Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Things That Are Artist's Choice
I was checking through the guidelines and noticed *unless I'm blind* they didn't say anything about what exactly is artist's choice on a charart. Shouldn't they be established and added for future members/refrence? 21:52, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Fur length (unless it's WindClan or RiverClan), eye color, pale underbellies, shading placement, ect.

It doesn't need to be added to the guidelines. I'm confident that you guys can figure out what's artist's choice or not, and if it isn't we'll tell you. 21:56, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

I was just thinking it should be added because it would be a lot easier then repeating it to who-knows-how many new users each time they ask.. 00:40, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

I find nothing wrong with a small section of the guidelines being added that says what exactly is artist's choice and what isn't. When I first joined, I had someone tell me (not sure who) that the default eye color was blue for characters that didn't have an eye color that was cited. I didn't actually know there wasn't a specific color until months later.

There's no harm done, but I'm not sure it's fully necessary. Most of the things that are the artists choice is scattered throughout the whole guidelines, but it probably would help other users. 07:23, 14, 05, 2012

I think it will benifet users making art, it would tell them what is their choice to do, so they don't have to be put under pressure of looking through the guidelines multiple times when it's not necessary. Sincerely: ChanCharm 03:24, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this? 09:23, 06, 06, 2012

One Last Proposal Before I Go
Ah, hey guys. something came to mind right after I posted my message... and I couldn't ignore it. I'll just be making this proposal and leaving you guys to deal with it how you see fit.

It's pretty simple. I think there should be a chart on the front page of PCA with blank slots for users not in the project to use to reserve chararts if they wish to do so without joining.

So have fun with that. 02:18, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

I could've sworn that you could just add yourself into the chart (not the members table, though). It's what I did a year and half-odd ago. 02:21, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

That's what I did when I first found PCa too. I made a charart or two and just added my name without joining. 03:36, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but having a second chart would make it more obvious to users that they can do that. Many don't have a clue. 108.4.1.7 04:33, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's necessary. Even though most users aren't so good with coding, they could always ask a lead, and we rarely get non-member users to offer charart. :/ 06:50, 07, 05, 2012

"Rarely" doesn't mean "never". I don't see any problem with having an open slot on the reservation chart. It'd be better then having the user think they need too join, submit one charart, then be removed due to inactivity. 18:42, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there's no problem in having it up there, but it still could be hard to work... But that's just my opinion. 07:50, 14, 05, 2012

Well, the second chart would certainly make it easier to keep track if non-members wanted to do a charart but wouldn't want to join/haven't joined yet. I guess it sounds like a pretty good idea. 10:01, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

Why not? ChanCharm 03:26, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this? 09:23, 06, 06, 2012

Realism? Redos? Tweaks?
Okay. So as we know, PCA has been trying hard to make/redo/tweak images to look realistic. I understand that realism is important-it gives our veiwers a better sense of what a warriors character could look in real life, or so. There have been many debates and discussion so far about realistic images and non-realistic images. First, traingle tabbies aren't accepted in PCA anymore. Second, wavy tabbies, y-tabbies.

We are working to get realistic tabbies, right?

The only thing is that, there are only so little kinds of tabbies that are natural/realistic. I personally think that we should be able to make different kinds of tabbies (not triangle or Y-tabbies, however), that are personalized so that that tabby represents you're style of tabbies. See, art is not perfect, not bad. As this is something that requires creativity and art, I think that we shouldn't be too serious about these things (this is just my opinion, I'm not demanding for PCA to be like this...), like realism. Also, well, some people just may be better in a certain kind of charart (like tabby tortie, bi-color, ect..), but in a different style they may have more trouble with. All PCA members try their absolute best in my opinion, so if somebody just isn't the best at torties (like me) or so, I think we shouldn't redo their images...But keep them in honor of the artist's hard work for PCA. Redoing images...I'm not sure if that's always the best idea. With tweaking, that's different. You improve the image while still keeping the OA's style so it could still be seen. Also, styles should be artist's choice...right?

I also kinda think that sometimes, we take the realism thing too far...*sighs*

Pretty much, I think that we should perhaps have a page that says what qualifies for a redo. I'd like to have less redoing of images, so we could still honor the OA's image, but it could still be tweaked and still have the OA's style there (or just a similar style). What I think that would qualify for a redo would be: Triangle tabby (full triangle tabby, not counting modified), Y-tabby, and an image that is just...Not done properly or completed (extremely blotchy shading).

Also...Images that may not be realistic fully, but still fine, would just be tweaks.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on all of this, I wasn't concentrating too much...So, Feedback, opinions, and suggestions? 06:48, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

I think we might have taken this a bit too far too. Although I like realism, in my experience; users who view images don't really pay much attention to realism, just how the character looks pretty much. I'd try to make it as realistic and creative as possible, but we can't help it to redo triangle and y tabbies like Stoney said. Giving it some thought, I think Silverstream's and Jake's tabby style, there probally would be more tweaks, was okay. (Even though I <3333 the newer images too) but eh, that's my thoughts. 09:02, 09, 05, 2012

Yup! All images are epic in they're own way! And yeah, I think that newer users/anons pay more attention to the charart's style, but that doesn't mean that we can't neglect realism. Yeah, I guess we're not taking it too far with the realism, however, I just feel that we should honor the OA's hard work a bit more by redoing less images, but more tweaking. 15:03, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we'be taken the realism thing too far... There's still a lot of chararts that get approved now-a-days that aren't exactly possible in the real world. I personally think the rules (for lack of a better word) for redos should be higher and more focused on things like; triangular tabbies, y-tabbies, not fitting the characters description, overblurred areas, ect. Of course no art can be bad. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But we can't focus so much on what looks good rather then what is realistic. Yes, anons and visitors arent going to be looking for 100% realistic art on the characters pages, but that doesn't mean we need to ignore realism and just keep the chararts that look the best. I don't exactly understand how we can tweak images instead of redoing them if they qualify for a redo. Maybe smudge the stripes? I know when I look at my cat I see pointed stripes, but they're way to smudged within his pelt. So maybe we can start doing things like that instead of redoing them completely? Just my thoughts/opinions. 18:05, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Mhmm. I don't believe that redoing some completely is always right. Yeah, we should redo triangle and y-tabbies, but with the smudge tool, it's actually possible to make the stripes look more realistic than unrealistic. 18:11, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree with some of the redoing either. I've seen some chararts get redone simply because the artist didn't like it, which is why I suggested the higher stakes *having a bad wording day* for redoing. And the smudging tool could be an easy solution for not redoing so many images. A tabby's pattern is almost never so perfect and defined as we draw them here. 18:49, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to make hit harder to qualify for a redo. I think that, besides realism, there needs to be at least something else that needs redoing, like bad shading or things along those lines, before it can be redone. It's kinda sad when some of these gorgeous chararts are given a total rehaul because they have some marking that can't exist. Breeze whisker  01:54, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

I think the smudging is a good ground for a tweak. But sometimes we can't help it if we need to redo anothers charart. 08:26, 10, 05, 2012

Now that you mention it, realism doesn't always come first. There are so many beautiful chararts out there that don't deserve to be redone due to unrealistic. As long as they match the description it's okay. If they are a triangle/y tabby, they should be redone, but we seemed to have covered most of those, so it shouldn't be a problem. If it is really unrealistic and it's not either of those tabbies listed above, smudging is a good point. And if it needs to be redone, we could ask the original artist if it's okay to redo their work. ChanCharm 03:37, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Good point, ChanCharm. For redoing, it's maybe most fair for the OA to redo their own image - that way, their style will still be represented in the charart, because they did it. 04:20, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Have we come to a conclusion on this? 09:23, 06, 06, 2012

Time limit on Tweak Nominations
I've noticed how some tweak/redo nominations will stay up for a week (or more) without getting their three yay or nay votes. That's really not fair to the nominator having to wait that long for their nomination to be approved - especially when it's missing like one vote. I think that maybe after a certain time period, say 3 days, whichever vote at the time has a majority should be the automatic decision. So it would go on the list if the majority were yay votes. And if they're tied I guess it could just default either way, so long as all tied nominations would default the same way. It'll just keep those nominations from sitting there and the nominator from having to wait so long to know whether they can work on it or not. Breeze whisker  04:54, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

I think this might work. It would stop nominations from sitting there. 06:37, 17, 05, 2012

I agree with this...but the only question is for those that tie. I'd say look at the comments, if any, and that could determine if, but, for now, I think that they should just be approved and be done with it, or, if they really want the image to be redone, they can re-nominate it.

Have we come to a conclusion on this? 09:23, 06, 06, 2012

Just wondering about some things
On the cover of Warrior's Return, Graystripe looks blue-gray, or a lighter gray than he usually is, and since Millie got a cover alt (even though I've heard you don't do those...?) I think if that qualifies for an alt, he should too. Also, somewhere in the book, Diesel said he is meant to be a loner, so would that qualify for a loner charart or would he still be considered a kittypet? I'll find the cite later, I know it's there. Also, I don't know much about tweaking, but I think Featherwhisker should be tweaked to have a plumy tail like this since he's cited with one. 02:48, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

For Graystripe, no. We don't have a cite for his shade, and that's probably just the lighting anyways. It doesn't go against his description at all. Diesel, I'm not sure, if you can cite him being a loner he'd probably get one. And Featherwhisker, no, it's not that prominent of a feature like it is on Feathertail or Squirrelflight. So no tweak. 05:53, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, and one more thing: Should Hollyleaf get a rogue charart? I know this sounds farfetched, but think about it: She killed a cat and ran off, leaving her Clan. Sure, she wasn't driven out, but it still gave me something to think about. 12:59, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

She left of her own free will, and lived on her own, not boring the Clans. She doesn't get a rogue image. We've discussed this before.

Okay. The cite for Diesel is page 70 of Warrior's Return. 14:01, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, he did say that, but what kind of loner are we looking at? He could just be saying that he actually is a loner, someone who does not associate with others, or as in Clan terms. Sorry if that didn't make any sense xD  20:29, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I guess he might be just someone who associates with the clans. Speaking of loners, should Crookedstar get one? He was away from his Clan for more than a moon, if I remember correctly, and didn't associate with them at all for that time. And when he came back, he was ceartinly big enough to be an apprentice, but was held back because he ran away. I think this is a good reason to become a loner. Can I ask a question? I'm really, really sorry if I'm being a bother with all this, but why don't kits get loner, rogue, and kittypet images? I mean, if they were kittypets when they were kits, we could at least put a collar on them to show that. I think... something needs to signify that they were once a loner or a rogue on the kit if they don't get loner or rogue chararts. Like, Tinycloud. 13:48, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

For crookedstar, this was already discussed when the book came out. He doesn't get one. The whole time he was gone, he considered himself a clan cat, so he never really took on the rank of loner. And for the kits, they don't get loner, rogue, or kittypet images cause the blanks are made for full grown cats. They are kits, so they should get kits images, not full grown cat images. And kittypet kits do get collars unless they were specifically shown or described without them. Also, the ranks are listed in the charcat well enough, you don't need anything else to signify their rank. 14:05, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has commented on this in ages, he says "I belong here. Meant to be a loner." (just look at his main quote) It could just mean that he doesn't communicate with other cats, but Millie askes if he wants to come with him. It could just be a mistake, so I'd probably say yes. :/ 09:07, 06, 06, 2012

Brightheart?
I was wondering, wouldn't Brightheart get an alt. for mistakenly said for being Briarlight? That seems like a pretty dramatic change of description, so I was just thinking. x)  17:22, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

That wouldn't qualify. Alts would be for mistakes in color or shape, not name. That is just trivia. ~Regifloat222 Riverstar, Leader of the Thunder Snipes! 17:27, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think Regi's right...but...what was the context in which she was said to be Briarlight?

Alright. It said that Briarlight was mistaken to be Brightheart, but I thought it could go either way. 17:44, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

It could...but I //think// it depends on how it was used. Something as simple as a name switch in general terms... I'd say no...but if Brightheart was specifically described as Briarlight, with the broken spine and all (and vise versa, since we all know that's virtually impossible), then I'd say yes.

Well she's said to have dragged herself across the clearing. But normally no, a mistaken name wouldn't get an alt. It's just a name, not description. For this case I'm not sure, cause she was described with a broken spine.... 22:57, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

We normally wouldn't do this... but since she was described like that... I'd probably say yes, but I'm unsure. 02:28, 27, 05, 2012

Since she was described with the broken spine, I believe she should get one. 03:29, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think she needs one. That's a huge change from before, and it's obviously just a typo. And even then, "dragged" is pretty vague. It could mean she was just moving slowly, or even she got down on her belly and scooted her way across the clearing for no apparent reason, not just that her spine was broken. Breeze whisker  04:14, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Breeze. If she was said to look exactly like Briarlight then she should get one, but that's a typo. Where's your cite for this? 11:28, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Is there a cite for this? 09:10, 06, 06, 2012

I (insert tweak here), and that's all I'm doing
I've noticed a lot of artists putting this such comment when they tweak the shading, add scars, etc., and then when someone asks them to do something unrelated to the image they refuse. But why not just do everything that needs to be done while the images is up? If it's done right away, that same image won't have to be nominated again for something that could've been fixed weeks ago. So all I'm suggesting is that tweakers should do all that's asked of them, not just what's laid out in the nomination.

Please note that this isn't directed at anyone in particular, I've just been noticing it a lot. 17:44, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think it depends on the tweak. However, if something's that bad, an artist should have already noticed it and did their best to fix it. It says in the guidelines that it's artist's choice whether or not to fix according to someone's suggestion...and that's basically what this is. xD

I agree with Oblivion. When people say things like 'I'm only tweaking the shading' or something along those lines and something else, like the earpink, is brought up it gives them the choice to totally ignore the suggestion, yes they have the choice to do whatever they want, but why not just get it done? I'm not really sure how that came out, but I'm not refering to anyone personally its just an example. 19:41, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I think if the artist sees something wrong when they're tweaking the image, they'll fix it (I've done that sometimes). When nominating images for tweaking, people should list all the problems of the image that need fixing, and if the nominator doesn't cover all the problems, then somebody could just comment on the nomination if there's something else that needs tweaking. 21:01, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I think that the artist should fix anything that was listed to be fixed. Before the nomination passes, users should comment if the nominator didn't add that flaw in. 21:24, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It sort of bugs me when there is something else to tweak and the artist refuses to do it. Also if there is other issues the artist can see then they'd probably fix it, and you can't really list everything (mainly in the Approved Tweaks section) that needs to be tweaked. 06:23, 28, 05, 2012

I could have sworn there was a conversation about this before...e.e But yeah, if it needs tweaking, why not do it and prevent the inage from having to be nominated over and over again? It saves time and space on the tweak page. Skt Like a baws  10:30, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

While I semi-agree that users should tweak more than they're originally asked when asked once the image is up, I feel like users commenting must also keep in mind that the image was passed through the project via a 'CBA' and an approval. "Define the earpink", "Blur the earpink"", etc., sorry but all of a sudden, the earpink is wrong now when a few days/months ago, it was perfectly fine. I know techniques change all the time as well as opinions, but honestly? Users should keep in mind that tweaked art has already gone through the project, and the project has approved it. -my two cents- 21:14, June 3, 2012 (UTC)

If the earpink is "off" then it should be listed in the reasons for tweaking. I kinda agree with you Teldy, it's sort of like the guideline how an image can't be nominated just for the earpink. But if it is off and wasn't listed, I guess it depends on what needs fixing and how badly. 09:36, 04, 06, 2012

We Have an Issue
So, as some people have seen in the approved tweak nomination archive, the page has exceeded the template limit. What this means is: the page has too many s, s, s and signature templates, and thus the templates are showing up as redlinks. So we need another way to archive tweak nominations without using one page. We could just use more than one page, but should it be a forum or just a regular page? Since the archive isn't really being discussed on, it probably shouldn't be a forum, but that's just my opinion. 23:00, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't know if this is happening to anyone else, but it takes my computer about a year to load that page simply because there's so much on it. 23:02, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Didn't I say to use a subpage when we started this whole ordeal? I think we should just move the entire thing to a subpage for PCA and be done with it.

I'm no coding expert (never have been, never will be), but maybe instead of using the yay and nay templates, just go:


 * Yes/No. Reason why or why note if needed/wanted. ~.

I'd rather not use a second/multiple pages because of the space it could build up to. Or we could just keep a record of who/which chararts were redone, how many times, for what reasons with dates. I dunno, Scarlet's having a slow day 23:09, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Scarlet on the yes/no rather than the vote yay and nay templates. That way, the number of templates on the page will go down. 01:06, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

But there's still the issue of long loading times. The PCA images page (a page with every single approved image) was deleted because of this problem. 01:07, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you decide to do, I think it would be nice get rid of those, not sure what they're call, drop down menus(?), also. They tend to make my computer stop responding while it tries to open one, even the current, and therefore smallest, one. I'm not sure what else would work, though. ^^; Breeze  whisker  01:12, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe we should use subpages, and possibly have a limit to how many drop-menus are on a page. 01:17, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Subpages was my opinion in the first place, so I still agree with that. Maybe 3-5 drop down archives per page, since we're up to the sixth archive now. (I don't have much problems these days o3o) I think the only thing with that Breezy is that we'd have to make an archive for each drop down. I'd personaly like to keep the voteyay and nay voting (probably because I've gotten used to it) but if it saves a lot heap of trouble, then I'm fine with just doing what Scarlet mentioned above. :) <span style="">01:49, 11, 06, 2012

Owl Feather alt?
Wouldn't Owl Feather get an alt for being called mottled in TLH, or is it to close to her actual description to count for and alt. 04:41, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

No, speckled and mottled are just different descriptions of how the spots on her pelt lay and how sharp they are. It is notable to be put in her trivia, but it doesn't call for an alt. 04:48, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ratscar alt.2?
Would Ratscar get an alt. for being called fox red, or is that to close to russett? If it is, can I have him? 11:23, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, fox red pretty much is russet. So no, I don't believe this would warrant another alt. 11:33, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Dazzle, russet basically is fox red. 17:47, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

May I join?
May I join Project Charart? Pokemonlps2 18:15, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Sure! I'll add you in momentarily. Please look at our guidelines, tutorials and the mentor program. Have fun! 18:21, June 11, 2012 (UTC)