps of images on this page. Plus, it'd really stuff up loading speeds. The page barely loads for me on my iPad right now... 20:00 Sun Apr 17

I think that some characters should get specific chararts, and others should just get a custom-made 'tabby' or 'tortie' etc. picture. For example, Brindleface's kits should each get a charart imo because they are actually mentioned and we know quite a bit about them and their family and stuff. Other characters, like the 6 DF tabbies from TLH, shouldn't get individual chararts, because they are all very minor, and for all we know, they could even end up being the same tabby who appeared several times though unnamed. I guess that characters like that annoying gray-and-white kittypet from MV, the brown starclan elder from GC, should probably get individual chararts, but idk I don't think that's necessary. I do agree with Berry though, having an image for each every single character, even those who are unnamed would take forever to load. 23:21 Mon Apr 18

I still disagree that we should have any. How do we decide who's "too minor" to get one? Or who's too major? It makes no sense and if one character has a specific image, all of them should have it. It's a complete and utter assumpation to put a picture of a ginger cat and say "that's what all ginger cats in this list look like." Sorry, that's just my opinion. So unless we want to give everything for every cat we'd have to break that page into subpages, but I seriously don't think it's necessary. Tl;dr: I don't think this page needs any images. 23:26, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is a good point to say that each ginger cat looks the same, but I still think it is really unnecessary and too many pictures to give each individual character a picture. I would agree that pictures aren't necessary, but I still think that the cats who we actualy know to be distinct and indiviual, such as Brindleface's kits who are actually mentioned quite a bit probably should get pictures. 23:30 Mon Apr 18

Maybe we could do something like "if this minor character is mentioned more than once, give them an image" although I'd heavily disagree as well. Maybe I'm just a person of disagreeing, idk. I just don't think this article needs any images at all. 23:31, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Archiving. Feel free to bring up at a later date if you wish to continue this.