Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Kits and warriors
So there have been some comments flying around on how we should approach the kit/warrior redo. I have a few questions I want to ask.

Question 1: How should we proceed with whoever wins to put up their blanks? Should we:

A.) Wait until the kittypet / leader rush is over and have someone tell the winner to put the blanks up, and after the blanks are approved, start doing the art

B.) Same as above, but wait for both kit and warrior to be approved and then start art

C.) After the votes ends, instantly have whoever wins put their blanks for approval, but once they are approved, neither are in use yet until announced

Thoughts on that?

Question 2: How do we proceed with making the art when they get approved? The kits + warriors have over 1300 images. Do we:

A.) Go alphabetical with just one group (such as kit/warrior). Possibly split this up into sections such as A-D, E-J, K-N, O-R, S-U, V-Z, and when that is finished, do the other group and split it up in the same way.

B.) Go by Clan with one group (kit or warrior) splitting up by ThunderClan/RiverClan/WindClan/ShadowClan/SkyClan/Unknown, and when that is finished, do the other group and split it up in the same way.

C.) Same as A, but having both kit and warrior at the same time. This would need to be in place after both blanks are approved.

D.) Same as B, but once again, both kit and warrior.

Question 3:

How many images should one have?

A.) Two images, both free for game for everyone.

B.) Extend image limit to 3 for just warriors (or apprentices). If this route is chosen, it would have to be discussed on what images you can have, whether two OA, one OA, all free game, etc.

C.) Two images, but one of them must be an original OA if you have one (see here and here) and the other can be what you wish as long as someone else has not reserved it.

D.) Two images, but both must be the ones you are an OA of.

Question 4:

When should we do it? I brought it up in an earlier point, but when exactly?

A.) After kittypet and leader

B.) After minor characters

C.) After Lost Stars

D.) Before Lost Stars

F.) Some distant time in the future, can be decided in a separate discussion later

Please feel free to voice other opinions as well, these are not the only answers. These are just several questions that need to be addressed before anything starts. 17:17, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to add my own thoughts - personally, for Question 1 I would like to go with C, 2 I would like A, 3 I also prefer C, and 4 I think F, so we can have a discussion when we all want to start. 17:36, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, one more addition. If the discussion page gets too messy, we could always put it up to a vote too. 17:38, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

Mine would be C, D, B, A.

Mine is C, B, D, A Malina457 (talk) 19:49, January 20, 2019 (UTC)malina

Mine would be C for the first one. A or B for the second one; I don't think it's a good idea to have both blank redo art at the same time. I can see that getting very chaotic with people scrambling to get the ones they want done. One at a time would make things a bit calmer imo. C for the third one; I think making the OAs reserve at least one of their artwork would prevent anyone from claiming too many. For the fourth one, I'll go with F, but definitely after the kittypet and leader redos. 19:51, January 20, 2019 (UTC)

A, and then for the second, I would actually rather do it in order of books. Lost Stars and the novellas are coming soon, and we should start doing warriors/kits for those books first, then implement them by series/books. Maybe whenever they get/first appear with their warrior name. Then B and C for the last two questions. I have no idea if this makes sense, but we should get the new book chararts out of the way first. — ♡ you're such  ' re such a dream to me." data-rte-attribs=" style title=you're such a dream to me."&gt;a dream to me. (03:08, 1/21/2019) ​​

1) C

2) C

3) D And I'd like to say that I don't think it's fair if people can take original images AND new ones at the same time, because that would give them an unfair advantage in terms of the number of images they can take (if that makes sense?) What I'm saying is some people have a lot of these images pre-reserved and thus would have claim to more images in general. I'd say people should finish the images that they are the OA of before they can claim new ones.

4) A

1) A.

2) C.

3) D.

4) A

01:26, January 22, 2019 (UTC) A, D, B, A.

01:55, January 22, 2019 (UTC)

B, A, C, A -- Silverfur's     starry     paws      ~    10:15, January 22, 2019 (UTC)

A, D, B, A. I feel if we hold off and discuss it, though, it'll just keep getting put off, since discussions here often die due to lack of interest. ​​​

C, C, C, F 14:21, January 25, 2019 (UTC)

My personal take on this:

1. C - yes the lulls can last for a while, but approving blanks takes a lot longer than approving chararts, so if we get them up we'll have less work to do come lulls.

2. A or B - split it up by Clan or alphabetical order, I don't care. I feel like if we do both at once the approval page is gonna get a bit hectic. Organizing it by rank feels a bit more controllable imo.

3. B - Not everyone has a warrior, and it would be unfair for others to get tons of warriors to work on while some (myself included) get only a couple or even none at all. However the OAs obviously get their images, because it would be unfair for someone else to take it.

4. No opinion.

c, a, d, a, i think. I always get lost trying to read all this. 01:12, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to let people know that when answering the splitting it up, the list is already there all in alphabetical order, and it would take hours to split it up into Clans. So I change my mind to doing it in alphabetical order, unless everyone wants to pitch in and make a list of warriors and kits in Clan order. 01:36, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

With question 1 having a consensus in answer C, that will proceed. 08:27, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Star brings up a really good point - I don't think it'd be fair that people can only reserve images they are the OA of. I know for myself speaking, I have one claim in total for both kits and warriors, and if we put this extension up for only OA images, some people are going to get nothing or very little whereas some people with get dozens of images. —

Yeat, that wouldn't be fair to only reserve images they have claim to. Unless something is already pre-reserved in the lists that Icy has, everything else is fair game and should never be otherwise. I think it's basically saying that those who have others reserved are only allowed to reserve what they have, which is equally unfair, imo. You can't tell someone they can't have an image if it's free game. =/ I get not being an image hog, but if someone only wants one or two that aren't theirs, then there honestly is not an issue. ​​​

Yeah, I'm a bit confused on the wording of that option. I think it'd be okay to also reserve images that are fair game even with the limit increase. People who have their OA claims will get to their OA claims and if not, then their image just becomes fair game eventually as well. I don't really see a reason to restrict it to "you can only reserve images you're the OA of" because that shafts a lot of newer people and adds more complication to how we'll complete all the images. —

Mhm, exactly. What is claimed and isn't done will eventually just become free game anyways. Plus, there really isn't any point in restricting anyone when we have a lot of work to get done. ​​​

Sorry I might not have been clear. What I meant for that question is you first have to get all of the ones you pre reserves finished then you can reserve free game ones. 22:13, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

yeah I kinda agree with icy here because it's certainly not fair to reserve free images if you have a huge list of your own, while also keeping those. one or two images? sure reserve another, but I do think people should be doing their own if they intend to keep them before moving onto free ones. 22:17, January 27, 2019 (UTC)

Aaah, okay. That I can 100% agree on. I assumed that for the first lil bit you could only reserve OA images. —

Yeah that was what I was trying to say. I think if the OA really wants their images they should take those first before they can move onto a new image.

Sounds fair to me^^

Hm so wait - when kits and warrior are up, do we want to have claims to our pre reserved images first, and then only be able to reserve free game images after they are finished? Or did we want one original, one free? 01:27, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

I would say you have to complete all your pre reserved onesfirst. i mean, if you didn’t want them, you shouldn’t have reserved them.

01:33, January 28, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. If we do two then yeah I agree with Ari^^ However, if we do the warriors get three I think it would be okay if they had to do two of their originals before taking a new one.

Gonna be redoing my answers here: (Omitting question one since warrior blanks are already up for approval and such) A, D, D

I still prefer my idea of doing it by book and starting with Lost Stars, but I do know that may not be very practical and since we already (for the most part) have an alphabetical list of the chararts that will need to be done (Thanks Icy <3) I think that'd be the best course of action since separating the blanks by Clan or book or what may be would be a ton of extra work. —

I am somewhat begging for us to do this in alphabetical order simply because I do not know if I can find the strength to organize these guys by Clan. 11:16, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

I don't really care for how we organize them. Sorting them alphabetically seems more practical over sorting them by clan because the images are already sorted in alphabetical order.

It has been 15 days since I posted this, and here is the consensus so far (most votes):

Question 1.) Already fulfilled, put both blanks up, get them approved, but wait to use them until the time is announced.

Question 2.) Go in Clan order with kit and warrior. This, I beg of people to reconsider because it is going to be terrible to organize everything into Clans when it is alphabetical.

Question 3, which is also being discussed below.) Extend images to 3 for warriors and possibly apprentices if they can handle it. Two must be images you are the OA of, third can be free game (and if preferable, can be another you're the OA of and have crossed out.)

Question 4.) Do the art after every kittypet image and every leader blank is approved.

This is the consensus so far. I want this discussion up longer, but if anyone has changed their mind / wants to add more / ask another question, here is your chance. 15:56, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

Ugh. Sorry, question 2 is a tie between A and D. Alphabetical with one group is A, Clan with two groups is D. Anyone mind breaking that tie? We have 4 votes for A, 1 for B, 3 for C, and 4 for D, and two for other. Question 3 is tied in every single answer, but we also have the discussion going on below which most people think 4b, so that is why I went with that. 15:58, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

For question 2? I think I'll change my vote to alphabetical order, tbh makes most sense Malina457 (talk) 16:08, February 3, 2019 (UTC)malina

Did you want both kit/warrior at the same time or one group separately? 16:10, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

I still think 2b, 3b, 4a. I think we should do warriors first, since they're the titular role in the series. 22:03, 02/5/2019

I would say A A B A just because I think some buffer time in between the blanks wouldn't hurt. Due to the amount of images and the amount of people scrambling to make art for different blanks, spacing them out would be the calmer approach. That comes with losing the overall buzz of excitement and having to wait though. I'm just for whatever process would make the rush of art more seamless lol 01:59 Fri Feb 8

Reservations for warrior and kit redos
I wanted to make a separate section for this so it did not clog up the other one.

So we were discussing on how the reservations would work and I presented a few options.

1.) Two images, both you have to be the OA of (that you crossed out here.

2.) Two images, one you have to be the OA of and one you do not have to be (which is free game, seen here.

3.) Two images, both can be free game (either OA of or not.)

4.) Three images, which can have several ways to go about it.

4a.) One you have to be the OA of, rest are free game

4b.) Two you have to be the OA of, other is free game

4c.) All three you have to be the OA of.

And finally, the last one:

Should only warriors and above get three images? Or should apprentices and kits get them as well?

Please share your thoughts below. I am really sorry if this was complicated, I did not know how to simplify it more. Oh, and I am not saying that you can only reserve images you are the OA of throughout this entire rush, the OA options I presented is that you have to finish those images first, then once you finished everything you crossed off, you can have free game ones. 11:01, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

I'll go with option four on this one, and I think at least one should be something you've reserved... but I feel most of us are just going to do our own work first anyways. I think anyone ranked warrior and above should be allowed three, and if someone ranked lower wants to give more than one image at a time a shot, we shouldn't be trying to deter them from that. If they personally feel they can handle it, I say let them have a try and see what comes of it. ​​​​

If you guys go with option 4 can you comment on which one you prefer, a, b, or c? Just so it is easier for me to collect data. Cloudy, are you going with a? 11:07, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

Oh, whoops, sorry about that. Yeah, option a. I completely forgot to mention that above, my apologies. ​​​​

Either 4c or 1

4c

12:28, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

4b, and only warriors and above should get 3, sonce it takes kits and apprentices more time to get images approved. Where we have an image limit on the approval page, warriors and up get images approved quicker but if we have kids and apps posting 3 images the page will get clogged 12:47, 01/30/2019

4b, for me warriors or above for three

4b, warriors and above are allowed three images. Maybe let apprentices try two if they want but keeping three to warriors and higher. SquidwardPlays 16:09, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

4b, and I think apprentices can get to try, but only if they have dinner like... 2 or 3 approved, probably 3. ❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 16:25, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

4B as well for me, and warriors and above for three images. 17:27, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

4c. —

4b, warriors and above three images.

18:28, January 30, 2019 (UTC)

4b -- Silverfur's     starry     paws      ~    07:23, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

4c. i support c cuz they're your images so it makes sense to expand the limit even further and get them done 14:14, January 31, 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I did want to add - for 4b, which is two OA images one free game one, the "free game one" can be one of the images you still reserved. It can be any image as long as it is not someone else's. 14:07, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs to this section but are we allowed to pre-reserve images that we tweaked previously and that the OA is inactive?

Well, that was not part of my plan because regardless if one tweaked it, they are not the original OA (unless they are) so therefore they are unable to prereserve it. Others might think otherwise, though, so what does everyone think? 14:48, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Tweaks shouldn't count towards OA claims. Some of yall already have 50, 100 claims on images, and some of us have 1 or 2. I don't think it's fair to add tweaks to claims since that just limits the pool thats fair game and its unfair to those who don't have any claims to begin with. —

Hmm yeah that, near everything would be claimed if we did that rip, and we'd have a lot of conflicting claims too

I guess 4a? I don't have any images to my name for this catagory though, so I'd be a bit happier with fairgame. But 4a makes sense Malina457 (talk) 16:04, February 3, 2019 (UTC)malina

So just to clarify, with option 4b, if you either don't have any (or very little) images your the OA of, or you run out of them, you would essentially just be able to reserve one image at a time, correct?

My understanding was that when you run out of OA claims it reverts to three free game for warriors; it’s just that you have to do yours first with the two/one thing

Yeah, that is what I meant. 01:31, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

Reminder
Just a reminder to people who can archive tweak nominations - please wait 24 hours until the last vote if it has a consensus. 15:52, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

why is this on the talk page? is it a question? ❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 20:47, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

There is nowhere else I can put it. This is just a reminder since people do read the talk page. 20:50, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

I do once a week, could this be put in the announcments? <font face="Tempus Sans ITC">❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 21:03, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Idea for charart pages
The heading is simple, but mainly wanted to discuss how we do the redos again.

So, as you can see, the kittypets were approved yesterday and edit conflicts have already happened repeatedly and there is so much activity going on. There are 159 images for the kittypets. Over 1200 for kits and warriors.

I want to propose we split the approval page to subsections, such as Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Approval Page/A-F, which would be where characters listed in alphabetical order (such as all warriors starting with A-F) would go when the warriors are redone. This pattern would be repeated with other increments of the alphabet. Only two would be active at the same time.

Also, since edit conflicts are such an issue, Xd1358 suggested that we use a preloaded edit, seen here. Basically, what you would do is type something in the box he has, click "enter", and what would automatically load is already an entered template for how to put up a charart which would all you have to do is replace a few things. This, in turn, would be on the approval page as subpages (or templates, is what they look like) and stop edit conflicts and make the pages easier to load, especially on laptops/phones that cannot handle so many sections. There is also an edit intro that would explain this. You are welcome to test this if you wish.

So, we could use that on subpages, or we could use that on PCA's approval page, or we could not use it and just go by how we normally do and use subpages, or go by we normally do in increments on PCA's approval page only. Thoughts? 00:44, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Also, if people were in approval of doing it by Clans, we can still do subpages but split it up such as /ThunderClan, /RiverClan, etc. Or, if anyone else has any other ideas on how to do the workload without crashing PCA's approval page / getting into so many edit conflicts, please share them. 00:47, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

I really like Ecks' idea of making a generator, specifically for subpages. —

I think the subpages and the generator would really help with the edit conflict problem! I noticed it happening a lot today, and people were getting frustrated. It will only get worse and worse with these insane redos we have to do. I support this idea for its efficiency. 00:55, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

I'm for the generator but not the subpages. Just the generator alone would solve the edit conflict issue with how it works, and having not all the images on one page will get confusing because of how we've done it for so long, and people might forget to comment as much. It's also a bit more cumbersome for leads, imo, so just the generator would be best

This is indeed a system we have been using for years now over at Wookieepedia and it works really well. I've added a list of pros and cons, as well as instructions for the new system, over at my subpage User:Xd1358/test. To clarify, the "generator" is merely a way of making subpage creation as streamlined as possible; it does not solve edit conflict issues unless you actually use subpages. With this approach, the images would still be visible on one page, as all subpages are transcluded (like any template) rather than linked to. The difference is how you nominate new things (and eventual achiving); the commenting phase is essentially unaffected. 1358 <sup style="color:#336600;">(Talk)  01:07, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

In theory the subpages sound like great idea, but considering there's something like 1500 images being redone with the new blank redoes (possibly more, I have no idea the counts on the kittypet and leader images, just the kit and warrior), that seems like an awful lot of subpages. Will they be deleted after copy/pasting their contents into the standard archives?

I really wish there was an extension or something to improve wikia's edit conflict handling. I don't know enough about how mediawiki actually handles edits on the back end, but it doesn't seem like there's any reason edits to different sections of the same page can't be resolved automatically.

There would be many subpages, yes, but all things considered, there's already over 85,000 pages on the wiki. You could, of course, choose to copypaste (or just use subst:) to gather them on one big archive page but you'll lost the associated edit history. As for MediaWiki and edit conflicts, I'm not entirely sure how it works but this seems like a problem Wikimedia would've solved long ago if it was feasible. 1358 <sup style="color:#336600;">(Talk)  19:42, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Minor, but I do not think that if this system were to be put in place, it would be in use for kittypets. However, if it were to be, I would like to try a test run with the leaders. 23:55, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Just tested it out on PCA's approval page with Ruby. What showed up was. When I tried to edit the section, it brought me to a separate subpage that edited that section only, therefore would not edit conflict PCA's talk page. The only issue that needs to be addressed this moment is possibly adding a date to the preloader and changing it to be more title friendly as well. Thoughts on this? 02:35, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

I think this is actually a really good idea for the project in general since we seem to be doing art quite a bit especially with the recent blank redos. 03:01, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

It's gotten bad with KPs, we definitely need an organized system for kits/warriors. I think this idea works beautifully. —

Agreed, there's been so many ECs since the kittypets... don't want to imagine what it would be like with warriors and kits. This will help greatly and i'm in support for adding it.

03:17, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific, Spooky and I used a former roleplaying wiki to sandbox things: Here is what happened. So, on the page, there are two transcluded subpages: and. When you edit the approval page, only those will show. But when you edit certain sections, such as if you wanted to critique Iceshine, you can click 'edit' and it would take you to a separate subpage to edit. This, in turn, would stop edit conflicts because most of them are on the approval page, and it would be much harder for people to consistently be edit conflicting when there are separate subpages for each character. Yes, this would be a lot of subpages, but it is much easier than what we have so far, not to mention easier for the lead team. If anyone wants to test this out on said wiki, they are more than welcome to.

As linked before, ecks also created preload, seen here, an editintro seen here (which would explain what to do), and the test page in general would generate what you have to put. Basically, all you would put in the "generator" is (Character) (Rank), so Firestar (Warrior). Then it will take you to the subpage to create it and fill things in and it is there. And then what would be next is to put the template given to you on that subpage, so if I were doing Firestar's warrior, the edit intro would tell me to put on PCA's approval page. Does this make any sense?

And generally I would like to revoke my idea of doing 6 separate subpages of the approval page alphabetically. Thinking this over, we may benefit from doing increments of the alphabet, not all at the same time. 05:22, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm just out of curiosity, what happens then when an image is posted twice on the approval page (such as if it's declined/withdrawn and reposted, or if at some point in the future we redo even more blanks once this system is already in place)? Does the contents of the subpage just get cleared and replaced, only existing in the history then?

Ahhh, now that makes more sense. Honestly, I'm all for anything that'll help with edit conflicts. 19:21, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

The only con to this is that there will be a lot more subpages on the Wiki. However, if this is the only thing that will stop edit conflicts, I still think this is a good idea. 21:12, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Edit: As said before, we could subst the pages on an archive, but we would lose the edit history. Thoughts on this? 21:13, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

As I said to you earlier this morning, what really turns me away from this is the ungodly amount of subpages that we're going to have. I really can't justify that much clutter on the wiki, especially if we're going to continue to use this past the warrior and kit redo. While this will probably help with edit conflicts, I honestly cannot get past the clutter that we're going to have and unless we have a solution for that, I cannot support this idea. These subpages will just sit when they're done and it makes zero sense to me to continue to have that many useless subpages after they've completed their run. ​

Why not just transfer the content of the subpages to the archives and delete the individual pages after? Not all leads are admins/CMs obvi but it could help rather than just let them "sit" there. We would lose the editing history but we'd still have a record of what was said at what time with sig timestamps and everything. —

I agree with Echo here^. I love this idea, but I'm with Jayce on the clutter part of it. Edit history wouldn't really matter when we can just copy/paste to see what everyone said after the CBA is completed and the image is archived. We're really going to need this system, and I honestly think that's the best way to go about preventing the clutter aftermath <span style="">22:09, 02/5/2019

You could indeed transfer the subpages onto one big archive page (you don't even need to copypaste, just do ), but you do lose the edit history of said subpage. However, I'm also not sure what kind of problem having many subpages is -- storage space is virtually infinite and it's not like the subpages are inflating the article count. There are currently pages on the wiki already and another thousand certainly won't break it. 1358 <sup style="color:#336600;">(Talk)  23:20, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not totally sure that bringing up what we already have eases me any more; it actually just makes me even more concerned for the amount of pages we have. It kinda feels like you're brushing my concern aside by bringing up the page count, and I'm definitely not a fan of that. We don't need that much clutter on here. ​

I feel like the clutter issue is much less important than the issue of redoing images and possibly getting edit conflicted at every turn (as we have seen with the kittypets) and as said, pages are not going to hurt anybody. There is no max page count, so I have to disagree that there will be a major clutter issue because it will not affect the Wiki in a negative way. 23:28, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

I think you've jumped to conclusions by saying me and Ecks were trying to brush your concerns aside. We're not - we're trying to find a solution or explain the process. It will be a clutter, but we can find a way to manage it. —

I haven't jumped anywhere. I fail to see how the massive amount of clutter is not an issue. We already have enough as it is. I am entitled to my own opinion and the fact that you don't seem to consider this a valid enough problem is a bit off-putting. You might not think it would affect the wiki in a negative way, but that doesn't mean I don't. You told me to bring up a concern I had, and I did. =/ ​

We'll still have image limits; I'm thinking they'll be no more than 60 extra pages at a time if we stick with the image limit we have now. And, if we go rank by rank, clan by clan, it won't be so overloaded. Once and image is approved, the subpage's contents is moved to the archives and the subpage is deleted. I see no reason why we should keep the subpages any longer than needed. An archive isn't edited - the subpages will no longer be necessary to prevent conflicts and will be deleted, with contents moved just like we do now with individual sections, is my understanding. <span style="">23:35, 02/5/2019

The subpage will have to exist in order for the contents to be displayed. If the subpages are deleted, so is the content. No one is brushing aside your concerns, we are commenting on it. May I ask how the extra clutter affects the Wiki? 23:37, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, Jayce. You said your opinion and we explained a way to work around this. It's not an argument, and I genuinely think you're taking this a bit personally as you're accusing of as not considering your opinion as valid and saying we're brushing it aside when we're not. We're trying to find a solution and figure out a work around to make it manageable. It is a concern, but you have neglected and ignored our solution and anything we say to try and counteract your concern. No solution we find to this will be perfect, there will always be a con, and we're discussing this to figure out what will work best. We are not against you, but we're trying to work with you to find a solution. —

Icy, the subpage can't just be copy pasted for comments and we just... type a header on an archive page?? An then delete subpages? More work... but we don't need all these subpages that no longer serve their purpose of preventing ECs. <span style="">23:40, 02/5/2019

Can you try and reword that? I do not understand what you said. 23:42, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

If this section about this topic were on a subpage, and we came to a conclusion on the topic and it needed to be archived (like a CBA being finished on the approval page), we edit that subpage, copy the contents of the section, and paste it to the archive page with the heading ==Idea for charart pages==. Then the subpage gets deleted. Literally the same as we currently archive things, just with an extra two steps. The only thing lost is edit history which we don't need. Once an image is approved, it's approved. Done, archived, the section is never edited again. <span style="">23:53, 02/5/2019

The only issue is, not everyone has the delete tool and that puts twice as much work on people who do have the tool. So, unfortunately, not all leads would be able to do it. That is just my thoughts on that. 23:55, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

We have the deletion category for a reason, if that's your argument, that we don't have the tools. You, Jayce, Spooky, and the other CMs are on often enough to keep up with it. <span style="">23:58, 02/5/2019

That is not the argument I am trying to make. Yes, we do have the tools. However, if we were to go the subpage route, these would be over 1300 images to create, and unfortunately we may not be able to keep up on it. It is not a matter of our activity but it may prove to be a hassle in the end. In my personal opinion, I do not see why we need to delete the pages (other than the clutter issue, which, generally, would not have any negative effect on the Wiki, it would not collapse it / break it / prevent users from editing). But, however, that is just how I see it. I am also not quite sure how other staff would react to wanting to delete those many images. 00:03, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

the edit conflicts dont even seem to be that bad of a problem.....this just seems less user friendly, an unecessary extra couple of steps, and this is what the limit is for?? also just because we do have the tools to delete it doesn't mean we're on the wiki all the time to keep up with deletions. we are doing other things. 00:06, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

http://prntscr.com/mh6cm0 edit conflicts really aren't that big of an issue to create all this clutter. we don't need it. <span style="">00:09, 02/6/2019

So... you wanted the idea but now you're against it? You've flip flopped a bit and it's a bit confusing. I was edit conflicted 5 times in a row when trying to fix the spacing issue left by VE, and it's just the redoes. We have incredibly active newer users and PCA's moving so fast. In the end, you don't have to agree but you kinda grilled Icy on the process for a second before going "nevermind," so its left it a bit confusing. —

Ok so here's an idea (i don't think it was brought up before but i haven't read all the replies), what about using the forums instead of subpages? That's what the other projects do for their nominations, so it would make sense. And we can still include them all on the approval page for easier viewing, I double checked and forums can be used as templates. I believe we can get around the standard forum template and breadcrumb links being included by just wrapping them in noinclude tags in the generator, so it would look exactly the same on the approval page as the subpages. I'm still not sure how it's handled when the same image goes up for approval multiple times (do the other projects have a way of handling that with nominations?), but at least this would avoid having a bunch of subpage clutter without requiring page deletion or history loss. Not sure if it would be an issue of crowding out the votes and discussions that are normally in the PCA forum, but if so perhaps we could have a separate forum just for art. (note: yes i realize that the forums are still pages/subpages, but the mentality behind it is different since there's meant to be lots of forum topics, so it probably won't feel like clutter)

WHile that's another solution, it still doesn't truly combat the main issue which is the massive amount of subpages. Ultimately, we can always just put all the subpages under the same category and that'd have almost the same effect, so I don't know if that much extra work to store it in forums would be beneficial... —

It wouldn't really be any extra work compared to the normal subpages. And I believe PC has well over a thousand nomination forums, and (afaik) nobody's had a problem with there being so many of those so far. The amount PCA would have would be very similar, especially if we didn't start using this until the kits/warriors.

But what is the difference, really? It is still the same clutter - there would still be several hundreds of forums left over, there really is no difference between the forums and the subpages, at least from what I can see. 03:57, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

Honestly there's not a big difference, it's mostly just the mentality of it. The forums were meant for that, and there's already a precedent for having hundreds of separate threads in there, and that method is used by all the other projects. Afaik the only reason PCA never did that originally was because it was easier to be able to view all the images on one page, which is now resolved, so it seems logical to just follow their lead. It's still a lot of pages, the only difference is that these are pages that the other projects already have lots of, and have no issue with.

Hm, so are you saying the difference is that people mainly will not have an issue with it because they are forums instead of subpages? I just do not really see the difference other than that, and forums usually are just for silver nominations/discussions/what not. Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are saying. 04:06, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. That is basically the only difference. And posting images for approval is basically PCA's versions of nominations, we just call it by a different name.

Got it. Thanks for clearing it up. But still, the same issue stands, the amount of pages. 04:10, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

Addition: You brought up an excellent point with the other projects, the amount of pages are not an issue there... not really sure why they would be considered one here as well. Still, my opinion is that the forum namespace is also probably incorrect. I do not know, what does everyone think? 04:13, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

My main issue with using forums is PCA forums are used for blanks as well as the family tree votes and official art votes. Unlike PC, PB and PA, PCA uses forums primarily for business related things. I think adding the chararts and "nominations" to that may genuinely make things cluttered. I think they should stay as subpages where we can contain them easier. —

Just a question
Hi, I saw Littlecloud's alt mc got declined to the one month limit, and I don't get the point of that. Someone work really hard on an image - they work on it for a month! - and then it got declined? Why? What is the point of that? I'm asking because Feathertail's alt apprentice is nearing a month and I really don't want that declined. Something else I noticed - in real life, tabby she-cats have some ginger in their pelt. So if I'm making a tabby she-cat, am I allowed to add some ginger since this is how it works in real life? -- 07:32, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

In PCA the current default ruling is to make tabbies without a specified pelt color brown, so it’d be just that without any ginger. They’d only get that color if it’s cited. I personally wasn’t around for when the one month limit started, but I’ve always understood it to be a prevention method for someone holding a reservation for too long (which doesn’t let others try it) and also because it encourages people to upload promptly so that the page doesn’t stall, knowing they have a lose limit. Which, one month is more than enough time to complete a project in almost any case, if you keep on top of updating it

First thing: I'm reuping almost every day, and it got CBAed three times if I'm right, it's not like I'm barely uploading it. Second, sorry that it wasn't clear what I meant about tabby she cats. I meant that brown tabby she-cat aren't just brown, they're brown with some ginger and their pelt. I'll link a pic if I'll find one, the she-cat I wanted to take a picture of won't let me do it.-- 14:52, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

We already have more than enough "realistic" standards for our art, despite the series itself being highly unrealistic. While it's good that people are paying attention to genetics, it really isn't necessary to force even more realism upon PCA; it takes away from the creativity when some of us are unable to make hyper-realistic patterns as it is.

As for the one month ruling... while I would be okay with making exceptions, generally the rule itself is fine. Otherwise, we'd have people intentionally hoarding images for months at a time while others don't get a chance to work on it. ​​​

I tryed to re-up mine, whenever I could, and altho I think it was fair for it to be diclined, I think that kits (and possibly apprentices) could like a week more, because they are newer. Or maby it could be if you re-up often. but I think for newer people, who upload often, could get a week or so more. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC">❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 20:47, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually kind of agree. Newer users seem to get shafted by this one month limit, even though they have the commitment. As long as they upload consistently, I think it'd be okay to extend the one month limit. The "they can't reserve for another week" after they're declined for one month kinda shafts them more. For newer artists, this limit does feel against them. —

I would be more than happy to see the one month rule extended for users who work hard on their chararts and reupload consistently. Their hard work should not go to waste because they could not get it finished and approved by the deadline. The one month rule should be absolutely be implemented for warriors and up, and I think we can be more lenient for kits and apprentices. PCA shouldn't be about meeting deadlines, it should be about improvement and development. People who strive to improve should be rewarded. 02:59, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

I'm bringing back the subject of the tabby she-cats. I'm not stating we should tweak any tabby she-cat to have some ginger - definitely not - I'm just asking if I upload a tabby she-cat with ginger in her pelt, am I allowed to do that. And also, another thing in cat genetics. Again, I'm not stating we should do every cat like that, I'm just pointing this out. When she-cats are ginger, they're usually very pale ginger, looks something like Sandstorm. Of course if a ginger she-cat was mentioned to be dark, we should keep it like that, but if an allegiances only character was only mentioned to be "ginger she-cat" can we do her pale? -- 07:36, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Shade is always artist's choice. If the cat is only called ginger you're free to make the cat dark or pale ginger. Though for tabbies I'm not sure. Some ginger could be considered as a pale part but idk

I’ve seen many female tabby cats in my life and not once have I noticed any ginger unless she was a tortoiseshell tabby. My neighbors cat, for example, is a fluffbum of a black (brown with dark stripes) mackrel tabby and she has absolutely no trace of ginger on her. So ginger on tabby cats should be exclusively on tortoiseshell tabbies; if a character is described as a tabby, there should be no ginger (unless its a ginger tabby lmao). Tabby =/= tortoiseshell tabby. If you’re going for realism, a bit of gingerish colour on the nose is fine, and I’ll link examples when I get on my computer... I’m at work and its 4:26am rn lmao. <span style="">09:26, 02/5/2019

Honestly, gotta agree with above. I have a torbie myself and she's the first case I've seen of pure ginger on a brown tabby. (Torbies are so pretty qwq) However, I have a feeling you're referring to gradients such as this, where it appears ginger with light or as highlights. Or possibly the markings on a brown tabby's face. As far as I know, it is okay to add features like that to a brown tabby charart, since all tabbies generally have a lighter muzzle and lighter eyes. David's art comes to mind, as I know they will add lighter markings on cats cited as just tabbies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not considered ginger, just tabby markings, but that may not be what you're referring to. —

Echo that's precisely what I was getting at, thank for providing those examples <span style="">22:11, 02/5/2019

Tabby Rulings
So Spooky brought this up on the discord and me as well as some of the others talked about it, and I decided it'd be good to bring this up. Nuking some of our tabby rulings, that being that cream and ginger have to have stripes, and making that optional, as well as the default tabby coloring nuked as well, and tabbies of unmentioned color getting to be any color. That's the basis of this, and to sum it up, tabbies with unspecified colors getting to be any color rather than exclusively brown, and the option to have solid cream/ginger cats. <font color="#302B54" face="Segoe Script" >Squidward <font color="#483D8B" face="Segoe Script" >Plays <font color="#6A5ACD" face="Segoe Script" >All  <font color="#836FFF" face="Segoe Script" >Star. <font color="#302B54" face="Segoe Script" >I <font color="#483D8B" face="Segoe Script" >Am <font color="#6A5ACD" face="Segoe Script" >Ranko <font color="#836FFF" face="Segoe Script" >Kanzaki. 02:51, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%, as long as its a tabby it should count. Well in my opinion but with this when it just says pale tabby/tabby would a calico tabbies be able to be used? 03:00, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

That'd be great. --<span style="" title="No need to rush, my pace"> Silverfur's   <span style="" title="Don’t compare">  starry   <span style="" title="It’s alright to go slowly">  paws    <span style="" title="Go on your own path, my lane">  ~    04:11, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

kill the “brown tabby” bull. that makes means we have so many of the SAME type of image. Minor characters is a big example of why we should get rid of the tabby ruling. So many described as jut “tabby” that if this ruling stands, we might as well just use one image for all unspecified tabbies lol <span style="">16:17, 02/6/2019

I am 100% in favor of nuking the brown tabby rule. It forces people to make the same image over and over again, while there is a lot of room for creativity with vague descriptions. I also think we shouldn't be so strict on tabby styles. That also depletes an artist's potential for creativity. The tabby rogue I put up received several critiques for "triangle tabby" stripes (I hadn't even heard of this before), when it is a very common and fun style that I like to use. Not everyone wants to/can make super realistic tabby styles and there is really no need to with chararts, which is just fan art in reality. 16:27, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

To me, tabby color can be whatever van artist picks. For ginger cats, stripes optional because genetics, but i really think cream cats shouldn’t have them unless specified because it’s a huge assumption. I still personally support the original ruling against triangle tabbies, and would like that not to change, though. The project decided that for still valid reasons imo, and there’s a lot of ways to be creative and work around it

we should stay consistent with ginger, either all or none. and I for one am not going back to tweak all those, as it's a waste of time. if you really don't want to add stripes, just add like two stripes on the tail and face markings and make them really faint lmao (don't know about cream since that was only extended since cream is dilute ginger I guess)

triangle tabbies should still not be allowed, mostly because those don't look like actual stripes. (not a realism thing here. just that they don't look like a tabby.) and one of two triangleish looking ones on a tabby are fine, it's normally an issue when it's like this. 20:08, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for artist's choice for unspecified tabbies, especially with all the minor characters tabbies so many tabbies. Especially since the authors have different takes on what color a simple "tabby" is. I'm with David about the ginger cats. I see no harm in adding stripes to gingers, and I really, really don't want to tweak all of them. Not really sure about cream either. 20:31, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Well we wouldn't have to tweak any of the ginger tabbies. In fact we wouldn't need to touch any. What I'm trying to say is that if it's agreed on then after that were to happen onward, ginger cats can be solid OR striped. <font color="#302B54" face="Segoe Script" >Squidward <font color="#483D8B" face="Segoe Script" >Plays <font color="#6A5ACD" face="Segoe Script" >All  <font color="#836FFF" face="Segoe Script" >Star. <font color="#302B54" face="Segoe Script" >I <font color="#483D8B" face="Segoe Script" >Am <font color="#6A5ACD" face="Segoe Script" >Ranko <font color="#836FFF" face="Segoe Script" >Kanzaki. 21:08, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to say that I am okay with the ginger cats and cream cats being optional tabbies unless cited otherwise. Also yeah I see what you mean about the triangle tabbies, David. But I also don’t think the stripes on my image look like that at all. 21:12, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for this as it'll create diversity between some very minor characters enough to make them individuals. But, would it still be acceptable for a person to make them brown tabbies if thats what they think, as the artist, the charart should be? Sounds a little stupid when I type it up, but, for clarification purposes it might be handy to have a response. 21:51 Wed Feb 6 2019

I agree with making the color artist's choice when the description just says "Tabby." Obviously the artist should feel free to make a tabby brown if they'd like to. Personally I like making most of my tabbies brown, but should artists want to make them gray or golden or something they should be able do that.

Please nuke the tabby rule, it annoys me greatly. There's zero reason why we need to make them brown. I'm also perfectly fine with making stripes optional on cream and ginger cats, but would also not object to removing the stripes on cream cats we've already done, since that's the only reason most of them were tweaked to begin with. ​

I agree that people should be able to make their tabby any color they want. I am also in favor of making tabbies on ginger cats optional - we do not have to go and remove stripes from every single tabby, but perhaps if the OA wants to nominate it to get rid of it, that should be allowed as well. 03:23, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

I agree about making unspecified tabbies whatever colour. I also agree with not having stripes for cream cats. I’m still mulling over the ginger thing, though. 03:56, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

I am and always have been a big supporter of realism, and this is no different. I'm still in support of requiring stripes (of some sort at least, if only on the head since "solid" and ticked gingers still have those), however PCA draws some really odd lines for when realism is required and when it's not. Some examples being tortie colors being allowed to be basically anything two-tone even those there's a very small set of color combos torties realistically come in (with all of them including either ginger or cream), and all sorts of unrealistic stripe patterns being perfectly fine, or highly unrealistic white markings/markings on top of white, or overall unrealistic color/patterns on cats that have otherwise realistic description, along with many other things. So despite the fact that I highly support realism whenever possible, if PCA doesn't care about realism in all other cases, it is questionable why ginger stripes are an exception to that.

I would like ginger cats to have at least some stripes on their heads, but since we're not super realistic, I don't mind if it's optional. As for default tabby's being brown, I'm in support of removing that. The artist should be free to chose whatever color they find most suitable for their tabby chararts. 19:45, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

gonna be that person but... if they're just cited as being tabby, should they even get art? we are making a huge assumption about their colors. if they do get art, however, the brown tabby rule should be removed. about the ginger cats, i support making the stripes optional 04:13, February 9, 2019 (UTC)

I guess tabby indicates a specific pattern so they should get art based on that. It's enough for visualization. We're also assuming that manga cats are in grayscale, but since they have a visual they should warrant art.

Discord "Pre-Reservations"
I noticed a lot of this lately. Basically people "reserve" things before blanks are approved, and tell an admin on discord or something. If someone happens to reserve that image before they do, they receive a lot of backlash and the image goes to that person who "pre-reserved" it eventually. This happened to me before with Needletail, and I should've brought this up earlier. I think we either stop with these "pre-reservations" altogether, or make it an official thing on the wiki. It's unfair to those, like me, who don't use discord and have no idea who reserved what and what's "available", even though technically they are all free game. Thoughts?

I think the pre-reservations are helpful and are actually more fair in a way. Lots of us have totally different timezones and always get screwed over by wiki time when things get approved and we don’t get to the ones we want in time. It’s really helpful and takes a lot of stress off.

However, I wasn’t aware about the issue with it going to the pre-reserve person. I think that if you manage to reserve an image before the big pre-reserve, it should be yours.

I agree with need to fix this, and maybe making it official would work, or at least having some sort of notice/page for everyone to see. Good on you for bringing it up Fox!! :) 05:24, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

its unfair to those who dont use discord. on the other hand, timezones and edit conflicts suck, so i support the idea of having an official prereserve page where people express interest in prereserving images. people with reservation conflicts can discuss it amongst themselves. however, as of now having it done on discord is unfair and this should be addressed. 05:27, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with people wanting/pre-reserving images because yeah, timezones put people at a disadvantage. But when people who reserved images fairly are forced to hand over images simply on the basis of people saying "I wanted it" "I told an admin on discord" etc., it becomes unfair, especially if the person wouldn't have known about it beforehand. For me personally, I had no idea Needletail was "pre-reserved" because I didn't go on discord, but my reservation was rebuked and changed. I shouldn't be punished on the basis of not going on discord and not knowing about an unofficial reservation. The reason I'm bringing this up now is because I don't want a repeat of this for the leader blanks, warrior blanks, etc. If we make this official where everyone's decisions are transparent with everyone, I'd be fine with it.

I will admit, I was one of the ones who did a massive pre-reverse because no one took an issue and it was usually only 5 or so hours in advance. Although I think a pre-reverse table beats the idea of a reservation table in general since it is first come first serve, I think Fox brings up a very valid point. Also, I want to add that "I told an admin on discord" is null and should not qualify in any way shape or form. But, if this proves to be an issue, then it should not be allowed. 05:36, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Addition: Pre-reverses, whenever they are, are not official and never have been. So Fox, whoever removed your reservation if you reversed first was completely uncalled for. Other than that, I can only see pre reverses being official in a case for OAs. 05:37, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with everything Icy said. Prereserves are unofficial, and they don't hold any claim until they're put up. I do like the idea of trying to find another way to do "prereserving", but unsure where we could include everyone since not everyone has Discord, etc. —

If anything, if there were pre-reserves you could always do them on the wikia chat (when/if enabled). That way everyone could get involved. 05:42, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

We could make a disscussion forum perhaps? 05:46, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Chat is easily missed for those who don't come on the right time. If anything, it should be a forum/discussion page.

But, if we officially pre-reserve, the reservation table loses its purpose as well. 05:49, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Why have these at all? Like, if it wasn’t an issue then hey why not, but having them on a forum and stuff like that with discussions and everything just seems kinda not. Wow it’s late. I’m for just doing things the traditional way, racing to their own and that’s that. And perhaps generally try to CBA blanks at a time that isn’t 3:40am for a good chunk of our EST editors (and many who are otherwise in the US, 2:40 or 1:40am). About 12:00 would work for a lot more people and would hit pretty much all of our editors timezones.

I'm in agreement with Spooky. I'd rather keep things the traditional way. 05:59, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I have been the one doing the pre-reservations, I believe now is the time to stop. 06:02, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

What about a page within PCA that's basically for marking your interest in an image? No official reservation, just something to notify people that you would like to work on it, and the other people wanting to reserve it can do what they wish with that information. Most people are fairly good about working out conflicts among themselves when multiple people want the same image, either by not reserving the image at all or contacting the other person who wants to reserve it. And if the conflict can't be resolved, then they can always resort to the traditional method of trying to be the first to place it on the reservation table. This would at least give people who can't be online as soon as the images are available a higher chance of getting what they want, without being an official reservation and making things unfair.

But whatever the case, I don't think there should be any rule that says you can only reserve images for yourself. People have always been allowed to personally ask friends to reserve an image for them if they won't be online, and that seems a lot more reasonable that a mass reservation via discord. Plus it still follows normal rules, if someone else beats your friend and reserves the image first you just have to deal, so it's not any less fair than you trying to reserve yourself. The sketchiness only comes with when there's an organized big batch of images being added all by one person imo.

"Sketchiness" implies there's ulterior motives... which has never been the intent. Mass reserving spiraled out of control, as it initially started with just a couple of people and it escalated to a larger group of people. There was no ulterior motives here, it was just something nice Icy wanted to do for everyone since lately images have been approved in the early AM when some users (mostly American) are sleeping. —

honestly ive once been involved in the prereserving thing (over skype tho not discord, and a reaaaaaally long time ago loll) and i sincerely does think it does help users who are disadvantaged in terms of timezone and stuff. however i dont support the fact that it happens solely off wiki. instead i agree for a page that allows you to express interest in certain images, as paleclaw suggested. in no way would it be official, but i think it can help settle the edit conflicts a little better especially in a time where many blanks are being redone and mass reservations and stuff are happening like every week 10:06, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

The term sketchiness wasn't meant to imply ulterior motives or anything of the sort. It was only meant to imply that it enters into the gray zone of what's considered fair or unfair.

Wait, what? The mass reserves are only supposed to be done after the blanks are approved... am I missing something here, Fox? They were typically only done if someone couldn't get online, or to reduce the amount of edit conflicts. There's never been any ill intent behind these to my knowledge, but if people agree that it seems unfair, then we'll definitely put a stop to it. =) ​​

I mainly have an issue with people who tell the admins or whoever on discord that they "want" a certain image (before the blanks are approved). And then if someone else happens to reserve that image first, they would get backlash. Others would avoid reserving the image altogether, which sort of defeats the purpose of the reservation table? not talking about one person reserving images for their friends, I don't have a problem with that. The main issue is some of us don't go on discord, so there's no way of knowing who wants what and what to "avoid" reserving when the blanks are approved. For example, someone "wanted" Needletail on discord, but I reserved it first (since I don't go on discord, I didn't know about it). My reservation was removed. This morning someone also told me that they wanted an image and told Icy about their intent. I was reminded of the Needletail situation and didn't want a repeat of it.

Though now that mass reservation has been brought up, I think it's somewhat unfair to those who don't use discord. It defeats the purpose of the reservation table because you can technically "reserve" something beforehand, and if you aren't part of this mass pre-reservation thing you're automatically at a disadvantage in terms of claiming images. I think Paleclaw's idea of having an "interest page" is great. Those who don't go on discord and have a time zone disadvantage can express their interest in doing an image.

Okay so here's my two cents: prereserving was meant to be a way for others to get images if they really couldn't at said time, and they wouldn't be online for another couple hours or so. I myself have been screwed over by this recent CBA, since it occured at a time where I wouldn't be online at that time. And I can't stay up so no chance of jumping on it. I agree with you Fox that doing it soley over Discord is screwing over non-Discord users, but the idea of an official prereservation page defeats the purpose of a reservation table. Having something loose where we can discuss said reservations would be ideal, as others have suggested. However, CBAing images when most people aren't asleep or at school would also be helpful. Not trying to sound passive-aggressive or the like, I'm just trying to state my feelings. It kinda pisses me off when people are online at the approval time and I'm not soley because I'm sleeping or at school. Now if I'm not online because I chose not to be, then that's my fault. I'm not mad that others reserved it beforehand, I'm mad that they could get to it earlier and I couldn't because I couldn't be available at said time. Sorry if this is a mouthful to read and it jumps all over the place I'm not very coherent since I just woke up lol.

I mean, at one point I expressed interest to do three images, all of which belong to Jayce, and she said i could, is that ok? Malina457 (talk) 19:28, February 11, 2019 (UTC)malina

This thread is discussing "prereservations" that happen in Discord, where one person mass reserves for people right after blanks are approved. This is not about discussing OA claims. —

Malina, what I did was gave up my OA claims and passed them onto you; that is most definitely allowed and not quite the same thing. The three images I personally gave you (Finchflight, Breezepelt, and Nightcloud's warriors) are all yours to create and you have first dibs. ​

If I may, I have a suggestion. Although I am not exactly a huge part of PCA.. I can see what's going on here. So, I suggest that maybe there is a page made. Users who are particularly passionate about a certain character they want to try will be listed, assuming that the OA has not claimed the art piece yet. This would probably be best prior to blank approval.. On that page, if there is discontent, then perhaps that can be solved individually? Furthermore, the users will also put a time they added their character. I'm not sure how to explain this. Sort of a vote? I understand it might be more tedious, but there's no way every user is gonna be online and be able to land the pieces they want. I will also be willing to help out with a spreadsheet of some sort. Idk. Just a thought ^^ -- PyroNacht

I really like the idea of a spreadsheet/google doc

CBA timer
It was brought up yesterday in Discord that some images were CBA'd rather quickly and didn't give others enough time to critique. With this, I suppose a limit that an image must have been up for 24 hours before granting an auto-CBA, or have been 24 hours since the last comment to get a CBA. This way, people will have 48 hours to comment on an image before it gets approved and get a critique in. Everyone has a different set of artistic skills, and sees errors that some others might, so I think it's a bit unfair to auto CBA images after only a couple hours of them being up, and it honestly feels horrible to break CBAs. A limit would help prevent this. —

I'm okay with waiting until an image has been posted initially for about 24 hours before CBA, because + CBA that'll be 48 hours approval time total at a very minimum. However, the point of a CBA is 'comments before approval' in the literal sense, so waiting 24 after the last comment, instead of last posting, is duplicating a CBA; the final call for critiques. While we should wait around one full day for an image just posted, people can still get a critique in during the CBA phase, and it's what it's purpose is anyways, instead of just approving them. I really don't think people should take breaking CBAs personally. It happens a lot and it isn't really a big deal; you just fix whatever it was and it gets re-CBAed.

I have to agree with Spooky on the "24 hours after the last comment" thing... that is what a CBA is. While I'm perfectly fine with having an image on the page for 24 hours before CBAing it, I'm not sure I'm okay with having to wait an additional 24 hours after someone's last comment to be able to CBA. That seems like a bit too much, when instead you can just break the CBA and be done with it. Otherwise someone would essentially be waiting two days or longer to get an image approved since it would essentially be a double-CBA. ​​

I support having the image up for at least 24 hours before CBA. I feel that would give all users a chance to see the image and comment, since not everyone is on every single day or may even be on the other side of the world. It seems very fair, and it doesn't clutter the page for more than 2 days. 22:27, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

This is the point of having senior warriors being the ones to CBA images. They need to be able to look at an image and access whether there needs to be anything done with it. The insta-CBA has always been a rarity: most of the time its on a really good image and any further edits will be very nit-picky. Also, if there is something wrong with the image after it is completed, that is why the tweak page exists and what it is intended for. (It is not a personal attack on an artist or on the image to submit it for tweaking). <span style="">22:49 Mon Feb 11 2019

If a lead believes an image is ready to be CBA'd before 24 hours have passed since the last comment, there should not be anything preventing them from doing so. I don't think a set time for it should be placed. Correct, what one person sees as a complete piece of art ready to be approved, another could see mistakes on that should be fixed. If that is the case, they can break CBA to address the problems. CBA is comments before approval, afterall. I would rather not have images sit for an unnecessarily long time, although I do see where you are coming from, I occasonially prefer to wait a while before CBAing images, but If a lead thinks it's ready, I think they should be free to do it. 23:05, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

But less than 24 hours is not a needlessly long time and people might not have the chance to comment. Also, people may see other things that leafs do not. Personally I agree with there being at lead a 24 hour limit before an image can be CBAd. 00:08, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I think the way we CBA is fine as it is. Too many images to have to wait basically two days for an image to be approved. 1200+ images is going to go slow enough as it is <span style="">00:43, 02/12/2019

In my opinion, two days is not long. Patience is a virtue and the quality of images should trump the quantity. 00:44, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I think the current way is fine, I haven't really seen any SWs or leads CBA fast at all. I'm gonna have to agree with Patch and Ferk on this. 00:51, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Arguably, most images sit two days anyways in total so making that official isn't any harm. Images should sit for a full day before a CBA (as in, having been posted for a day). The issue comes into having to wait 24 hours after the last comment, which will cause a lot of issues. That's gonna shortchange users who bump against the one month limit, because they now have three less days because there's not enough time for a CBA process + double CBA to go through at the back end. We do have some quality images that can get past and solve their comments in the first 24 and get a CBA slapped on in the second 24, and their CBAs can always be broken in the second half if someone has a comment or whatnot, but I have a bone to pick with the 'last comment' part, less so the posting times (because CBAing before 24 hours posted is kinda rare anyways tbh doesn't matter if we write it down).

Honestly, I'm fine with waiting at least 24 hours after the image has been posted before issuing a CBA. It kinda steadies the pace of the approval page imo, and I'm all for less chaos. I agree with spooky about the "last comment" piece. Especially if the last few comments were just about waste or something else minor. I do agree that we should take care with the quality of the images, but if an image doesn't have any major issues/comments (smooth shading on --> leg, waste above ear, etc), and it's been at least 24 hours since upload, then I would slap a CBA on it. We have a lot of images to do as it is. 01:02, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I also do not agree about the "waiting for 24 hours after a comment," just "24 hours after an upload." 01:06, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I think the CBA timer should start by the time of the most recent upload, like if you re-up an image, than 10 hours later, it is CBAed, so it hasnt changed from that re-up. This isnt the exact thing we are talking about, but I think it is close enough. I dont like it being 24 hours before CBA, I dont think it serves a point. <font color="#ffffff"> <font face="Tempus Sans ITC">❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 01:11, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

10 hours is too short for that, 24 hours after the re-up seems just fine since it gives users a chance to hop on and comment. 01:12, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

You mean after a reupload, Mink? Because most of us seem to be on the same page that at least waiting until the image is up for 24 hours, not 24 hours after the last comment. If we wait until 24 hours after the last comment and then CBA, people are going to get shafted out of their images, and that's not fair. Especially if the comments are, as Vec suggested, minor and relating to waste and whatnot. I personally think it's a bit weird to force an image to go 24 hours without a comment, and then an additional 24 hours for the CBA; that's 48 hours, and a lot can happen in that amount of time.

Yeah, I meant that waiting at least a full day (24 hours) before CBAing the image and approving it. I think that as long as the image itself was just put up and stays without a CBA for at least 24 hours then it should be fine. From what I've seen since joining that's what's been done. As Raelic said earlier if the image still has an issue after approval that's what nominating it for a tweak is for. Sorry about that, my brain keeps tryna focus on a thousand things. 01:35, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Self deprecation on the approval page
I've mentioned this before but I just wanna bring it back again since once again there's a lot of self deprecation... please don't go "this sucks" when putting something up. It's unprofessional, and can often appear manipulative because then others feel obligated to tell you otherwise and compliment you. I won't write a long big paragraph about this again, but it's getting frustrating, and really disheartening to see the negativity. Sorry for double post. —

I 100% agree. It's almost to the point where it's irritating. Artists, take some pride in your work. Even if you don't feel very confident about your image, rather than saying "this sucks" or "i hate this", just don't leave a caption at all. It's not a good trend to set. 22:28, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

I feel this could be taken both ways. I've always believed that you are your own hardest person to please, especially moreso with art. If you're aware of something that might be off with your image, I believe it's perfectly fine to say "I am aware of this issue and will fix it", that way it prevents further comments on it. While some of the comments might be a bit irritating, I'm also not a huge fan of telling someone that they cannot be displeased with their own artwork. I'd say just ask people to tone it down...but outright telling someone they can't really say that an image of theirs is something they aren't happy with? Definitely not a huge fan of that.

I...I'm not sure where I said they could NOT say "this sucks" or whatever? I suggested an alternative to self-depreciation, where people don't have to say anything at all. They can be displeased with their image all they want but do people really have to put it all over the PCA talk page? I agree with Echo that it's unprofessional. 22:40, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

And this is where I disagree in thinking that it's unprofessional. I have seen countless artists over the years do this exact same thing, across tumblr, twitter, and dA. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with expressing your displeasure in an image that you created. In fact, expressing said displeasure might get comments to help fix whatever problems you see with your work. It's not always fishing for compliments.

Gonna jump back in here to provide my professional input. Seeing self deprecating deters me away from artists, I'll be honest. If I'm looking to commission someone and I see "lol my art is trash" on their page, I get an immediate turn off. It's also extremely bad to do that when you're in the professional world of art. Companies, interviewers and employers do not want to hear that from you, they want to hear your confidence. I know this is a Warriors wikia, so professionalism only goes so far, but take it from someone who's been in the professional art world; it definitely is unprofessional to self deprecate with your art. —

Sure, people could tone it down some, but it can sometimes be helpful as said above. Saying such things might prompt someone to comment something that'll help improve said thing that the artist wishes to fix. Anyways, we can ask for people to curb themselves a little, but we by no means should be policing it unless it actually gets voted into the guidelines or something (because we do have sections on conduct, so).

Reading this again, I think there's been a slight misunderstanding in my wording.

Saying "I don't like how I did the shading, can I get a comment on it?" is vastly different from saying "this is bad" or "this is horrible."

Saying you think something looks bad and prompting for a critique on it is not exactly what I mean by self deprecation. I mean the flat out "this sucks"/"this looks so bad"/etc. The blatant self deprecation is what I don't want to see anymore, as it's unprofessional, and it does sort of feel manipulative to me. It makes me feel like I have to instantly say "omg no its great!" when I critique and dispute the self deprecation.

Of course, being displeased with your art is okay, and asking for critiques on how to better it is the point of this project. But the blatant "lol my art is awful" sorta spiel is toxic and I don't like seeing it. —

I think the issue is more the angle that it is coming at. It doesn't need to be a rule or in the guidelines or anything.

However, I *will* say this to people reading the discussion: Your art is lovely. Minor flaws are not a big deal and people are here to help you. You don't have to worry about people saying your art sucks: we have all had to learn how to make chararts and everyone has images they've made that they absolutely hated. It can be intimidating to post your art, but part of the fun of a collaborative wiki is everyone gets a chance to contribute. You don't need to be self-depreciate because there's nothing to be self-depreciate about <span style="">0:00 Tue Feb 12 2019

okay, I love this, but one thing me and I think many others do, is say there art is bad, but inside, they know it is good. But I think people should be fine with saying "oh, this looks okay" people dont need to think that there art is the best art ever. I think people just shouldnt say there art it bad, because it is not. <font color="#ffffff"> <font face="Tempus Sans ITC">❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 01:00, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

ayy it's star here with her two cents. so, personally i feel like artists can say whatever they want about their art. you're right in saying it feels guilt trippy but they should express their feelings about their art. however it could be toned down. see here's the thing artists have the right to express their feelings, but they shouldn't be fishing for comments because that feels very narcissistic/egotistical. anyways asking for critique is fine, but theres a line between saying "hi this shading looks bad please help" and "this SUCKS i'm horrible" and sometimes the line is very fine. also not everyone feels their art is good, so it's not a whole "i'm doing this for show," not exactly how it works. not everyone sees their art like others do, so while others think it looks good, we think it looks like trash, and we nitpick over every single wrong thing because like jayce said we're our own worst critic. yeah self-depricating is bad but i think we're wired like this because if we wanna get better we have to find what's wrong, no?

tldr, artists should be able to express their feelings, not everyone sees someone's art the same way, and guilt tripping is wrong. also, new artists, if you feel like you're never gonna be a pro at chararting, just remember that we started from where you are. nobody is born a pro. thank you for reading,

I agree with what Star said^ People shouldn't be too hard on themselves, but they should be able to express their feelings on their art, but not do it solely to get comments. If someone actually does feel bad about their art, some encouragement can go a long way. I don't even see people talk bad about their art that often. If you're suggesting we add a rule for this into the guidelines, I am against it and find it unnecessary. 17:15, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Okay so here's the thing; Warriors Wikia shouldn't be considered a professional place, in my opinion, because namely its a collaborative place for any user to edit. It isn't an industry where you are required to have particular skills, so by implying that users have to act in such a way seems redundant. PCA, in particular, is a great example of a collaborative place because you have many users, of a variety of skill levels all working together to create chararts for the characters here. So, I don't like the wording or using stuff indicative of such a highly competitive industry (of which I've worked in).

I think it is plenty fine for artists to have some form of self-deprecation, and yes, sometimes it can be a bit much. But, everyone has periods where they go through an art rut, where no matter what they make, they will think it is terrible. As it has now been stated a couple times, we are our own harshest critic, but we can't help that. If you spend hours working on something, you will find everything that is wrong with it. So I don't mind the artist making comments like these because more often than not, they encourage comments on how to improve the image and encourage the artists. For a community, that's what you want. If you induce a rule saying comments like this can't happen, you might see a decline in younger/newer users putting art up because of a mentality of "this image has to look good". In their eyes, their art won't match this 'standard' created with a policy against leaving/making comments that include "this doesn't look good" or "god I hate this". We've all been there at some stage.

Sorry for making such a lengthy response, but this is something we talked a lot about during one of my diplomas and I don't think adding a rule/adding a guideline with something against these comments will do this wikia and project any good. PCA has always been good for encouraging young/new artists, and I think it always should. 00:28 Wed Feb 13 2019

I think calling self-deprecation a manipulative act is... far-stretched and unfounded. Most people genuinely believe that their art, when compared to others, is not good enough and feel the need to say something. And I agree with Diablo in the sense that Warriors Wiki is in no way a professional place. There is no need to restrict other people's behavior. After all, a lot of us start digital art through this site, and this should be a place where people take critique and express themselves.

i want to address something you said: "[self deprecation]... can often appear manipulative because then others feel obligated to tell you otherwise and compliment you".

... what? this assumption is tbh offending. for many teenage communities (i.e. high school and middle school) self deprecation of your own work is largely the norm, as a default part of humor and as a form of humility– im not saying self deprecation is a good thing, but when you called self deprecating users "manipulative" and "fishing for compliments" you just insulted like a huge population there with an assumption that is honestly kinda unfounded.

also, theres a large difference between actual depressive self deprecation and humorous self deprecation. the former is what is actually concerning, but thankfully from what i see it is the latter that is what mostly happens on here, which, while isnt a particularly good thing, isn't honestly that serious and for sure, not "manipulative". i strongly disagree with a policy against it– its unnecessary

07:21, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

Briarlight
This would also extend to Frog and Wildfur, if we ever get a description for him again.

So I was thinking, instead of tweaking the warrior lineart (because we all know how horrible the last one was (and yes I can say that, it was my work)).... would it perhaps be beneficial to create a special image just for these cats? While we'd only use it for Frog and Briarlight right now, we made Cats of the Park blanks for just as many cats, and discussed unknown blanks for Ravenpaw and Jake and whatnot.

I know Patch's blank is probably tweakable, but I was thinking of one that could be used cross-rank, instead of trying to tweak the blanks we have. Probably gonna get sent to the hounds, but an idea is an idea. Breezey also suggested having a blank artist vote for it as well. ​​

I disagree. They were considered warriors (Briarlight, at least). She was underneath the "warrior" list in the allegiances and she did not really have a special rank. She had a warrior ceremony as well, there is no instance of her being anything but a warrior. 02:59, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

This is honestly a great udea and I love it. I'd be game for joining and trying this out. It'd make sense to do it especially since the discussio. With Jake and Ravenpaw. 03:00, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree. They weren't a different rank or part of a different alias; they were just unfortunate paralyzed cats, but they still retained their "rank". Briarlight has always been called a warrior, and books (if I recall correctly) don't refer her as anything different. Frog was a rogue and always referred to as such. For the "unknown/ghost" cats, that was shown in the books to be different rank other than StarClan and the DF. There's nothing, as far as I can tell, that shows they were any different than what they already were. 03:23, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I think I might be explaining this wrong, I wasn't talking about it because of their rank. I was thinking just one universal image we could use to show that these cats have this injury, since it's a major anatomical change from what we currently have. I wasn't really meaning it as a rank or anything; just something we could use to say "this cat has a broken back", kinda like how (many ages ago) some images would have the same ragged fur linearts as others. It would be a special blank just for them. I brought up the other blank because of the number of cats we'd use it for, not the purpose behind them. ​

Sorry but at the moment I disagree. I might change my answer depending on the discussion but for now it’s a no from me. 04:33, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we don't want to make a blank just for them, perhaps we could vote on a blank artist for Briarlight and Frog for the modified blank (warrior and rogue respectively). That way, a lot like the reason we vote on blanks in the first place, we can come to a consensus and spend more time and care on the blanks instead of one user deciding it. Note that Frog's vote can obviously include his current lineart. It would also allow us to be more picky about the lineart on the blank and more bold about the modifications. Plus, it gives everyone a chance to take a stab at drawing a cat with a broken back. <span style="">9:38 Wed Feb 13 2019

^ love the idea of having a vote for the tweak artist like we do with the other blanks. It wouldn't be all that dissimilar to the approval process of the starclan kits and permaqueens (i think?), though I don't remember if they had an official vote back then or not. But regardless they had a whole approval period just focused on the lineart tweak, which I think was very beneficial, while still being technically a tweak of the original blanks for their rank.

I'm still in disagreement for them having their own blanks, but I'm all for having a forum and voting on it. ^^ 14:08, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Elder blank tweak
the vote passed I guess ^ What's happening with this? How are we going about it?

I would suggest that the people that want to do the tweak nominate themselves and the project leads come to a consensus to decide. <span style="">4:20 Thu Feb 14 2019

I agree with what Whiskey said; could be run like a usual blank nomination, artists that wish to tweak make a mock-up of what they are proposing and we hold a vote for the artist. Also, is this going to be spaced out between warrior and kit images - because that wasn't already the plan I think that would be a good one. Leave it for a little while, and then have them be tweaked. 07:44 Thu Feb 14 2019

is it a tweak as in a redo but leave an identical pose (kinda like what was done with the to-be blanks)? 08:28, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I believe we are just tweaking the original lineart and not redoing it, Burnt. ^^ 14:06, February 14, 2019 (UTC)