Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

SW Nominations
'kay guys, I'm here with another suggestion. As you all know, Twi's currently got a SW nomination up, and it ends March 8th. I'm in no way, shape or form trying to deny future leads of their spots, but, I'd like to propose the SW nominations be closed after Twi's nomination ends. I mean, we have fifteen, possibly sixteen senior warriors, and an excellent leader and deputy that lead us well. Do we really need anymore then we already have? I'm not saying that no one else is worthy of a lead spot, but, that we have more then enough right now to keep the project running and stable.

So, comments? I propose closing the SW nominations until...hmm...maybe April? May, perhaps, depending on what happens with the current leads we have. 05:28, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

April's only like a month away. I'm thinking June maybe because by the summer people might have more time to work. I don't know. 05:39 Tue Feb 28 05:39, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

June would be good too. With most of the members here still in high school (middle school for some of the younger ones), it's a lot harder for them to get on, due to school work and all the fun stuff you can group together with being a teenager. 05:49, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

June sounds good. I do agree we have plenty senior warriors, even though it's a bit unfair to those who really deserve it. 05:59, 28, 02, 2012

I agree. I also think that we should improve upon the grounds that we nominate our SWs for. Though I cannot deny that any of our SWs haven't earned their spot, I think that the SW rank is starting to been seen as an "inner PCA circle" which seems all high and mighty. I read somewhere that a SW rank is given to a user who needs to head a certain aspect of a project like Cloudy and the Mentoring Program.

Though this might sound kinda dumb, but, in the future, I think we should put a limit on the number of SW's so when a SW steps down or leaves the project, their spot can be filled by an appropriate runner-up. And right now, SW rank just feels like a step up from a warrior rank by saying "oh, you did really well at X, Y, or Z". I dunno, this idea's just been bothering me for a bit lately. Thoughts? 22:09, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! Kinda like how there's only a certain amount of admin and rollbacker spots and such, so things don't get too out of hand. It think that'd be great! 8D 23:50, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! I think that's a good idea. What do you think the limit would be around? Just curious, though it might be too early to ask. :3 03:49, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea too. I think the limit could be 18 sm's. 07:32, 29, 02, 2012

18? DJ, I think we're good with the ones we have now. I don't think we need more. *if I'm understanding you correctly...* 07:33, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about making the limit 10. How we get it down to that level is yet to be seen, but we can work that out later. Kitsu said that SW's should represent talented artists with a leader's trust that can represent a strong leadership in the project. Now, before accusations begin to fly, let me say that I trust EVERYONE in PCA. Everyone works hard and is worthy of trust. But 15 SWs and growing? That just seems a bit extreme to me. Though every SW does their jobs from time to time, I've only seen a good handful of members archive and all on a regular basis (I've been a bit inactive in this department too.... Gomenasai ) But yes, after Twi's nomination closes, I think SW nominations should close while we sort this aspect of the project out. Thoughts? 15:18, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Accusations? Scarlet, what on Earth are you talking about? There's no reason to be paranoid and distrust the members of this project... Do you really feel that way about us? I trust every member of this project and I don't think that taking away the rights of the recently elected senior warriors would help at all. Having these extras means that even when some of us go inactive, the project continues as smoothly as ever. Yeah, close it after Twi's election, but I don't think that lowering the number of senior warriors will be anything but counter-intuitive. 15:23, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to say a few things on this subject... First off... A hard, numerical limit isn't the way to go. Your project is big. and your number of senior warriors must reflect that. Your target should be between a quarter and a third of the project members (IE: 1 Senior Warriors for every 3 apprentice/warrior project members). This puts you guys about where you should be... Senior Warriors, however, should not have the project leader's trust alone. They need the project's trust, and the leader should be able to trust the judgement of the project when they create a Senior (IE: If the project votes them in, what reason does the project leader have not to trust the project population?). Frankly, Scarlet, don't forget that you're a figurehead with a few jobs. Like the Queen of England. You don't make the laws, you just represent something for the project and provide certain bits of guidance for it. But in the end, you're still just a member of the project. 17:42, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well, put it like this maybe. (Example: Each member of the project has a right to make art and be free to participate in discussions, and critique on art. Not every member of PCA has the right to be a leader and lead the project.) We should clarify these rights and find the differences between all the different project ranks. So far, from what I've seen, these are the current rights for Warrior+:

Warrior
 * Critique on art
 * Participate in discussions
 * Participate in project votes
 * Create Original Artwork For Approval
 * Create Tweak and Redo's For Approval
 * If a charart is Withdrawn, they may take over
 * Withdraw images
 * Take part in project meetings
 * Work to become a senior warrior by earning the projects respect and trust, and by fitting into the requirements

Lead


 * Critique on art
 * Participate in discussions
 * Participate in project votes
 * Create Original Artwork For Approval
 * Create Tweak and Redo's For Approval
 * If a charart is Withdrawn, they may take over
 * Withdraw images
 * Archive old discussions
 * Set up project votes
 * Approve and Decline artwork
 * Take part in lead meetings
 * Take part in project meetings
 * Set up project/lead meetings
 * Work to become the deputy/leader once the deputy/leader succeeds the leader or steps down/becomes inactive, by earning the leaders respect and trust
 * Be a leader and rolemodel to other members of the project

As you can see, there is a huge jump from Warrior to Senior Warrior, even though it's just one rank move up. There should be a difference between the Senior Warriors, Deputy and Leader, right now, they basically all do the same thing. If anything, I think we need another rank, for the (no offence) less experienced Sw's. Their rights could be the same as the Warriors, except their rank posistion could be on the main page, so new users could come to them if they have questions, and they can take part in lead meetings and make descisions for the project, that way they don't seem all mighty with so much power. There are SW's that really deserve their posistion, and have the experience needed, but this is just my 2 cents. 05:50, 02, 03, 2012

Yes, there should be a noticeable difference between SW/Deputy/Leader, but I don't think we need another rank. We have enough. 18:49, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Given that Lead and project meetings shouldn't be happening (all important discussions should use either the forum or this talk page), you can scratch those right off the list. Everyone should be a Leader and Role-modle for the project (the project should be running things, not the "leads"), so there's another one that belongs on both parts. Given that all rules changes/proposals should be discussed and voted on by all, they don't have to be limited to the "leads" group. That would be stupid and keep a group of perfectly good minds out of the process. That leaves... Gosh... Just "Approve art", "Archive discussions" and "Setup Votes". Looks to me like Senior Warriors are mostly just members who've been given administrative duties for the project. I don't see why there needs to be Senior-Senior Warriors and Senior Warriors to handle that. You all seem to have an overinflated idea of the importance of Senior Warriors. 18:55, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kit on this. SWs are members of the project with a lot of experience with chararts and critique, so they are given the rights to decline/approve/CBA images due to their experience. I mean, they're not to have the power to control the project, but just some administrative duties, as Kit said.

Also, for these "lead meetings," SWs invite other SWs to go on the PCA IRC and discuss. It shouldn't be like that. Every user has the right to participate in these discussions, so then that would mean that there shouldn't be lead meetings, but project discussions on a forum or so. 19:08, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm against the idea of any meetings at all. All new ideas should be discussed on the talk page or on a forum, where it can be looked back on at anytime. I'm not sure what to do about the number of SW's though, I mean, we do have a lot, but not one of them don't deserve it. 00:27, 03, 03, 2012

I did the math and we should have 18-24 SW, we have 14-16. 22:57, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

No, no and no again. We do not need that many. I think we're functioning just fine with the ones we have now. 22:58, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

I think we're fine where we are now (plus Twi) too, I'm just giving the numbers, but I also believe you can't put a limit on well-respected, contributing users, it would be like putting a limit on users that could join. 02:25, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Yes we have more than enough now. I understand we need a percentage, not a number of SW, but I think the percentage should be to active users. Half the users in this project aren't active really so we don't actually need this many SWs. You know we've got too many when half of them don't have anything to do cause someone else has already gotten to it everytime they look. And Wildfire, there's a difference between being well-respected and contributive and being a SW. A warrior can be both very easily and not have to be a SW if we already have enough. A lot of our members have amazing skills and are active, but that doesn't mean they should all be SWs. I think we're fine with what we have now, and closing nominations again would definitely be a good idea. 15:47, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

A problem with CoTC pictures
I vented my frustrations out on chat, but Cloudy told me to propose something about it, so I thank her for that. Venting on chat isn't going to solve the problem.

I'll come out and say it: I have a huge problem with Tallstar's images being redone to match his Cats of the Clans picture. Inb4 you rage at me. Firstly, I thought we weren't going by CoTC pictures to determine how a charart looks? We are a creative art project where we are not supposed to copy. The book artists often make mistakes and are notorious for doing so. Do we trust someone who messed up Brambleclaw's eye color to determine what Tallstar looks like? He was still a black and white cat, and matched his description, and his old image had no issues that I could see. What about Leopardstar? By that logic, she would have two different main images since she looks different on the different books (Cats and Code). A lot of characters would have to be redone to look like their CoTC picture: Firestar (for the millionth time), Sandstorm, Bluestar, Sharpclaw, Cloudstar, and many more. Another thing to consider: If we do this, who is stopping us from basing a cat's main pixil on their manga apperances? It's no different than basing their looks from Cats of the Clans and Millie should be a cream tabby with back stripes.

Please see where I am going with this. If we let artists who make mistakes dictate what our chararts look like, then in my opinion, then we may very well make mistakes as well, and I know we want to be at our best since Kate Cary uses our site for reference. That's all I'm saying. If they didn't mess up eye color or designs, then I would be fine with Tallstar being redone, but I'm not because they are not always right. And who's to draw the line between that and the manga, you can't say they're much different because one's cartoony? Who's to say or to even know what's a mistake and what's not?

Anyways, if you can disprove me and/or vote me out, like with the new queen rule, I may not like it, but I will respect it and shut up. And to prove that I am serious, Ashfur (TC)'s image that I did can be redone so it doesn't match his CoTC picture (though I can just tweak it). And just so you guys know, I am not mad at the members who voted for him to be redone or are working on his images. I am not stupid or selfish; I know it would be stupid for me to feel any different in the first place. I hope I didn't forget anything, and if I do, then I'll add to this. Thanks for reading and please leave your ideas. 00:33, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Following the CotC has been bugging me a bit too. Now I see that it shouldn't work like this. It's like how book covers and manga pictures aren't reliable sources. Even the Erin's make mistakes, so someone outside the Erin Hunter group? (I'm talking Vicky, Kate, Cherith and Tui when I say "Erin Hunter group") If we look on the Mistakes in the Warrior Series page, we can see that there are tons of mistakes made. I understand why you think this way, every characters charart has a right to match their description. 05:15, 05, 03, 2012

I had the exact same problem Ivy. I was told he was redone only cause he was consistently shown like that, not just once, which makes sense I guess, but I still agree with you. I don't think he really should have been redone to match, but I missed the nomination so I couldn't vote. 05:28, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Given that McLoughlin's art is known to be frequently by errors that are not corrected by the editor, I see no reason why that should ever be accepted as a cite for any appearance item. This would effectively invalidate the argument that the art was even eligible to be redone. The authors don't even seem to use books like Cats of the Clans as a reference, or (based on things Kate said) Secrets of the Clans. We should not elevate those images to being sources. 16:48, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I too missed the nomination, so I was unable to vote, and I agree that his past image had nothing wrong with it. Like everyone else said, people make mistakes. For all we know, he could show up as a gray spotted cat next time. We should stick to the descriptions given to us straight from books (main series). 20:47, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Ivy. Besides the pictures that give a whole different description (like Silverstream or Boulder), there's really no reason to redo it just because the spots that were on the charart before weren't in exact place or whatever as in the illustration. As long as the cat in illustration has about the same description, the existing charart is fine. Breeze whisker  05:00, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I'm really sorry if I caused any displeasure to anyone by redoing that image. I wasn't implying that all of the images be changed to match CoTC and I apologize for not making that clear. We don't go off of the pictures from CoTC because they often deviate from the official descriptions like Brambleclaw's eyes, Millie's and Sol's pelt colors, etc. However, if an image did not deviate from the description in the books, it would make sense to at least make the charart somewhat resemble the official image. Example being Firestar's pelt length. He is described as having thick fur, but despite this he is short haired because of how he appeared on the covers of the books and there is so cite in his description saying his pelt length. By that logic, Tallstar looked more black than white which contradicted his old image. I just thought since it was such a small difference, it wouldn't be an alt, but a change. I agree that we shouldn't have to go off the CoTC images when we make chararts and I'm sorry for not allowing artist's choice. This was my mistake and I wasn't thinking about what Ivy said. 06:20 Tue Mar 6

Another thing, Tigerstar has a pale muzzle and chest because he was shown having that in CoTC and on the cover of Rise of Scourge. 06:24 Tue Mar 6

I may be out of pca right now, but I feel I must say this: Mounty, your reasoning for redoing Tallstar makes no sense. PCA doesn't redo images that are already accurate by the books to look like an image from the books. There's no reason. I added a pale muzzle to Tigerstar partially because of the images, yes, but that's adding one trait, and had nothing to do with redoing the images. Tallstar's images were fine and accurate, and there's no need to redo any image to look like those from the books. Firestar has short fur, by the way, because thick does not equate to long and short is what the artist decided on. Npo t because of any book images. If we went on book images, Sunfish would have short fur. 21:51, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I love how Mountain made Tallstar, but I agree it didn't need to be redone, possibly tweaked, maybe smudge the patches, but it depicted him well and was fitting for a two-tone cat. 23:44, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

I have something else to add, too. I looked up whether or not a cat with a tuxedo pattern on the face could have a pattern like Tallstar, and it's not possible. A cat with a tuxedo pattern on the face is either a tuxedo or almost all white with two black patches on its back. And we're about realism wherever possible. And don't apologize for it. You believed you were doing the right thing, I just wish we would have had a discussion on whether they should match their images or not, which we're having now. 03:00, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion~
Okay, this has been recently brought to my attention, and I'd like to thank Sand for giving me the idea to add it to the guidelines. It has something to do with the month limit users have, and what happens towards the end of that month. Now, we all have had images where it takes a month or more to complete (me as well; ie Oakheart's alt warrior), and since the addition of the rule, I've seen more and more chararts declined.

What bothers me is the method of obtaining a charart that I've seen users do. They're asking users a few days in advance if they can have the image since it would be declined a few days later. Now, if you ask me, I consider that rude, insulting and unfair. It's rude and insulting because they automatically assume that an image is going to be declined, and unfair because users already "claimed" that image, even though someone else still has it.

I currently think it's an unwritten rule to just ask if you can have someone else's image if they're still working on it. However, I think this should be added to the guidelines, and if a user /does/ ask for the image, they should be forbidden from actually taking that image.

Short and sweet: Don't ask another user for their image when their month is close to being up. It's first come, first serve, and totally unfair. 22:50, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I've already experienced it (won't name names, no fighting, it's over, we shall not speak of it again). I think however, we should put a rule up in the guidelines pertaining to this. 05:42, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Sounds like a good rule to add. 09:26, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

It feels a bit ridiculous, not on your part, Cloudy. But really? We have write down a rule that says don't be rude to other users whose images are reaching the end of their span? That seems a bit ridiculous. But if we need it written down, then write we must. 00:31, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I suggest that because otherwise, they'll argue that it's "not in the guidelines" or something along those lines. Plus, the newer members might not know of that unwritten rule. 00:33, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cloudy. It gives evidence that it is a rule if it's in the guidelines. 05:53, 07, 03, 2012

Since I made the suggestion, I of course agree with Cloudy. It really would mess up somebody's chance to get a charart. Sandy   I think   Daddy's   my slave!   23:02, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Tabbies
Ok I think this needs to be brought up, I'm sick of seeing beautiful chararts redone and re-redone because they aren't accurate tabby stripes. Look at Rowanclaw for example his old image was wonderful, and it is being redone to be more "accurate" but the stripes still aren't accurate, if they are find me a picture of one, not that he isn't pretty now because he is, but I see nothing wrong with the old image. I think user's should be able to make their tabbies however they want. 22:41, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Well, this wiki wants to be as accurate as possible. I loved the images at first, and now I love 'em now. The current tabby stripes are pretty close to an actual cats. Raineh Pwns all others  01:41, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Rowanclaw was redone because he was a modified triangle tabby. Personally, I like the newer version better. These images are redone so they don't look like triangles painted onto cats. >.>;; Although, I really don't think you needed to attack Loonie's artwork like that. 01:43, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

I sort of agree, since most anonymous browsers wouldn't care about how the stripes looked, really. Though some of the tabbies looked plain... bad, but that was then, when PCA was still a baby. 18:18, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

I in no way, meant to attack Oblivion's art, she makes wonderful art, and that's not how I roll. All I'm saying is the original images were fine the way they were. 22:39, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

No, they were not. They were triangle tabbies. They needed to be redone, Wild. Actually, I don't even think there is such a thing as a triangle tabby, honestly. 22:41, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

But the point is it looked fine, perfection is impossible, we should be able to make any type of tabby as long as it looks good and matches the decription I see no problem. 23:39, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it looked fine doesn't mean anything, Wild. We need to be accurate and realistic with our descriptions. Triangle tabbies are not realistic, therefore, they need to be redone. 23:44, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Triangle tabbies don't exist. I Googled it several times, actually, and the only actual triangle tabby images were chararts from this site. Same with Y-tabbies. 00:44, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

I know they don't exist, neither do y-tabbies but you could say these are(leader alt. mostly) modified y-tabbies. Also warriors isn't realistic otherwise Redtail, Sol, and many others wouldn't exist (or all of the chararts would have a "tabby-m" on their foreheads). PCA's goal is to make chararts that match the decription of the chararts they are for, not perfection. 02:20, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Wildfire, just because Warriors isn't realistic, doesn't mean we need to follow that same path. Also, no one ever said tortoiseshell toms don't exist. They're just really rare and, more often than not, unable to produce offspring. 19:11, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fine, I'm done fighting this but I say again (as I've pointed out many times before) technically all cats are tabbies so why don't we put a tabby m on every charart? Here's why, it's time consuming (and pointless if you can hardly see it), and it doesn't match the decriptions. I have only seen about two character pages that state a specific type of tabby, and none of them say they are y-tabbies, but we still make those, explain that. 21:55, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Since when do we actually make y-tabbies? And even if we did, those are usually redone. Also, Rowanclaw's not a modified y-tabby, and neither is Tigerstar's alt. If anything, Rowanclaw's just a normal old line tabby, and Tigerstar could fall on the same category. Just because a cat doesn't have a tabby pelt specified...it doesn't mean a thing. The only tabby that I know of that had his tabby style specified was Hawkfrost. Tabby style is a user's personal preference. Simple as that. But, if it's not natural, it's going to be redone. 22:06, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Okey Dokey
Alright ladies, since I can't even stay away for a week without getting skyped by members of PCA asking for help or advice, I've decided to skip the month off and rejoin PCA. The actions of a few people may have hurt me, but really it only gives me more insentive to help this project any way I can. That, plus the messages I got from the rest of you really made me feel wanted here, and made me realize that the opinions of the few are not that of the many.

However, I demand that I be re-entered as a warrior. This is for personal reasons. No need to give me the guidelines or anything, just add me back in as a warrior and expect what you always expect from me. I'm still on vacation, but I'll be back Sunday. 01:41, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back, Shelly. You've been added in as a warrior upon your own request. I see no need to argue that, if it's what you really want. 01:43, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back! <3 01:51, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Shelly's back! *loses all composure and tackleglomps Shelly* 01:54, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Me gusta. Very, very much <3 02:00, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Shellyy 8DDD. <3  Weylon  Distinctly Unique. 02:18, March 9, 2012 (UTC)'''

Welcome back Shelly! <3333 8D 02:59, 09, 03, 2012

Shelly<333333 03:32, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Yay! You're back! ♫Purplemoon♪  Happy St. Patricks Day! Good luck!  12:00, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Love ya, Shellnub. Welcome back. ;3 Sky Molto bene  12:14, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Good news! Its good to have you back Shelly. 13:30, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sheely~ Welcome back~ *w* 20:46, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Shelly 8DDD 21:08, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Shelly's coming back~!!!! (that didn't take long x3) 00:13, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Bit late here, but welcome back Shelly! 83  23:59, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I'm Not Sure How to Say This...
Oh this is hard to say, but I have an announcement. I'm leaving the wiki. Let's face it, my talents in PCA were never very good, and I just can't keep up with all of the new charart styles. I don't ever have time to contribute. I think the last like three chararts I've done have been declined because I can't get on as much. {C This is such a hard goodbye. I've had a great 11 months here, but I don't have time. I have school, piano/voice, church choir, 4-H, theatre, the list goes on and on. I can't do it. This is so hard to say! I'm going to miss everyone so much! Thanks for all of the great times here guys. It really meant a lot to me. I might still get on every once in a while for an edit or two, but I most likely won't be back, at least for a while. Bye everyone. I hope you all have a wonderful time here and that life takes you all where you want to go. 20:23, March 9, 2012 (UTC) Shadewing

Shadeh~ D8 I hope that life is good to you~ I'll miss ya, and your skills. <3 *waves* ): 20:48, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

I'll miss you all! I wish I could take the time to say goodbye to everyone here that I know, but I can't. 20:49, March 9, 2012 (UTC) Shadewing

D'aww shadeh D8 Good luck in life, and may StarClan light your path. 21:05, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Shaddeehhhhhhh noooooo! DDDD'8  Weylon  Distinctly Unique. 21:06, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Awww... We'll miss you. Your skills were great. DDDDXXXX 23:31, 09, 03, 2012

Awww... We'll miss you Shady! May StarClan light your path and maybe you'll come back and visit us sometime. 23:34, March 9, 2012 (UTC)

Take care, Shadeh. Drop by if you have the time. I'll miss you<3 00:20, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

We'll all miss you~ Hope you can return, and that life's good to you =3 00:41, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Brick...?
Should Brick (BloodClan) have a charart? Just asking 00:02, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

The only thing we know about Brick is that Brick has a missing patch of fur. Since we don't even know the gender, no. 00:04 Sat Mar 10

Agreeing with Mounty. 00:25, 11, 03, 2012

Random question about Brick: Does it ever say they're ginger? Just wondering xP Sky Molto bene  01:18, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Not that I know of... I think that was just assumed. 01:19, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Smudge Kit
In Into the Wild, on page 128, it says, "Smudge had passed six moon" when Firepaw meets him for the first time scince he joined the Clans. We saw him at the very first chapter, so he was under six moon of age at the time. Wouldn't he get a kit image for that? (If so, I'll do it). 22:05, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Well Im /pretty sure/ that Firestar somewhere said that he had known Smudge since like...forever? I don't know. But I'm almost positive it says it in the first book /somewhere/  Sandy    I think   Daddy's   my slave!  22:17, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

He isn't seen as a kit. He shouldn't get a kit charart. 22:55, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Unless it directly say what age he was before Firestar left, I don't think he should get one. I remember Firestar saying they were "kits" together, but they probably don't stop being kits at 6 moons, since they don't turn apprentices. I don't think he should get a kit charart. 06:02, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Graystripe
Would graystripe get a kit pixel? He was called a 'kitten' in Into the Wild, and I'm pretty sure he was mentioned being a kit somewhere in the book. If he does get one, may I do it? 22:39, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

No, he was called Graypaw so he was an apprentice. Firestar just called him a kitten because they were the same age. It's assumed that Firestar was being called a kitten as well. 22:50 Sun Mar 11

Honestly, this is getting out of hand... not every little sentence needs to be analysed to see if someone should get a kit charart. Not everything needs a charart, and I find the fact that PCA is coping with the lull between books by inventing reasons such as the mere mention that a cat was once a kitten as a reason to give someone a kit charart rediculous. I'm of the opinion that if a cat isn't seen as a kitten, they shouldn't get a kit charart. I know I'm being a tiny bit hypocritical since I called for Hailstar to get an apprentice charart for that reason, but I'm willing to admit I was wrong. This has to stop, seriously. Badgerpaw, Littlecloud, Whitethroat: all those cats were apprentices only when they were seen, no matter their age. They were one thing, not two.

This isn't the way to deal with boredom, people. It really isn't. 22:54, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Littlecloud, Bagderpaw and Whitethroat get them because of their age. They were not over six moons when they were introduced as apprentices.

As for Graystripe, I don't think so. That was just Rusty calling him a kit. If memory serves, Graypaw had said it was one of his first days as an apprentice. 23:01, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but for Clan cats, kit is a rank, not an age. The age thing should only apply to non-Clanners in my opinion. 23:04, March 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * Look at it this way: if kit were just an age in the Clans, Crookedkit wouldn't have been called a kit when he was nearly a year old. But he remained in the rank and was called a kit anyway. Same went for Ravenkit, who stayed in the nursery late out of fear. 23:05, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I think that age and rank both apply. Ravenkit stayed in the nursery for longer than most cats but he wasn't an apprentice. Same with Crookedkit, he had the kit rank for awhile but it's not like Crookedkit was a loner. But on the other hand, if kit only applied to rank then Scourge, Mintfur, and Sagepaw would all have a kittypet chararts when they were still under 6 moons old. Kit applies to any cat under 6 moons which Badgerpaw, Littlecloud, and Whitethroat were, but they still held the apprentice rank. This is too confusing x.x 23:22 Sun Mar 11

Greystripe was over 6 moons old, and an apprentice, at the time so he does not need an apprentice charart. Badgerpaw, Littlecloud, and Whitethroat were both apprentices and kits, since they were called apprentices, but they were also under six moons old. That's what I think anyway. Breeze whisker  00:28, March 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * So basically, any cat under six moons old or still in the nursery needs a kit charart, and any over six moons old AND out of the nursery do not. Breeze  whisker  00:31, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the way I see it is if they're a Clan cat and held the kit rank, they get a kit charart, if they're a cat outside of the Clans, and they were under 6 moon old, they get a kit charart. As for Graystripe, I don't think so, as kitten and kit seem to be two different things. :/ 00:36, 12, 03, 2012

To be honest, I only agreed with Whitethroat, Littlecloud, ect getting a kit pixil because of the apprentice pixils when only their mentor was named. I still think characters shouldn't pixils for ranks they weren't seen as, otherwise it is hypocritical that every cat doesn't get a kit pixil since we knew they all were kittens when they were born. But it only makes sense to give them those pixils since we're giving them for named mentors. 02:34, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I have opened a discussion here concerning what warrants a charart and what doesn't. I'd love everyone's opinion. I feel that there's been too much mixing of definitions of what warrants a charart and what doesn't. 01:06, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Partial-description Alts
Alright, I need to get this off my chest because I've been steaming over it long enough.

That would be all of the alts that have been made simply because the Erins don't list off every attribute of a cat every time they appear. Like Mousewhisker and Hazeltail for instance: given alts because they were mentioned with fluffy gray fur... they both do have fluffy gray fur. Not mentioning the white wasn't grounds for alts to be made. Or Sol's brown-and-black rogue alt. He is mottled brown and black, not mentioning the white and orange once doesn't mean that his white and orange fur vanished, really.

Look at it this way: do we give Spottedleaf alts every single time she shows up and the Erins don't spend half a page describing her? No. Why does it make sense to make alts every time one attribute isn't mentioned? Unless the Erins, for examply, specifically mention Barley as a solid black cat, he shouldn't get a black alt because he does have black fur and only mentioning said black fur doesn't mean he loses the white.

I think that the alts made for partial descriptions should be removed, no offense to those that made them, and that alts shouldn't be accepted for this reason in the future. 03:25, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Haha, once again you use your power of persuasion to put forth an idea I originally proposed :P Good luck with this (obviously I agree) 03:26, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

(It's always a good idea to mention Spottedleaf, haha) 03:27, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Fixing the Apprentice Tutorials
Paleh and I were discussing about fixing some things in the apprentice tutorials. I know we are against private meeting but we only came up with some ideas now I'm asking the project for their imput. First of all, we should have separarte sections for programs since not everyone uses Pixlr. Second, we should make the tutorial images one file and used as archives instead of multiple images or one big image. This would make it way easier to edit the pictures. Paleh aslo came up with this depth picture for the blanks. It would act as something like this but with a blank instead of a sphere since not everyone goes by the shading placement suggestions. Another thing would be to remove the triangle tabby section because, at this point, it's pretty obsolete and misleading. I think that's everything we thought of. Suggestions? 00:18 Tue Mar 13

Looks good to me. Paleh already told me I can make a section on realistic tabby styles. 00:23, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused about the image idea themselves and the wireframe. What's the point of each? (no I'm not being a toad, I'm legitimately confused) 02:09, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...I would agree. Paleh told me this a while ago, and it would work, as right now, we only have Gimp tutorials, and maybe just a few others. 02:11, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Like when you post an archived image. Like the one on your talk, it's part of the same file. Sorr I didn't explain that well XD. 02:12 Tue Mar 13

But why do we need archived versions of the images on that page? We'll just rewrite them with new stuff and we don't need to use the old. If there's something I'm totally missing I'm sorry 02:15, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

It just makes it so that there's not a ton of files. 02:16 Tue Mar 13