Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Apprentice Tutorials
So I see that they are being "re-vamped", but no one is even touching them, can someone please explain what is going on? 08:41, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

Im not sure, to be honest. I think the project is just trying to get the main objectives (the chararts needed for articles) out of the way beforehand, so were able to put all of our focus into the tutorials. Thats what i thought we were doing, anyway. 16:58, June 14, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not unlocking that page. People were posting tutorials without permission, and tbh, a lot of them still have outdated information. We should sit and talk about what we'll do, because otherwise, I will not lift the protection for the page.

I think we should have a tutorial approval page, and maybe agree on which tutorials need updating? 00:49, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

Ehh...kinda sounds like a lot of work, but I'm not totally against it. I think it should still be locked, but have some people submit some tutorials to snowy or beebs, and then they can upload it on there themselves. Storm &#9835;  00:51, June 20, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with above :) Also, I think some tutorials are still needed.

I think in the last discussion, tabbers were mentioned, yet not necessarily fully laid out. I'd say there'd just be tabbers concerning different types of patterns, with the foremost one being basics (shading, placement, eyes, earpink color, etc). As for "approval", many of the final products from the tutorials (finished cats), realistically, would not pass approval. The "tutorial approval page" would probably just be the talk page of the tutorials and would just need a vote, if we even wanted approval to that extent. 01:23, July 14, 2015 (UTC)

Contents that are kind of new (texture, smudged shading etc) are still missing in the tutorial page.

Alright, what's going on with this? Honestly, I think we need to approve each tutorial before it goes on the page. It's not good to be teaching people methods that aren't entirely true (some of the older images have even said that using pure white is forbidden, for example; this has been proven false), or older methods that are no longer in practice. Including texture would be interesting, as would including smudged shading.

We definitely need to have them updated, they are pretty outdated, and I support adding new tutorials like texture. I agree with Atelda that we should use the talk page of the tutorials as the approval page, that way it won't clutter any of the other PCA pages. 14:45, July 21, 2015 (UTC)

So far I see the following could be updated/added:

-The shading placement tutorial needs to be redone, with the new blanks and the redone blanks. Some of the placement is wrong too.

-Texture tutorials

-Pupil placement needs a revamp

-Based on our current standard of how we do shading, most of the shading tutorials could be improved a little, but not necessarily redone.

-There should most definitely be more tutorials focused on different types of torties.

-Smudged shading tutorial

-Tweaking the color of an image

-Fixing the texture

04:06, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. However, I do think the pupil placement tutorial is fine, other than the fact it needs to be updated with new blanks. I also think the black and white tutorials could be updated; as Snow pointed out the white tutorial says you can't use pure white, and the black cat looks kind of dark gray. 16:02, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

I've already created an updated version of the pupil placement, more for myself but hopefully it's good enough to be added to the page. I agree with texture and smudged shading needs to be added and updated, and also white and black cats tutorials too. Also the colour against the ear pink, does that need updating? 21:42, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

We should do this. Totally - those tutorials have helped me so much when I first started, but I didn't realize almost half of the images don't have light sources (and problems like that).

Can we have some comments? 06:51, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be agreeing. And I do too, it would really help our new members if we put more attention to the tutorials. 07:09, July 31, 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice for the original owners of some of the tutorials (the owners who are still active) to maybe, re-do theirs? I have a tutorial on there, and I have grown in skills since then, and I wouldn't mind redoing it. I agree that some of the tutorials are outdated. Maybe if the original owners of the tutorials aren't active anymore, then someone could volunteer to redo their tutorial for them? Some of them, however, I say don't need redoing.. but I guess we could maybe nominate certain tutorials for tweaking/redoing, like you would a charart? 00:34 Sun Aug 2

Is this agreed on? 04:14, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with it.

I'd love to contribute some of my skills to the apprentice tutorials :) 16:36, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, and some of the original artists of the tutorials can redo theirs of they want. I also agree that approving these arts at the tutorial talk page is better than here. 03:39, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

So is this agreed on?

i'm pretty sure this is, however an admin would need to unlock the page in order for this to proceed. 08:57, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

We might want to get some tutorials in process for approval before we scrap it all. Just shoot either Skye or I a message when you feel editing should begin. 19:20, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

So are we gonna undergo a "vote" as to what tutorials are to be redone? An example of this would be proposing what tutorial that is wished to be redone (OA's obviously have priority over their own), and explaining the changes that would be made. OA's can redo theirs automatically, and if the OA is not active, anyone can propose to do the tutorial and could undergo a vote/approval stage. I think the best way to go about this is to create a forum to make this organized and clean. 22:56 Sat Aug 22

Sounds good to me. 08:27, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 04:12, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

Nope! Any ideas on when we're gonna put this through? 14:53, September 12, 2015 (UTC)

i think we could have a couple of tutorials going first. maybe somebody upload an example of a new tutorial? If it goes well, then I think the page can be unlocked and the approval and elimination process can carry out ^^ 02:33, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

Does this one work...?

Are these going to be example tutorials or are they actually going on the page once it gets revamped? 18:21 Sat Sep 26

I think they should be on the page when they're getting revamped. 13:46, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Should we have something like a Tutorials Approval Page..? 15:45, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should put someone in charge, as this is kinda a major part of the project (preferably a senior warrior+) 05:17, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

If someone is taking charge, could I do it? 05:19, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Foxy, you're already in charge of the mentor program... I want to give this a try.

Alright let's not argue over this. Bramble has a point Fox Girl, you're already in charge of the mentor program but I think we should archive this discussion and start another one about putting someone in charge of it. Perhaps a vote is needed, perhaps not. 00:00, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

We can start a vote. Whoever would like to be apart of it should just comment right here and in two days, we can put the vote up. 13:29, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

can i be a part? 13:39, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

^ 13:41, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna be that person again, but I actually agree with Silver. Fox, you're already in charge of the mentor program, therefore, I don't think it's very fair at all to have you run. At the same time, I would prefer if a lead ran the apprentice tutorials, but I would also accept someone with at least four months of PCA experience. Please keep in mind that these are tutorials that future members will see. I am not saying that anyone who hasn't been here that long isn't experienced enough- far from it. There are loads of members who've only been in PCA a few weeks and are doing wonderfully.

I actually believe that we could use the senior warrior qualifications for this- four months in the project, good and constructive comments, and six images of their own approved. Naturally, they would need to know how to tweak as well, so I would like to see at least three tweaked images.

Yes, I know it seems like a lot, but please keep in mind that this is a very large and heavily referenced page. We need things to be run by someone who knows what they're doing. As long as they meet the requirements for becoming a senior warrior, then I am okay with them running to run the page.

Yes that is exactly what I meant by a senior warrior+ preferably. The leader of this needs the right experience in charart making and tweaking and well, leading really. 21:53, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

Can I be a part? 22:01, November 1, 2015 (UTC)

Vote's up. Please keep in mind that I included The Fox Girl for this, as no one ever agreed that she didn't run. If anyone disagrees about her running, please bring it up as a discussion on the vote. Here is the vote. What a mouthful of a title. 01:30, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

ok so
ok im really gonna be that person but cats like rosetail, specklepaw, birdsong, etc. isnt it an assumption to assume that theyre all pinkish-orange in rosetails case, or completely speckled like specklepaw is when its only his head described. like sure it might look dumb and not realistic, but warriors has never been about realism. so. my onion is that they should be tweaked to have said patterns/colours/whatever only where they were mentioned to be. 18:33, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Not just because i nominated specklepaw, but because if theyre only mentioned with one part specifically colored, then they shoukd have that 20:09, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Just saying, the cite for Specklepaw's description, it says he has "a pale brown freckled head" - so technically there's nothing saying the rest of his body as pale brown, unless there's another time he's described I missed. So using that idea, the rest of his body could be gray or white or something - we don't know. Obviously that doesn't make too much sense, and I'm not taking either side, just pointing out... 00:03, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably going to sound like a jerk since I just woke up but... Technically, we are all making huge assumptions when we make chararts- we don't know that this character is meant to look like this or not, and when we give a character a torn ear, we have no idea if it's its left ear or right ear, and so on. I think in this case, it's okay to make such assumptions, since it's pretty obvious that the rest of Specklepaw and such characters look like the way they are now. 00:16, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

There's a lot of vague descriptions like that. Ravenwing for example has a thick-furred leg, but he is listed as thick-furred. (that's more an example, thick-furred doesn't affect the art). I say if it's realistically possible a cat can have just a speckled head or a striped tail then go ahead. I definitely know a different coloured-tail tip is completely possible, and there's enough to say that Rosetail only has pinkish fur at her tail. (her name for one...) 03:42, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

'its obvious they look like that' but you dont 100% know that. and we're working from a description- as long as it matches the description, then its not an assumption, we're working from what we think they look like, but we also have proof. it doesnt matter if its that obvious, we dont have the proof, then we shouldnt add it. chararts are allowed to be whatever type of tabby and such because of artistic liberty, true, but if we went off 'we dont know what they truly look like', there'd be no art in history ever, honestly. 06:22, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

You kind of missed my point there- I was saying, if we make assumptions big enough to make art, then I think these images could pass off fine, since charart making is already a rather huge assumption. 09:52, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to slide in here and say that we decided to change Rosetail's coloring, since that was the only color we had for her... I seriously don't think we should change the chararts based on that alone. If it's realistic, then change it, but if it's not...just let it go.

Rosetail is a tabby, therefore she's default brown, she was named after her tail, so only her tail should be pinkish brown imho. 13:32, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

ok but: making a cat thats been described as a certain kind of cat is not assuming. it's following the description. it's absolutely assuming to say a cat like specklepaw is covered in speckles - it only says his head. we can hardly call ourselves a factual wiki if we go and assume this, when we arent allowed to assume anything else. 18:29, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Okay. It makes sense to have a cat with a let's say "brown tabby tail" and no other description, to be brown. That does not mean he should be a tabby (striped cat). That goes the same with Specklepaw. Rosetail was said to be tabby and brown, with a pinkish tail, but nobody said what brown she is, so I guess she could be pinkish brown? The color and pattern are totally different things in a cat imo, but many people are saying that it's the same - Why would a cat with brown tabby tail get gray fur? If it's not the tail that's what makes the cat special, why not say a striped cat? I believe they specially described Specklepaw to be unique from a usual spotted cat by saying he has a spotted head? I just can't explain it, but to me it's just common sense... Very sorry if I'm rude, that's just what happens when I can't explain what I desperately want to express. Ugh. All hail my explaining skills?

I'm aware it doesn't make sense - my point of saying this was to say it didn't. The only part of Specklepaw ever to be described was his head. I'd agree totally with you if they called him "a brown tom with a freckled head" but they described him with a brown freckled head. They weren't specifying that just his head was freckled, they were just describing a particular part of his fur... it's just as likely to be brown throughout as is to be freckled based on what description we've been given. Does this even make sense...? 13:42, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

they specifically called him brown - they didnt call the rest of him freckled, only his head. so why are we adding the entire thing when it was never said? and its nothing special in warriors. we've got grey cats with brown legs. i dont get why we get to assume this when theres a strict no assumption policy. and as for rosetail omly her tail should be pink as well, its the only part ever said to be pinkish and its still an assumption to think shes all rosy coloured too. 18:37, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

They did not specifically call him brown. I have the book (not with me right now though) and it says something like: "Daisytail could remember when his freckled, pale brown head..." it's whoever put the cite on the wiki that called him a pale brown tom, not CotC, it only describes his head as pale brown, unless I'm missing something 20:13, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

well OK dont snark at me because i havent read that book. whatever i dont know if he'd keep his charart or what but yeah, it still needs tweaking if its decided to not be. i dont care if its as obvious as a fantails tail, it needs to go. now are people gareeing or disagreeing on this or what? 20:33, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

The only description we have of Specklepaw is a pale brown speckled head. That's it. It seems to me the Erin's thought it was good enough for the readers and left it as that. Hawkfoot is the same too, only her description of her head and nothing else. 08:21, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

(I literally just woke up so) It's an assumption to say she has other colors. If we have a citation for her tail, then she should have the same color everywhere. 00:56, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 04:12, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

no, she shouldnt. the only colour we have is for her tail. by all rights she probably shouldnt even have an image, but since we've got the brown tabby thing, thats what should be used. youre still assuming shes entirely pinkish. HotTeacher69 (talk) 11:09, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

We have ONE color of her- it's an assumption to say she has other colors, we aren't assuming she's entirely pinkish- she /has/ one color, and we have no cite for other colors. She should stay pinkish. 02:37, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

it was only ever her tail described, you are assuming the rest of her is pinkish. we shouldnt be picking and choosing what we describe- if its her tail only, then it should be her tail only. this is the entire point of the brown tabby option; if we dont have a colour, we use it. HotTeacher69 (talk) 02:40, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

She was named for her tail, not her whole pelt. It even says just her tail 03:09, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

We are still assuming she has other colors, we have one color, so what if it's her tail? We don't know if her legs and bodies are going to be other colors, we have one color of her fur, we don't have others. 03:11, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

Shes specifically stated as tabby is she not? And isnt default tabby brown? So what if she has one color for her tail, it should still only be her tail, it was specifically aaid just her tail 03:15, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

we're not assuming she has other colours though. we just don't know what her main pelt colour is. that's why we use the brown tabby, because otherwise cats like speckletail wouldn't have images. she's called tabby, yeah, and it'd be false to say that she's entirely pinkish. HotTeacher69 (talk) 09:59, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna butt in here and say that Winter is absolutely correct for Rosetail's case- she would need to be a brown tabby with a pinkish-orange tail..which makes no sense whatsoever, but it's what we have.

I still think that "brown tabby" default is foolish. It's an assumpation and I thought we were heavily against those here. Whatever. we can bring that up another time. 12:13, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

It is not an assumption at all. Didn't you guys ask Kate what the default tabby is? And isn't she the one to go by?? 12:50, September 17, 2015 (UTC)

One of the Erin's confirmed that otherwise specified otherwise, a tabby is brown. I still think it's an assumption that Rosetail is completely pinkish. 22:11, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

k so dropping specklepaw, but as a reminder if theyve only got one description, write it out as its said, because his wasnt. and are we (mostly) in agreement she should be brown main tail pinkish, or need more input? 17:08, September 28, 2015 (UTC)

It makes sense to me, and honestly I don't mind tweaking the set again if that's what the conclusion ends up being. 20:47, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Yep. All good to me. 05:01, October 9, 2015 (UTC)

Do we need to make this a vote?

hello? 05:09, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

Minor characters
Since PC is pretty close to making this minor characters page, I'd like to suggest an idea for chararts for the page. Since there are probably gonna be a lot of cats and we can't just put 'Minorchar1.warrior.png', 'Minorchar2.warrior.png' etc. forever, I say we should have a few generic images made up for this page, with basic patterns/pelt colours like, like brown [tabby], black, silver [tabby], etc.. It'd be a lot easier than making an image for every single minor character, plus naming would be a lot easier. Thoughts? 07:19 Tue Sep 8

Sounds like a good idea to me 13:51, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

i think having like five different images for each pelt type [like, for example, five different types of tabby, or five tortoiseshells] or something would be okay as we could just reuse them. 19:14, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in that. They're all described differently - why would we need a generic image? They don't all look alike, and if anything I actually don't see why we're making a minor character page. Does this mean all of the minor character articles would be deleted? 19:42, September 8, 2015 (UTC)

No, Icy. There is no way that's happening. This page is for minor characters that aren't named within the series, but do have descriptions and a slight bit of history.

tbh not every cat with the same description would look the same as each other. That wouldn't make much sense. 11:11, September 10, 2015 (UTC)

^ Accuse us of wanting more art if you want, but then again, this is like making a tortie image for every single tortie cat in Warriors :/ Cats looks different and none of their pelts match- tbh, do we even need chararts for the minor characters page? 01:46, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

So you guys are prepared to come up for different names, correct those names when more characters are inevitably added to the list, and make hundreds and hundreds of images for characters that really are barely worth a second glance? It's too much work. One image for each common pelt type will make it so much easier to have people focus on other things. Like putting the actual page together. Because if we do make this page, it'll take forever to be written. It'll take even longer if people are more focused on the art than the page itself, which is what will happen if every single minor character gets an individual image.

But hey, if you guys want to ignore the encyclopaedic areas of this encyclopaedia for cat pictures, whatever. 06:25 Fri Sep 11

I'd say that we don't need any art for this page. i mean... These characters barely have any significance and their history would be less than one sentence, the art would take up too much space on the page and look awkward with the one-sentence history.

But if we are going with art, cats don't look the same. It doesn't matter that they are minor characters? They should still get the individual image. It's like giving every single character a basis image- cats have different pelt patterns. but TBH, there shouldn't need to be art on a page where histories have only one sentence. 06:54, September 11, 2015 (UTC)

So...do I go and edit the template I've made up? It's going to look a bit bland and..strange without the image.

Speaking of the template, I was told to make the history part of it. So it wouldn't look 'odd'. And so what if they all look the same? If you don't have an image, the page is boring and unreadable if you have a short attention span. I actually do have trouble reading and editing the longer articles because really...there's nothing interesting besides a long wall of text. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but for me and others with issues with attention spans, yeah, it wouldn't be a very easy page to even look at.

There would be nothing wrong with several characters having the same image. Absolutely nothing. Because you do find cats that have very nearly identical pelt colours/patterns in real life, and don't tell me you can't. Every black cat has the same colour, and every white cat has the same unless they're going yellow, which we wouldn't have proof for for any of these cats.

Besides, who wants to bet that a few months later we'll have people demanding that the page have images anyway. lmao. 13:26 Fri Sep 11

I think just go with what normally is happening with pages. We haven't even sorted how many charaacters/which characters we will be adding, so try not to assume. This was posted too quickly honestly. 08:29, September 14, 2015 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? 13:47, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait and see about the amount of characters that will be with the page, then decide what to do with it. I think that'd be the best course of action right now. 20:46, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Tweak Limit
Alright, so seeing Stealthfire's thing on Stormtail got me thinking. When we implemented the week limit for tweaks on the tweak page (not the claim time), we had a fair bit more members than we do now, and it was like that to prevent people from hogging tweaks, or uploading them...like... every six days or something like that. Since many things that are tweaked are brought up after the image is approved for tweaking (a very good example is Stormtail, in this case; Stealthfire was asked to fix the shading and ear pink, among other things), and some of it isn't easy.

No, I'm not calling anyone here inexperienced. That's hardly what I mean. Different colors are harder to work with than others. Lineart tweaks are another thing that are easy for some (like Berry), or harder for others (like me). What I'd like to do is promise eliminating the tweak limit of one week, and either extending it to the two weeks, like redone images, or just get rid of it altogether. I would think that it would lessen the amount of.. rushed tweaks, so to say, because people are so adamant on getting it done within one week. It might take some of the stress off people too, imo.

Now, again, I'm not talking about the claim time, because one week is pretty good for that. I'm talking about once a tweak is posted on the tweak page.

That makes sense. Rushing images sucks >.> But I actually think there should be a limit to the amount of images a user can claim though...

We usually do have an unwritten limit, and if someone feels that another user is claiming too many, then they usually speak up. I think we had it on... three or four images, or claiming an entire set of images; like say if Flametail were redone. An entire set would be his kit, apprentice, mca, mc, and StarClan image, but since you can layer the mca/app lineart over each other, that counts as one image..and maybe one or two small tweaks. I've spoken up before when I think someone's claimed too many tweaks, and if you want to set a limit in stone, that's fine with me.

This also isn't an invitation to nominate someone else's images just because you like the character and you know they are unable to claim them. (I am not saying anyone in particular; I know this has happened before and I do not want to see it again.) If I ever see anyone doing it, I will automatically decline the nomination and I would even like to consider barring someone from claiming tweaks for one week. I've had that done to me before and it's one of the rudest things someone can ever do.

Yeah I think really lengthy tweaks and redo's should be longer, cause really redo's are like creating a new image, and I was lucky my last approved image just made a week. I looked through the guidelines and this is what it said: A user can have a maximum of three images claimed via the tweak nomination page at a time, excluding images in a set. 21:27, September 15, 2015 (UTC)

I agree whole heartedly. Extending the limit or trashing it all together could relieve a lot of stress and hassle in the future. 02:37, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

Anymore comments? Or does anyone want to put this up to a vote? 13:49, September 27, 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine with me - honestly, I always hated having to have a short amount of time to complete tweaks, and having an extended time on completing them would make things so much easier. I think it'd be a good idea to put it up for vote. 20:40, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

I think it is a good time to put it up for a vote. I find that 1 week isn't really enough, because rushing tweaks really does suck, as Silver said. 0:05 Fri Oct 9

I vote to have a vote O.o 01:30, October 19, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 05:09, October 29, 2015 (UTC)

Claiming Tweaks
Okay, honestly. The fact this even needs to be brought up is a tiny bit disappointing. We need to stop with the super-quick claiming of tweaks, especially if the OA is still active. It's annoying and it's leading to a lot of arguments that could be very easily avoided by using a little bit of common sense.

I'd like to suggest that we make it an actual rule that, if you know the OA is still/might still be active, you ask them before you claim. None of the "if the OA doesn't want it I do!!" crap, go to their talk, notify them of the tweak, and ask them if you can have it. If you miss out on claiming the image, tough luck. It's better than having the OA upset over losing their image. 04:11 Sat Oct 3

I 100% agree. I read that whole argument last night, having just noticed it, and I had to admit I was somewhat appalled by the arguing that was going on. Maybe a tweak cannot be approved until the OA says whether they want their image or not? 08:14, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

And if they're notified, give them a chance to respond. Especially if it's an obviously passing nomination, like Songbird or Thistleclaw's recent ones. Don't just assume someone doesn't want it just because they don't answer within a few hours of you messaging them. I know in some cases, many of the people here are in school, (like Jayie, Breezey, [who works and has class], Berry, Beebs, ect) or in the cases of myself, David, and a couple others- we have full-time (or close enough to it) jobs. Or, some like Leggy, Ivystripe, and Paleh, who might take a day or two or three to respond, depending on what their day-to-day activities are. Give them ample time to respond (like, say, 72 hours), before you claim the image for yourself.

It honestly feels like the respect for the OAs is dwindling to near nothing because they aren't quite as active as some of the other members here. Just because a user doesn't edit non-stop or check the wiki every second, doesn't mean they cannot be contacted. We need to start showing more respect for the users here, even if you think "it's just art and if they're not around anymore" or something like that. If an image needs to be redone for a legitimate reason, and the OA is still fairly active and you'd think they would want to redo it themselves, then reach out to them. They don't bite.

Yeah people can be away for hours for things called work/school and sleep. I think there needs some more guidelines for this. 19:52, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with what's been said by the above users. The winter/fall and spring seasons are busy for most people, including me. I have class five days a week along with work after school, so I barely get a lot of time to check all the project pages, let alone the nominations. I'm sure we could all benefit from this, and it will cease any more arguments like what happened on Thistleclaw's dark forest redo. 20:29, October 3, 2015 (UTC)

i'm for 3 days, a week is a bit too long and it's enough time for someone to check. after that it can be a free for all. 11:05, October 5, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with asking to OA first. I appreciated it when both Skye and Stealth came to and notified me of pending tweak nominations. Honestly, I have been in the situation when someone tweaks my image without my permission/they don't tell me about it, and that angers me. Even if they aren't very active I request that you go to the Oa and notify them. I say this pretty much in general. I mean, it's easier to tweak the image if you own the file anyway, thus I completely agree with the idea.

Also, I find that timezones really obstruct times when nominations and reservations happen. For example, I could be asleep, at school, or working when something comes up. I may not be able to get on it on time, either. A 3 day wait is actually quite a good suggestion. This is an example for me; I don't speak on behalf on anyone in PCA except for me. 23:53 Thu Oct 8

Here's what I think: The text is getting smaller around here.

And that I think when a user posts the nomination, they have to contact the OA's. People can still claim what they want and as the OA's answer, the user that nominated posts what's available to claim and what's not. That way it makes sure the OA's will be contacted and have first claim. The nomination will not be archived until all OA's (active ones I mean) have given their answer. 21:25, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Would this be taking effect as of now or should it already be happening? 1:14 Sat Oct 17

Honestly it should already be happening, as that's complete disrespect towards the OA's if you claim it before they have a chance to blink 01:35, October 17, 2015 (UTC)

We need more opinions on this. I've being trying to keep it up, but it'll be easier if the user's that nominate the images do it in the first place. 02:03, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

Comments? 00:42, November 6, 2015 (UTC)

jay's wing/jayfeather
shouldn't they look exactly the same? technically, Jayfeather travels back in time as himself, but just changes his name. ~ Blossomstream The War Is Over 08:48, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I have thought about this too. There is evidence it's possible but it's not really specifically pointed out (I think). I agree though, they should be treated as the same cats. 08:59, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

They are literally the same cats. Jayfeather travelled back in time and basically /was/ Jay's wing... 10:02, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't Jayfeather reincarnated from Jay's Wing? If they are, then they're two different cats. That'd be like saying Cinderpelt and Cinderheart are exactly the same. If not, then yes, they should look the same and classified as the same. 10:42 Tue Oct 13

Jay's Wing existed before Jayfeather went back in time. They're two different cats- Jayfeather became Jay's Wing, sure, but it is very much said they are two different cats. If this were the case, Lion's Roar and Dove's Wing would need to be addressed, and there is outright proof they are their own cats.

Reincarnation is actually a touchy and unclear fact in Warriors. I think that from the perspective, they are the same but...also aren’t. Half Moon tells Jay’s Wing she will wait for him forever, and Kate says that Half Moon and Jayfeather will walk together in the skies, and Jay’s Wing won’t go there. I don’t know if that’ll help, but eh. Pardon me. I’m tired and dead inside. 14:17, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I personally think Cinderheart should actually look exactly like Cinderpelt, personally, as well as the Three and their previous incarnations. 16:46, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

But if they're never said to look exactly alike, then why should we get rid of some wonderful chararts based on something we have no proof for? Being a reincarnation does not mean they look alike. Unless we have a cite that says they look exactly alike, there isn't any reason to redo their images that has been presented so far. I question if people realize that Power of Three exists... Dove's Wing, Lion's Roar, and Jay's Wing are very much their own characters and are not Dovewing, Lionblaze, and Jayfeather. It's the same for Cinderheart and Cinderpelt; if you can find something that says they look alike, then sure. Also, Cinderpelt is not a tabby; Cinderheart is.

What grounds do you have for saying they're separate characters? It's reincarnation. That's when someone comes back from the dead. They don't have to look the same since we don't have a site for that, but they are the same character. Sorry that this is a bit rude, I just felt that I had to say this. 17:39, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

yeah except he only came to be jay's wing when he came out of the tunnels. but that doesnt matter to this. theres no evidence saying they look the same, thats assuming. especially cuz jay's wing is u know. not blind. 17:45, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

What grounds do I have, Princess? I have the book Long Shadows to support me. I do not see anything that supports Jay's Wing and Jayfeather being the same cat, especially since it was established that Jay's Wing existed before Jayfeather went to the past.

Whatever, think what you like. 17:50, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

How am I thinking what I like????? I literally have book evidence that does not support this. Book evidence takes priority over an opinion or theory. This book clearly establishes all three as their own characters. There has been nothing brought forward in the books thus far that supports making them match. Especially in the case of Cinderheart and Cinderpelt; they do not have the same description, and if we made one match the other, we'd be making them both solids or both tabbies, and either way would be wrong.

I just did not interpret the book that way. But you did, and anyway I haven't read the books in a while so you're probably right, although I still do not agree with you. I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you. There is no need to be hostile. 18:06, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

But I'm not being hostile... I just read Long Shadows a couple of weeks ago, and I constantly use it when I'm working on articles. I know people are entitled to their own opinion, but there's a difference between facts proven by a book and a theory that someone likes.

I simply fail to see how it is proven that Jayfeather wasn't reincarnated from Jay's Wing. (which would make them the same character) They weren't in the same place at the same time... 18:43, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

I never said they weren't reincarnated; we have proof that says they were. Cinderheart, Jayfeather, Lionblaze, and Dovewing are reincarnated from Cinderpelt, Jay's Wing, Lion's Roar, and Dove's Wing, respectively. I'm saying that they should not be treated as the same characters, as it's been proven in the book that they aren't. Heck, Cinderheart's entire character arc is about how she is not Cinderpelt, for example.

True. Ugh, I hate Warriors reincarnation. But that's off topic. You've convinced me. :) 18:50, October 13, 2015 (UTC)

Jayfeather literally /was/ Jay's Wing. Sure, we don't know if Lion's Roar and stuff were the same, but he literally /was/ Jay's Wing. The real Jay's Wing died in the tunnels and apparently Jayfeather came... back. I don't think this is anywhere near the same with CInderpelt's case. 02:02, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

it doesnt mean they look the same? wouldnt you think they would have freaked out if he'd suddenly come back looking...different? sure you could argue he always looked the same, but there's no proof for it, so it doesn't matter. you can't redo it based on non existant evidence. 10:09, October 14, 2015 (UTC)

They're two totally different characters that lived two totally different lives. Their images should not match as for a start, they came from two totally different families. Reincarnation (usually) only means that the mind and spirit of a being is transplanted into another's body. By the logic presented the traditional idea of reincarnation would involve a snail or whatever becoming human to match the body the person had before they died. 07:00 Thu Oct 15

So Jay's Wing disappeared, and came back as a different cat. That would be... weird? Don't tell me Jayfeather's soul left him and settled in Jay's Wing's body.

I think he just remembered the life as Jay's Wing but it is not clear. What's clear is Jayfeather is the reincarnation of Jay's Wing. I think they should look the exact same. 02:05, October 27, 2015 (UTC)

But Jay's Wing and Jayfeather are two different cats, Stealth. Just because they're reincarnations doesn't mean they should look alike. If we do that, then we need to make Cinderpelt and Cinderheart match, Lion's Roar and Lionblaze match, and Dove's Wing and Dovewing...and each one of those cats are very much not their "reincarnated versions", so to say. We're assuming they look alike, and they should not be treated as such, because the dialogue very much proves that they're not.

They don't have to look alike. It's possible Jayfeather possessed Jay's Wing's body when he went back in time(something to back this theory up is that Jayfeather could see when he went back in time). My personal headcanon is that they like merged into one cat for a short while. It could easily be something else entirely. Anyway, the whole shebang is up to interpretation, and they never said Jayfeather and Jay's Wing look the same. 16:10 Thu Oct 29

Anymore comments? 00:28, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

Some "unspoken" guidelines that need clarification
I've been noticing some arguments regarding to people's comments, and some leads have been enforcing rules that have never been established, which causes some conflicts between users. Here I'd like to point out some of the "rules" that were being enforced but argued against, and were never established, and also I'm here to ask if these are cannon, or not:


 * 1) Regarding to the tweak page, some people were yelled at for not listing the OAs, and even yelled at if their OA list was "incomplete" as in lacking a user, etc. Some other users have been listing none of the OAs and have gotten away with it. Listing the OAs was never really a part of the guidelines, so I'm just wondering, is listing the OAs a requirement, or not?


 * 1) Some tweak nominations passed with five nay votes and five yay votes, but has a rule really been established on how the tweak nominations pass if the votes come to a tie, or not?


 * 1) What is "it's fine"? Is it including "I'm sorry. I color picked from their other images. I'd rather not"? because this is what some users have been saying and they still get accused for saying "its fine", some users just simply say, "it's fine" without an excuse and get away with it. So what are the borderlines for this?


 * 1) Some redone images that were posted were told to match the old images, while others were able to completely redo an image. So what are our rules on this? My Morningflower image was changed to match the old pattern, however Mossfire's image, Olivenose's image, Toadskip's image all have a completely new pattern. I find it frustrating that some users were required to do it while others were just let off. We need a rule on this.


 * 1) Is color picking an legitament excuse to say it's fine, or not? Tbh, if the other images were approved, then they should match in color 100%, so I'd say that it is legit.


 * 1) What are our rules regarding to giving an image to the OA? And if the image is already snatched, and the OA wants it, then who gets the claim?


 * 1) If an OA wants to redo an image they believe it not up to their satisfaction, is that legitimate reason, or not?


 * 1) What are the voting rules for PCA's fourm?

Basically these are the most common "mini rules" i find, mainly regarding to the tweak nominations and tweak page.

10:34, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

with colour picking, it really depends on whre the users colour picked. sometimes its justified, sometimes it has to be tweaked. and no, i dont believe if the only reason is 'beause the oa doesnt like it' is a good enough reason, if i wanted to redo say mapleshade becase id made the pattrn and it was fine otherwise but i was the only one who thought it needed a redo (i didnt but its an example) then youd all be rather quick to vote no, wouldnt you? whys it any different for other images?

users only have to match the old pattern if its mentioned in the nomination, which just doesnt always happen. if its not and the user doesnt want to match the old pattern, too bad? 17:45, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

I think listing all the OA’s should be a rule. The rule for tweak nominations is five nay or yay votes, whichever is reached first. It’s okay to say ‘it’s fine’ as long as there is an explanation to go with it. Redoing images… sometimes the pattern is great and should stay, sometimes the pattern isn’t well liked or hard to match. I definitely think there should be some sort of rule for that. Saying “I colour picked”, isn’t an automatic they have it right. They could have colour-picked highlighted areas. The rules for OA claim and that is being discussed, and is very blurry right now. OA’s wanting to redo images because it doesn’t seem right. I wasn’t happy with my Seedpaw apprentice image’s shading until I asked to redo the shading. I was given that and it was a lot better. I guess it depends on the context. No idea for the forum voting rules though. 21:45, November 5, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gonna get too into this and comment on all these, but I do want to point out that it's already in the guidelines that OA's need to be listed on the tweak page.

"When an image is put on the talk page, the warrior who uploaded it should state its original artist, and then list the improvements made and ask for any further suggestions."

I agree that this either needs to be removed entirely, or more strictly enforced though. If the rule's kept, it should also be made more specific. Does the user only need to list the last OA, regardless of whether it was a tweak or redo/original? Or the OA of the pattern? Or the whole list of artists who've worked on the image?

Can we have some more comments? This is actually pretty important imho. 01:58, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Joining
Hey! May I join? 04:53, November 7, 2015 (UTC)

sure. Make sure to read the Warriors Wiki:Charart/Guidelines and Warriors Wiki:Charart/Apprentice Tutorials if you need them ^_^

Leafstar's Mother
So I was looking at Leafstar's mother's alt StarChan image, and I realized something. Leafstar's mother is a pale brown and cream tabby she-cat. The alt description is white-and-tabby, which seems to me like it's a partial. It doesn't contradict anything, except for her looking like Leafstar, who was called brown tabby and white once as well, which doesn't contradict anything in her description. Looking at these and at what's been considered a partial in the past, I don't think either of these are alts. 16:20 Mon Nov 9

Cream is not white. It's not a partial. It contradicts her brown-and-cream description.

cream is dilute ginger. its not related to white at all. 16:26, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

Tabby could be cream tabby and brown tabby though. There is nothing saying that tabby is not cream. And for Leafstar, they just didn't mention her cream parts. 16:38 Mon Nov 9

No. She was literally called brown-and-white. It's not cream, brown, and white, or any variation. It's brown-and-white, and that's that. It's a mistake.

So if an orange and white cat is called orange, that's a mistake? 16:45 Mon Nov 9

what are you on about? thats not related to this at all. cream isnt white. 16:47, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

I know. But brown-and-white could also have cream markings. Unrelated to the white. It is the same thing as if an orange and white can was called orange. The author simply did not mention the cream, which is still there. <span style="">16:50 Mon Nov 9

except it just calls her tabby and white, and shes never been mentioned with any white any other time? you cant just mash an unrelated description onto it. 16:51, November 9, 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the book said. The book said brown-and-white. That would be combining references together that have nothing to do with each other. (like if a white cat was called black; it doesn't make them black-and-white) Orange and white and orange are partials. Brown-and-cream and brown-and-white are two different things entirely.

Join?
May I join the program? Jaysnow (talk) 05:50, November 10, 2015 (UTC)Jaysnow

You're already in the project.

Screen Differences
This has obviously become a very contreversial topic between users in PCA... Some people see chararts different than others do, which leads to arguments among a lot of users. I honestly think we need to come to an agreement on what constitues as "fine" or not. I think that the majority that agrees that something needs to be changed should be the outcome, and vice versa. That's never really clarified in the rules and I think it needs to be clarified more. 15:36, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the screens thing. I've looked at the same pictures with different devices and they certainly look different. I think the majority saying it needs to be tweaked is fine. 21:01, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Elimination of Male/Female Blanks
I'm here to propose the elimination of male and female blanks.

First of all, let's look at the basic "difference" between a male blank and a female blank:

Eyelashes.

You don't tell the difference of gender between cat to cat by eyelashes. Cats simply don't have them. It isn't extremely apparent to the naked eye what gender is what cat, and certainly, eyelashes aren't present.

Second of all, who cares about a couple of pixels just to "distinguish" male and female cats? People have mistakenly chosen the wrong blank, had to argue over what "blank" to use and unnecessary tweaks have been set up because of it. It would be simple to just get rid of the gender differences all together.

Last of all, because of the increasing amount of ranks appearing in the books, this also indicates the fact that there will be more blanks. If we get rid of the "Female" blanks, then we could vastly cut down the number of blanks on the chart page, which the amount is becoming pretty tedious.

Thoughts? 13:57, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that, technically, eyelashes aren't even an indication of gender in the Warriors series. Sandypaw and Brick are two prime examples of this.

I've been thinking about this for years. We don't need different blanks for male and female cats. It's ridiculous. <span style="">14:01 Wed Nov 11

not to mention you cannot tell if a cat is male or female in real life barring if you decide to have a look at the other end. and with this we could actually have chararts for characters w a description but no confirmed gender? i know there isnt much, but still. 14:03, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah this would probably mean cats with, as skt said above, no gender but a description to get images, as it's technically gender neutral. I'm in support of this 100%. 14:08, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

I was actually considering posting this very topic, but I thought people wouldn't be on board. I am in support of this. You can easily read the gender in the description which is literally right next to the main image. It is entirely unnecessary, and the whole "eyelashes" thing is weird. <span style="">14:39 Wed Nov 11

I don't think this is necessary. Honestly, there's thousands of images, and this realism thing is getting annoying. However, if this happens, they don't need to be formally put up for nomination, right, because there's so many? Sorry if this seems like a stupid question. 15:27, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

its not realism, its the fact theyre redundant. half the time you cant even see the eyelash on the darker cats. and no, also because of the fact its even more minor than eye colour changes. and theres less than 500 females. 15:29, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It's unrealistic and a bit offensive in a way. Someone can easily just go over the female chararts and quickly edit them, no need to tweak. 20:32, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

The female blanks are really, really unnecessary. O.o I was wondering about this for a hell long time. Eye lashes aren't honestly a legit way to determine if a cat is female or not. I'm in support of this.