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)

Hey PCA
Hey, PCA. If you were around last year, you can probably guess what's coming. As of tomorrow, I am leaving for summer camp, except this time, I will be on Junior Staff. I'll be gone until mid August and my computer time will be extremely limited and my participation will be very spotty. I have one day off a week, which I intend to devote to PCA as much as possible, but still, my activity will be greatly restricted.This being said, I'd like to ask to propose the same thing as last year, to pass my leadership to Cloudy, but I'll leave it to you guys to decide whether or not you think that should be permanent. I love PCA and all it's users, but maybe my time as leader should come to a close. I'll go along with whatever you guys decide.

But, if you do decide that Cloudy should lead on, let me just say this. I love PCA and all its members so much and I am so proud of all of you! I've been with PCA for a while and I've seen how much it's evolved and changed throughout the years with each user bringing with them their own insight on matters and I feel so privileged to have been a part of it, and then to be granted the honor to lead it. I don't know my own actions, but I hope that I've been a good leader. And if I haven't, thank you all for bearing with me and making me feel so special.

Until August (or until I get a chance to use my laptop), PCA! I love you all! ~<3 04:21, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me either way, Scar. You're an amazing leader, and PCA would never be the same without you. In the end, it's your choice as to what you want to do. I'll accept whatever choice that you, and PCA, decides.

My opinion on the matter is the same as last year, I see no reason for you to lose your leader spot because you have to leave for a little while. I think you should stay leader, the SW's can handle things just fine in your absence without a new leader and dep needing to be appointed. Your an amazing leader and I'd hate for us to lose that for summercamp. :b

Agreed with what they have said, and I hope you have fun! We'll miss you while you're gone! 07:09, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above. You're a brilliant leader and we don't want to see you be stripped of your rank. c; Have a great time, Scar! 14:41 Sat Jun 15

I think you should stay. I'm agreeing with the above, everyone takes a leave every now and again. No need for you to step down because you're on break. Have fun, Scar~ Ca  na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 20:12, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Brackenfur Alt Warrior 3
I was re-reading Rising Storm and saw, on page 165, Brackenfur is called pale ginger. I know that he already has a ginger alt, but he was called dark ginger then. Since pale ginger is two shades off of his current alt, shouldn't he get another alt? If so, I would like it, please. 20:21, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

I think someone said if he was called pale ginger when I put up his just ginger alt it would be warranted, so yes. 20:38, June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Request to join
May I join the charart team? I swear I will do my best. You may test me on any up-coming book, and I will show you my work. I have GIMP, and practice chararts everyday. Please consider me. Darkfrost14 13:10, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, you can join! Just make sure to look at the guidelines to learn about the project, and if you are ever in trouble, the mentor program and apprentice tutorials are in reach! 23:43, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Join Request
Hey guys. I remember I use to be here, but I left a while. I have pixlr and I can get gimp...if I absolutely need to. I know how to do most of the basics, but I may need refreshed. I need help on how to do tabbies and a few others. I would really like a mentor as well. S <font color="green" face="Mistral" size="2">p <font color="blue" face="Mistral" size="2">o [[User talk:.Spottedclaw 13:11, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'll add you back in right now c: Just make sure to look at our guidelines if you need a refresher, and here are the links to the mentor program and apprentice tutorials. ^^  23:46, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Rejoining
I left a long time ago, i was an apprentice. (i left because i was busy, but now i have spare time.)

02:37, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

You were added in as a kit, but I'll see if I can bump you up to apprentice since you left off there c: In the meantime, you can look at our guidelines in case you forgot anything, or our mentor program or apprentice tutorials. ^.^  23:59, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Rejoining
I'd like to rejoin please :3 I was a warrior before. 19:35, June 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'll add you back in right now. Welcome back, Silver! Take a look at the guidelines if you need a refresher. ^^ <span style="">03:14 Sat Jun 29 I'd like to re-join, I was a kit before. :) <font color="#90D547" face="Mistral" size="3" style="background:transparent; border:1px solid -moz-border-raiuds: 1em; orange;">R <font color="#BBD547" face="Mistral" size="3"  style="background:transparent; border:1px solid -moz-border-raiuds: 1em; orange;">u <font color="#D5CB47" face="Mistral" size="3"  style="background:transparent; border:1px solid -moz-border-raiuds: 1em; orange;">e <font color="#E59B3B" face="Mistral" size="3"  style="background:transparent; border:1px solid -moz-border-raiuds: 1em; orange;">y <font color="lightgreen" face="comic stans ms" style="background:transparent;">Patchey <font color="lightgreen" face="comic stans ms" style="background:transparent;">undefined 03:13, July 1, 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)

Tallstar's Revenge; my reservation issue
I have an issue. When TR is released where I live, I'll be reserving a charart a bit earlier then those living elsewhere, like America. Here, in Britain, the hours are so and so ahead of America. Will I be allowed to reserve when it's the start of the 2nd of July here? 21:26, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

It's midnight on the wiki clock, not a user's personal clock. So that's like... uh.. 8 PM EST here. Not sure what time it is for you.

It would be midnight for Sorrel, me-thinks, since the wikia clock seems to go by the same time as the one in Britain. Bb un   legs  21:31, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not sure... these don't really answer my question. So when it's midnight for me, can I go ahead and reserve? 21:34, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

If it's not midnight on the wiki clock, no. It needs to be midnight for everyone on the wiki. The clock is a little weird like that, Sorrel. I know it's 8 PM for me, but could be like 7 or 7:30 or like 8 AM for someone else. In these cases, you go and watch the wiki clock, not your own, as that's not what we go by, otherwise it wouldn't be fair for everyone.

It'll be about 1 AM in Britain when you can start reserving, Sorrel, if that helps. <span style="">4:07 Fri Jun 28 2013

Dustpelt Kit Image
Vicky confirmed that Dustpelt and Ravenpaw are littermates, and Ravenpaw got a kit image for being called by his kit name on the Warriors App. Doesn't that mean Dustpelt should get a kit image as well? 15:55, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he'd only get a kit image for being shown as a kit. 19:10, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

He was mentioned needing to be coaxed out of the nursery in BP, but Dustpelt was not mentioned in that statement, so I don't believe he would get one. Ravenpaw was directly mentioned as being a kit in that instance, that's the difference. Sorry :(  19:28, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hey! I'm not a member of the wiki, but I am thinking about joining. If I do join, I was thinking about joining this project, but I have a question. Why is there a different blank for each rank?

I would explain my thoughts and such, but I have to go~ 66.91.34.179 03:05, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to become a user to join and make chararts for the wiki. Also, there are different ranks to... uh, my mind's gone blank... to allow people to know their rank and (sometimes) age at first glance. We can't really use a warrior image for a kit. I think that's why, but I think someone can explain it better. 11:54, June 29, 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. <span style="">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. <span style="">4:53 Sun Jun 30 2013

"oops"?
Are apprentices unable to do CR (charart)?

I don't see my name in the reservation table :|

01:59, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Of course apprentices are allowed to make chararts. And  just add your name in alphabetical order to the reservation table. 04:23, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

Pearls, you're allowed to edit the reservation table yourself, you know. It's only the membership list that really shouldn't be edited by anyone but a lead.