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 People were posting tutorials without permission, and tbh, a lot of them still have outdated information.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We definitely need to have them updated, they are pretty outdated, and I support adding new tutorials like texture.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)

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)

Triangular/Y Tabbies
Alright. After Cody's queen was nominated and passed, I felt the need to bring this up. I nominated Redstar, who was very, very clearly a Y and triangle tabby, and suddenly all these images are being nominated for the same reasons. Some of these really did need it; Rowanstar, for example, but Cody? Her queen in particular? There are no triangles on that. They are fine. Honestly, it's getting out of hand and it's getting very irritating. At this point it feel like we need to set up a standard for what exactly a damn Y-tabby or triangle tabby is, because people are nominating images for one stripe that looks slightly Y-shaped and they're passing. I'm suggesting that people stop nominating for triangle and Y-tabbies unless it is glaringly obvious that lots of the stripes are that style, or that we stop nominating for this altogether for now. I'm sick of this. It just feels like a need for every single damn image to be redone. 12:28 Sun Aug 9

Nominating the Y-tabby images naturally arouses intense interest in the topic- tbh, Rowanstar was not a really-obvious y tabby, imho. A lot of users here have the "this image passed so this should" thing that is perfectly natural. Many of the other images nominated were actually similar to Rowanstar's old versions, which is why i voted yes for the majority, but they did not pass.

However, I agree that things are spinning out of control, and this does need to slow down a lot, and things really need to settle down over what is not and is a Y tabby or a triangular tabby. 13:09, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

I decided to go looking for what was, in the past, considered these tabby types. This is a y-tabby and this is a triangular tabby. Some of the images we've been nominating only barely resemble these, maybe have one or two stripes that could be questioned as y/triangular tabby - they're fine. So yeah, after that I do agree with you. 13:42, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Thank god this has been brought up. I keep going to the tweak nominations and it's all triangular/y tabby - the nominees are often fine and have no need for change. I definitely agree. 16:31, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for posting this, I couldn't agree more. Its really starting to get out of hand, and frankly irritating. Redstar and Rowanstar I can see why they were nominated, but Cody and Poppydawn? No. 16:54, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Rowanstar, Bramblestar, Cody, and Poppydawn are not y tabbies. Redstar is borederline, but looks a fair bit y-like. Y tabbies and triangle tabbies are like what Icebreeze linked above. Having one or two y stripes or triangles does not mean the entire pattern is unrealistic.

When did this start? It's happening so much left and right that I'm confused as to what a y tabby or triangle tabby is. 21:58, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not very happy with Feathertail being redone. She's not a Y-tabby at all. I couldn't separate a Y-tabby and a mackerel tabby?

Feathertail was a tweaked y tabby. This was the original version, and all that was done was the stripes were smudged. Given that her images didn't match each other, it made sense to redo it, and there were also other problems with the set that you couldn't tweak. Google shows cats that look nothing like Feathertail's images in the least. It started because people are taking things way out of hand in order to be able to redo images to whatever they see fit. While some of them I didn't have a problem with (like Feathertail and Redstar), others don't necessarily need to be redone.

since when do we follow google for pelt patterns though? if we did then we might as redo every tabby that doesnt look like a 'real' one. :/ 13:52, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

i don't know why i'm commenting i honestly don't. there hasnt even been a comment on this for over a week what am i doing

Tabby stripes branch

Oh look more feathertail

The reason the branching stripes on feathertail's pre-redo image (as well as some others) look unrealistic isn't because they're y-stripes (which they're not, at least in the original sense of the word), it's because they don't follow the body form. Though as far as I'm aware, markings following body shape has never been one of pca's standards so

Early Settlers Blank
Alright, since we held off on making the early settlers a blank until we knew whether or not they'd become "warriors" so to say, and I think it's obvious they wont be classified as so until atleast Mothflight's Vision. I say a new blank would be needed considering they are an established group. 23:54, August 11, 2015 (UTC)

We definitely ought to give them a blank, they're far more organized that rogues, yet not Clan cats yet - they are their own group, and deserve blanks to represent that. 01:58, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

They're an established group with at least some form of basic hierarchy, with leaders. They're also called former rogues in The Blazing Star, and also aren't even listed as rogues in the allegiance lists for any of the books. The fact that they're a group with a form of community is enough to qualify them for a blank, tbh.

I think using the ancient blank is just as good- they are ancient cats. 03:03, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Throughout The Blazing Star and A Forest Divided especially they have proven to have a similar hierarchy to the Tribe at the same point in the series, just split into five different camps. They are not exactly rogues at this point, nor Clan or Tribe cats. Agreeing with the above, they are their own established group. 03:14, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Burnt, the ancient cat blanks were for the ancient tribe and the ancient tribe only. After they left, they were no longer ancient tribe cats.

I think they need separate blanks, as they have their own ranking and all of that. 14:20, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it was agreed on we'd talk about this after the Dawn of the Clans Arc finishes. That's not far away anyway. (Path of Stars coming out September). I support this anyway, they are different enough. 21:57, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

Well, Stealth, given that they're an established group and called "former rogues" and things of the like before the end of the arc, isn't it kinda misrepresentation to continue using rogue images for them?

I do support this 100% don't doubt that! I was just noting on what was agreed on previously. 22:21, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

nvm, I support this. 08:56, August 13, 2015 (UTC)

So do I.

I guess we should wait for the PC discussion + the cats of the park blanks to settle down before we start with these blanks. (And i support this, btw) 11:50, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

The PC discussion is resolved and the Early Settlers are given their own rank. 23:59, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

should somebody start the forum or should we wait for the COTP blanks to get approved first? 00:20, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

I think with the new book coming in a few days sooner is better than later. Otherwise people will be finished a new rogue blank (assuming more characters join the groups) then it suddenly isn't needed because of the new blanks so it has to be deleted, which I think is kinda rude and unfair. 01:40, August 29, 2015 (UTC)

Frecklewish (TC) Brown Alt
I had to withdraw because the discussion on the image. So continue discussion here. I still think she gets a brown alt. 22:19, August 12, 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't want to repeat myself on the approval page. I think its a partial. 10:27, August 18, 2015 (UTC)

They're from two completely different parts of the novella, so I disagree with you, Burnt. I fail to see how it's a partial. I could understand if it was part of the same chapter, or... if Frecklewish was already pale brown or whatever have you, but she's not. There's quite a few things in between those cites, and I'm also pretty sure she's even called her canon description once or twice.

I have to disagree.

It really does not matter of what part it is, for all we know, it could be describing pale, it could be describing near to black- brown. It's an assumption to say that it is not pale brown, the pale brown alt represents the mistake fine. 04:02, August 20, 2015 (UTC)

Well, with that in mind we'd have to go through and remove every alt for every cat called grey instead of black or ginger instead of brown and stuff like that because it's """partial""" because no specific shade was mentioned.

Honestly I think that one comment I made in freaking 2013 or whatever was made in attempt to look authoritive. I don't think I actually had any idea what I was talking about, and I honestly really don't agree with it now, and haven't for quite a long time. Brown is a shade in itself; just because it's not specified whether it's dark or light, because even they have different shades within them too. /: 13:41 Thu Aug 20

Please bear in mind that I'm not using your argument in 2013 against you, firstly. =/

Secondly... brown is still a part of pale brown. That's why we give freedom for users to chose any shade of brown when a shade is not mentioned. It's an assumption to say it's darker than pale, and again, the pale represents brown fine. We don't need a separate image. 14:37, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'm just gonna say that the neutral shade thing isn't mandatory, but we do prefer it, I think. We can't force users to change the shade based on a rule we don't really have. And honestly, it does seem like you're using Berry's comment against her; you probably shouldn't have even brought it up to begin with..

I apologize for bringing it up, but did I ever mention the comment again? I don't need to get accused of trying to get Berry's image declined. :/ 02:59, August 22, 2015 (UTC)

Are we assuming the brown is pale or dark? What about mid-dark? I'm finding that's a bit forgotten lately. 22:27, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Silver-gray Tabbies
Just here to toss in a little opinion. I'm probably not gonna comment any more on this, you guys can do with this info as you wish.

For characters that are described as silver-gray tabbies, such as Feathertail, silver-gray may or may not imply a blue/gray silver tabby, rather than a black silver or a plain gray tabby. Don't bother google image searching, since as far as google's concerned, gray is pretty much synonymous for silver, which makes it unbelievably hard to find pictures for them unless you already know what you're looking for. Basically what they're just like the normal silver tabbies, except instead of pure black stripes, the stripes are the same color they would be on a normal gray tabby, while the base color is very pale, sometimes nearly white. Unfortunately these pretty kitties were all I could find in the way of examples, and I can't even guarantee they're all true blue silver tabbies. But regardless, they get the idea across of what a blue silver tabby looks like.

You guys can do what you will with this information. I don't know if this is what the erin's meant by silver-gray. I don't know if you guys want to interpret it that way. (though I will point out that it wouldn't be much different from the assumption that smoky = smoke) I don't know if you want to go as far as tweaking the silver-gray cats' images. No clue. Just wanted to toss this out there.

Considering their stripes are alot lighter/more blue tinted than a normal silver tabby, then it could go either way honestly. I have no objections to going through with this or not doing so and leaving them be. 19:56, August 21, 2015 (UTC)

BCPrincess73 - Join Request
I would like to rejoin this project. I was part of it before, but I was inactive.BCPrincess73 (talk) 14:30, August 28, 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. Be sure to read the guidelines and tutorials! Welcome back to PCA. 14:32, August 28, 2015 (UTC)