Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Tweak Nomination Voting - Warriors?
Hi, all! Because it seems as though the discussion was archived without a conclusion despite a relatively clear consensus, I'm bringing it up again. I propose that warriors should be able to vote on tweaks and the number of votes needing to pass should be raised to five. 21:09, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. I agree with this, and always have. A good portion of the warriors are skilled and knowledgeable enough to be able to vote properly on nominations, and with raising the vote requirement to five instead of three, things could be a little better. If this does go into effect, those currently on the page would not be affected by this change, however. That's not fair. I actually closed the nominations because of the massive amount of things on that page...so perhaps we can open that up again after everything's settled?

I agree with this, not because I'm a warrior, but because it might speed things up a bit and benefit the project. Right now only about five of the SWs consistently vote on the nominations, and with some active warriors thrown in it would make nominations sit on the page for smaller amounts of time than they currently are. x3 22:07, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Duck. Like, we've got tons more warriors, and they have experience. They've the judgement to tell if an image is fine or not. It'd speed thing up ''a lot. '' Ca  na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 22:42, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Ya definitely. It'll hopefully speed up the nominations too xD 23:30, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I agree also, ya'll took the words right out of my mouth. 23:51, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Besides, those guys are also the ones tweaking the images along with SW's. They should have a say in what they have the ability to tweak. 00:11, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think, Leggy. I definitely agree~  00:46, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree 01:15, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what all the others have said. After all, it would make since for the people who also tweak with the seniors to have the ability to vote. Bb un   legs  01:39, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this idea, but if I remember correctly, last time this was discussed it went all the way to a vote...only for it to be suddenly decided that there needed to be more qualifications for a warrior to vote - the main one being that they'd done at least a tweak or two. I feel it should be asked if we'd still want any qualifications other than being a warrior, just so we don't go so far and change our minds again. 04:24, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that the warrior should have some sort of experience in tweaking before they can vote? That way, they should have some knowledge of what will happen to this image with the tweak, and perhaps understand what else needs to happen to the image. So, like a requirement of two tweaks and one redo, or something of that manner? I am with this idea; however I think adding some requirements to it will give me a little more of the peace of mind I have with SW's voting. 17:48, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Restated what was above, sorry. 17:51, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

I think raising the voting to five would be enough to check each others' opinions, plus keeping track of all the warriors who have done tweaks and redos seems something of a nuisance. 17:56, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 'teldy on the requirements, imo it would be an unneeded nuisance, besides that, in order to become a warrior you need three originals, so I think that that's requirement enough. 23:01, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well I personally would like new warriors to go through one tweak before being able to vote. Most new warriors are very unfamiliar with tweaking and what's entailed in it when they are made a warrior. I don't think they'd need to do anything more than one, but making sure they have a little experience on tweaking would be good. Easier to judge what can be done as a tweak, what needs to be a redo, and all that.

And how are you going to figure that out and keep track of all the warriors voting? Also, it really depends on what tweak they do. You can't tell what needs to be a tweak and what should be a redo by just gray scaling, or even shading due to the other elements of the image. Plus, I stick with my thoughts that requiring five votes for a nomination to pass is plenty enough to keep in check the warriors. 19:29, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point. I do think it'd be good for them to have experience before being able to vote, but I guess it would be too much trouble if you had to keep track of what kind of tweak they did. I still think it really wouldn't be that hard at all to keep track of who's finished one tweak, but you have a point in how it really depends what kind of tweak they're doing whether it helps give them experience to know what to vote on or not. *shrugs*

It wouldn't be that hard to keep track of tweaks. No different than keeping track of the number of images an apprentice has approved. We could always bold the names of those ineligible to vote on the table or the Current Projects to keep track. 2:54 Thu May 30 2013

Limit on claiming tweaks
Hi all~ I don't mean to point at a few users, because I've seen this since I've been on the wiki, but I propose that we have a limit on claiming tweak nominations, some users have gone through and claimed four and over tweaks, that other users should have an equal opportunity to claim. I propose that we have, let's say, a three claim limit, unless you're the OA, of course. x3 03:12, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's already supposed to be that a user can't have more than one image reserved for approval and two for tweak/redo. Claiming a tweak is really just reserving an image and I believe two or three is what the unwritten rule for claiming images has always been - unless it's in a set or you're the OA of all of them. Shall we just go to adding it into the guidelines, then? 06:00, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. If you're the OA, then you're allowed to claim the image so it's easier to tweak, and if they're in a set- so everything matches, ect, things like that. I see no problems with adding it to the guidelines.

So what's going on with this? Shall we add it into the guidelines? 19:54 Tue Jun 4 2013

Yeah, I think it should be added to the guidelines, with three images being the maximum that can be reserved at one time unless you're the OA or it's a set. Bb un   legs  19:55, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Blank Time Limit
So I don't believe we ever completely came to a conclusion on this before, and since the queen blanks may be putting up soon, I figure this would be a good time. Do you guys think there should be a time limit on how long blanks can be up, and if so, how long do you think would be good? I believe we were debating between anywhere from 2 months to 6. And while on this topic, what should be done if we decide on giving them a time limit and they get declined? Should another vote be held, should there be rules requiring an edit of the blank already up or keeping the same pose, and how will we regulate how much they can change it after taking over? Thoughts guys? Let's try and get something worked out for this before the queen blanks are posted.

I think four months is ample enough time to have for the blanks. It's a good, even, in between number. I also think that if they do get declined, it should be discussed whether or not to keep the same blank. Since we did vote on a specific blank, it's unfair to the original artist of the blanks to see their image go to waste like that. If they do, a revote is the only /fair/ way. That way someone else doesn't come in and totally change everything, thus changing the blanks that were voted on.


 * Honestly, I don't think we should have a set limit of time until blanks are declined. I think it'd be quite unfair to the artist if their blanks are declined when they were just an upload away from being CBAed, plus, as we saw on the last blanks, lineart can go for days without being commented on or CBAed, and people work at their own pace with art. We shouldn't punish artists just because they don't have time to work on it 24/7 or because users aren't commenting, therefore a set time limit probably should not be resorted to.


 * Instead, how about just a simple call from a few users, lets say three or even two (I'd rather not have a certain ranking or higher on this since there is all chance of possibility that a user not even in PCA knows the complete dynamics of cat anatomy). If the blanks seem as though they're taking too long or they're not progressing well after a beneficial time period, the two-three users could either comment on the lineart/the PCA talk page and suggest a vote or they could just set up a vote so long as there are two-three senior warriors who are willing to signature the forum. Should the lineart go to a vote, I think it would be best if there are the options to: keep the lineart the current artist is working on and allow them to continue working on it, open it up to new lineart entries, or keeping the lineart the same (and potentially a section where users could provide tweaks that the artist can use with their jurisdiction but of course that opens up potential issues with cooperation and such).


 * I'd also be open to an time of immunity to this, potentially a month or two, implementing a type of laissez-faire policy on the new blanks where users may not suggest a re-vote due to insufficient time of observation. 01:57, May 25, 2013 (UTC)

'Teldy's idea sounds good to me. It can take people quite a while to perfect lineart, but as long as they're working on it it shouldn't be declined. Although, voting first on whether the blank should be declined in the first place should probably be a separate vote, and then voting on what to do with it should it be decided to decline it. (I think the system should lean toward the artist keeping the blank and making it harder to decline it - and that would certainly help.) And then either the artist can choose who they want to work on the blank, or we could go to whomever got second on the initial vote (and then third, etc.). 20:00 Tue Jun 4 2013

Join?
Can I join? Russetsun :) (talk) 01:24, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Of course. I'll add you in now. Make sure to read up on the rules and the Apprentice tutorials, and if you need any help don't hesitate in asking me or any other members. 20:27, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Kittens
Hey, I was looking down the list of blanks, and saw the ones labeled "kits". I guessed these were kittens, except looking at them, the anatomy does not match that of a kit. Though I haven't done these types of digital art, I've worked on creating animals before. The tail on the shorthair is not canon, the ears to small and rounded, and the eyes are small. This is just a suggestion, so if you don't want to change the blanks, it's fine :)) Kelpsey (talk) 05:21, June 1, 2013 (UTC)

Shields self from disagreements  I have thought about bringing this up, but I wasn't really sure if it was a big enough deal. I agree with the anatomy, though. The paws actually look more like little blobs, honestly. I think they're adorable, don't get me wrong. Some things just aren't anatomically correct. 22:32, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The eyes do need to be larger. The blanks aren't really a kitten, imho. They're more like miniature warriors. They need to be tweaked, at the very least. /gets shot. 23:25, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I'm gonna disagree here, though. Although I see what you mean on the Kit blanks, and although they are harder to color in, I think they are fine. The eyes look fine in size to me. The image looks as if it refers to something like this:, and it seems to match it the best you can with such a small area to work with. There is a broad range of different anatomy on the growth stage of a cat between 1 moon/month old, and one that is 6 moons/months old. Younger kits tend to have smaller legs and other weaker features along with smaller, rounder ears, and this blank displays that just fine. It shows the growth stage of the cats between when they are kits to apprentices, and that's an important feature to those who refer to Warriors Wiki to see. So, I'm going to say leave the blanks as they are. 03:44, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Kits to Apprentices to Warriors
Okay, Breezy just had an insane idea that she figured she'd share.

Basically, it's nearly impossible, especially in dead, inbetween-the-books times like these to find images that need approving to do, and in order to become an apprentice or a warrior, a user needs to have images approved. Now this bothers me because there are always images needing tweaked and redone, but only a few users get to do those. Which, in all honesty, isn't really fair and seems like hogging images to me. So my thinking is, how about an alternate route?

We could keep the system we have in place, but a user could also have periods of activity that get them promoted to apprentice, and then to warrior. Say, if a kit is active for three weeks by commenting constructively on images and participating in discussions OR they get an image up to 80% complete, they then get bumped up to apprentice. Another three weeks of commenting OR getting three images approved, and they are bumped up to warrior. A month and a half of activity is plenty to show dedication to a project and a month and a half of critiquing is enough to help anybody grasp charart skills. It's not like it would be easy to do either - it's hard to sit and watch other people do things you want to do that you're not allowed to do yourself - but it would be better than trying to grab at the sparse number of images needing made, especially since they are often snagged by older members. 20:26 Tue Jun 4 2013

Hrmmm... I think this is a good idea. Knowing how to comment, what to say, and things like that, is just as important as knowing how to make an image, and this has my full support. I know what it's like to be stuck in a dead phase and things like that, and some of the apprentices that have skill, can't even tweak or redo images because they're for warriors and leads only.

I'm agreeing with Skye here. When I wa an apprentice, I waited almost four/five months to become a warrior, because there were no new images to do, and I only had two images approved. So, I think this would make sense, rather than keeping apprentices/kits waiting for so long. Sho ond erp  Like nobody’s around~  20:46, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about them being promoted to warrior in just three weeks, probably a bit longer would be good, as sometimes even the amount of time it takes for most apprentices to become warriors the normal way it juuust about enough to get them experienced enough to really be able to tweak and redo well and such. I think three weeks would be a bit quick. But otherwise, I definitely support this idea! It can be hard for members to have to wait much longer than they normally should just because we're inbetween books/series, and plus that would also mean we'd get basically no new warriors after the series eventually finishes. We definitely need an alternative method of getting warriors that doesn't involve getting original images approved, and this seems like a great way of doing it.

I remember that, when we had warrior nominations, the user had to be a member for a month. So maybe if the user hasn't been around for a month after being an apprentice for three weeks (because maybe they got an image to 80% the day they joined), they are held off from becoming a warrior until they hit a month? 21:06 Tue Jun 4 2013

How do I join the project?
Hi, I'm relatively new to this wiki and I was just wondering how to join the project. I tried to make an edit to Owlclaw's charart and was told that I needed to join the project first. HELP! Splashmist3271 (talk) 18:41, June 5, 2013 (UTC)