Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

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)

I agree too. It makes little sense to have alts with partial descriptions. At the mention of Spottedleaf, the Erins do not write, "the orange and brown, tortishell-and-white, dappled she-cat with a white chest and claws..." 02:23, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

While I agree about this, I think it's really unfair that people's images get removed after working on them. No one objected against them when they were up for approval. I think we should make a rule against partial description now, but leave the current ones on the pages so it's fair. 02:49 Wed Mar 14

Actually, I did object, and so did Ivy. And if we implement this it needs to be retroactive and the other chararts need to be removed. It wouldn't make sense to have them for some and not all. And chararts get removed all the time for various reasons (Brick, Brownpaw, etc). This is no different. Removing them is the only fair thing to do, leaving them would make no sense. 03:41, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'm mainly thinking of the fairness towards the entire project rather than how fair it will be to a few individuals. I see it this way: if we keep those chararts, it would be unfair to decline anyone else's charart alts based on partial descriptions. Less people get their time wasted or feelings hurt this way. 04:05, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I've really been on the fence about it, but I'll put what I think for now, without deciding anything for sure. I think that it really all depends on the situations. Like for instance, Ivypool is almost always, without fail, mentioned as a silver and white tabby. Almost always, very consistently. So when she's described as say silver, or even a silver tabby, I think she should definitely get an alt, cause it's not her normal description, and it's wrong. However, say Leafpool was described without her white chest and paws, or without her tabby stripes. Now, she's not always described with those, quite often they're left out, so that wouldn't require an alt. I personally think we should just figure it out depending on the specific situations, cause in my eyes, it all really depends. 05:04, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but that doesn't make much sense, Paleh. All cats in the series are very often described using partial descriptions, including Ivypool. Ivy just hasn't been around as long as most of them. She is silver and she is a silver tabby, they can't be expected to always list off every one of her attributes, as I said. Those alts should go with the rest. Unless she is specifically shown or described as a solid silver cat or just a silver tabby (not saying that she has silver taby fur or a silver tabby pelt, because she does have those things), she shouldn't get alts.

What qualifies for an alt, to me, is when a cat's description is changed (like when a cat goes from a tabby to a tortie like Mapleshade did), when their color changes at least more than two shades or changes color completely, or when a cat is displayed visually with an attribute they've never been mentioned with before (like white markings that come out of nowhere, though we could have a seperate discussion about pale chests).

The Erins just not mentioning a certain aspect of a cat every time a cat pops up is no reason to make an alt. 06:25, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Read this and tell me if any author in their right mind would write like this:

''Ivypool stalked quietly through the Dark forest, her silver tabby and white fur somehow managing to blend into the shadows, her white paws with thorn-sharp claws landing silently on the bare ground, her white face showing no emotion except a tiny flicker of fear that fluttered in her dark blue eyes. Her stripe tabby tail twitched nervously, but she extinguished any signs of feeling and froze the moment she sensed movement nearby. Suddenly, from the shadows emerged Tigerstar, the massive, tall, broad shouldered, dark-brown tabby that stalked her dreams... or her nightmares. His hefty paws, sporting unusually long front claws, only hid an equal power held in his sharp teeth. His long, thick tail twitched in interest as he looked Ivypool over, his scarred, pale muzzle (that matched his underbelly) lifted as he examined her, pale amber eyes boring into her. His ears twitched, one split in a deep V that only matched the rest of his scarred pelt. His pale amber eyes narrowed to slits and he bared his sharp teeth in a snarl. "Traitor!" The cry rang out through the trees as the massive, tall, broad shouldered,dark brown tabby tom with unusually long front claws, hefty paws, sharp teeth, long thick tail, muscular shoulders, a pale muzzle and underbelly, and pale amber eyes jumped on Ivypool, tearing into her silver and white tabby pelt and (I'm getting tired of writing) killing her dead.''

By your standards, had the Erins not included everything I just did in a scene like that, it'd be grounds to make an alt, which makes no sense. 06:44, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Meh, no offence taken, I'm horrible at explaining things. But I don't think you really got my point... In some characters, the main description is almost always stated. It seems off that they do it, but the erins do usually include the whole tabby-and-white things and stuff like that. Just like they almost always include whether a cat's a tabby. And we're not saying make alts for minor things left off, like pale bellies or white paws, we're saying make them for something major, like part of the main description. Main description being the absolute minimum you need to make an accurate chararts. You could have Hollyleaf short furred for example, because that's not part of her main description, and still be fairly accurate. It'd look like the character basically. And for times when those traits are left off, like when Mousewhisker and Hazeltail are described as just plain gray, I think it matters. And on a side note, cats are almost never stated to be completely solid. There's just no way to tell in the way the Erins right. Am I making any sense yet? I'm trying my best but I don't think I'm quite getting my point across. 08:57, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we should make it so none of these things have alts, just that it depends how different the alt would be from the main charart. Like I said, we don't make alts for the erins failing to mention white paws, or even tabby stripes. However, as I was saying about the main description thing, if part of the main description's left off, it makes a fairly big difference usually. We do the same thing color-wise. If a color's too close to the original, it doesn't get an alt. So how about we just make it so there has to be a substantial difference to get an alt, rather than just saying "These things do, these things don't"? 09:00, March 14, 2012 (UTC).

I understood you perfectly the first time, and I'll reiterate my point so I'm clearer. Almost all cats that make more than one appearance are described with partial descriptions once in a while. Based on that simple fact, Ivypool should not be an acception, and obviously she is isn't consistantly given a full description every time she pops up if we've cited three instances in which she has not. I know for certain there are more instance than the three we have listed, too. And, as I said, she's only been around for a fifth of the series. Of course she's had less chances to get examples of just having her silver fur mentioned or just the fact that she has tabby fur or something like that. But yeah, making a list to add to the guidelines might be helpful. Here would be my choices:

What qualifies for an alt: What does not qualify for an alt: Seem good? 13:43, March 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * Pelt type change (solid to tabby, tabby to tortie, etc)
 * Pelt color change of more than one shade (pale grey to dark grey, not grey to pale grey or dark grey)
 * Pelt color change to an entirely different color (brown to ginger, black to light grey, not silver to light grey or anything like that)
 * Addition of pale markings or stripes in book images (however, should a cat be constantly depicted this way, a pale chest/muzzle/paws may be added to a character's description after discussion as long as those things do not change any part of the existing description)
 * Gender change
 * Eye color change
 * Shifting pelt color by a single shade (pale grey to grey, ginger to dark ginger)
 * Being given a partial description (such as Firestar not being mentioned with a pale belly, Graystripe being mentioned without his stripe, or Mousewhisker being mentioned with only grey fur) unless a character is specifically mentioned as not having an attribute they are cited to have (for example: "Mousewhisker emerged from the den, the solid grey cat stretching in the light", not "Mousewhisker sat with his sister, Hazletail, their grey fur blending together")
 * Being depicted without stripes in the comic (for ginger cats that are not cited in the books as tabbies)

I understood the first time too, but like I said, I think it should be just differences from the main description that get alts, not everything in the description. I still don't agree and my opinion hasn't changed, but if others agree with you I'll concede. I think if there's a big enough change, regardless of it being something not being mentioned, it should get an alt. 14:09, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I can respect that. Alright, everyone else. Please comment with your thoughts on this matter. The more input the better (mayhaps this should be moved to a forum). 20:32, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Good grounds Shelly. I agree, we shouldn't make alts on partical descriptions. Also, if Spottedleaf was mentioned to be a tortie with white and black, but instead of the orange/brown, it was gray or something... (not realistic I know), would that qualify for an alt, because some stays the same and some changes. 06:10, 15, 03, 2012

'kay, guys. Final call for comments! If you've got something to say, say it now. If not, the vote to add this to the guidelines will be made in the next 24 hours. 01:55, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well I still don't support it, but like I said, if nobody agrees with me, I concede. 20:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

A vote concerning this topic has been started here. All votes are welcome. 14:13, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Requirements for Tweak/Redo Voting
Hey all! I'm just suggesting a tiny change this time, don't worry.

I've noted how frustrating it can be for a warrior to be unable to have any say in what chararts get tweaked or redone except for the option to propose them. Warriors aren't given a chance to defend their chararts (or chararts they like) with votes, only comments. So, I'd like to propose that instead of allowing only senior warriors and up vote in the nominations, we simply have a charart approval minimum like we do for becoming a warrior. Let's say 10 chararts either from scratch or redone and you can vote? Maybe 15? Sound good to anyone? 16:34, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would think 15 chararts form scratch or redone (Maybe 4 tweaks, 'cause knowing basic knowledge of tweaking is important). Though, I'm not that sure about it. If a warrior comments on a nomination, for an example, saying that it looks fine in a certain way, but not counting it as a vote, SMs should take that user's opinion into thought, and try thinking the way that user does. So pretty much, even if someone is not allowed to vote, SMs should take the opinion of the commenter as one factor (along with his/her own opinion as another factor) when deciding if it's fine to redo or not. 16:40, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

I guess that sounds good. How about 10 and has been a warrior for like 3 months? I think if more people are allowed to vote, the number of votes to pass should be changed to like 5 or something. 16:42 Sun Mar 18

Good idea, Mounty. Upping the number of votes to pass or fail would compensate for the increased number of voters. 16:44, March 18, 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea, but I don't think it's necessary, as Stone said, warriors can comment and SW's take the comment into account of how they vote. If it does happen, I think 12 for chararts approved and a warrior for 3 months. (like Mounty said) and the amount of users who vote goes to 5 (I copied Mounty again). 06:06, 19, 03, 2012

I think it's a good idea. It would allow users like Shelly and Breezewhisker, who both know tons about chararts and pelt styles, to vote, and could prove very useful in the future. 06:18, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Huh... When the system was approved, I always thought that voting extended to warriors, apprentices, etc. Oversight, I guess. But I think that if a user's been made a warrior, they've already demonstrated their knowledge of making their own chararts, so maybe a warrior for a two weeks and at least five tweaks done and approved? 23:08, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Seems a bit low, Scarlet. I dunno, I think at least seven chararts so warriors have decent experience on the tweak page as well. Warrior for two weeks would be fine. And, as we've already said, upping the number of votes needed to five instead of three. -- 23:11, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

How about we just use the same qualifications as being a mentor? 02:35 Thu Mar 22

That would be a good idea Mountain, but I think there still needs to be more chararts approved/tweaked/redone. Maybe 8-9 original artwork, including redos, and 5 tweaked, because you need the experience. 06:12, 22, 03, 2012

I like the idea of 10 approved 5 tweaked/redone, a total of 15. 01:31, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Should we set this to a vote and add it to the guidelines, then? So, a user should have at least ten chararts (or more) approved/redone and a good amount tweaked, and be a warrior for a certain amount of time. Also, raising the number of votes should be included as well. For some, there very well may be some that agree, and some that don't agree. The higher vote would allow for more discussion on said image; ie. Tallstar (no offense, Mounty. It's just the most recent one I could think of). 02:03, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think a vote is in order, yeah. That way no one can say they didn't have a say in this matter. 17:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing on the vote here. 06:22, 02, 04, 2012

A vote has been opened here. 14:23, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Dark Ginger VS Bright Ginger
Ok, so as some of you may have seen on Flametail's kit, there's a bit of a debate going on abuot whether bright ginger cats should get dark ginger alts, and vice versa. We've all agreed that a character get and alt if it changes more than two shades. However, I looked up Bright ginger cats and Dark ginger cats, and results that came up were almost identical. Due to that fact, I'm starting to believe that Bright ginger and Dark ginger are synonyms, which we decided would not get alts. So what do you guys think? Alts or no alts? 04:25, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

There is a little difference, but not much. I think it just depends on which ginger an artist uses, because there's many acceptable variations (I think), for example, I've seen several dark gingers that look different from Squirrelflight (who is dark ginger if I remember right. If not, refrain from hitting me with a pan). Still, if there's not much of a difference, artistic creativity can't always fix that (worded weird I know) 04:29, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...First things first, dark ginger is just a /tad/ darker than bright ginger, and I think that what we think of dark ginger is actually too dark. This is a dark ginger cat, and this is a bright ginger cat. There isn't much of a difference, so I don't believe that a ginger image should get an alt for being described as dark ginger, or vice versa. 04:32, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above here. There ain't much of a difference between the two, and making an alt would just basically be making the same charart. =/ 06:00, 22, 03, 2012

There is actually much difference. Sunstar is described as bright ginger, whereas Rowanclaw is described as dark ginger. There is a huge difference on their charart appearance...just saying. ϚίĿʋεʀϝƪσώȅƦ ♥  Live  like  there's no  tomorrow! ♥  20:23, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Sunstar's current image isn't bright ginger. It was already suggested to be tweaked. That's yellow, not bright ginger. And second, just cause two artist choose completely different colors for their charart, doesn't mean that bright ginger and dark ginger are realistically different from eachother. We're taking about real cats, not chararts. Chararts can be made as different as you want, because it's artist's choice the shade you use, but that doesn't mean they should get alts because an artist could make a color different. 22:16, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I think they should get alts. if we agreed that they get them if the color changes two shades (I don't know if we ever did agree), so... yeah. 22:32, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Wildfire, if you read the conversation though, you'd see it's not really two shades. They have very little difference. Hence why this was brought up. They're so similar that it's to the point of it almost being a synonym, which never get alts. 00:57, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

"Bright" and "dark" are different shades, no? ϚίĿʋεʀϝƪσώȅƦ ♥  Live  like  there's no  tomorrow!  <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥  01:13, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Normally. But in the case of ginger, it's not very different which is why this was brought up. You'd think, judging by the description, it'd be very different, but surprisingly it's not. 01:46, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I decided to consult the master of cat genetics, and here's what I got:

[10:07:09 PM] Shelly: Are bright ginger and dark ginger very different? [10:07:51 PM] Kitsufox: Ginger would be yellowy-red. Dark ginger could be rather dark. Bright ginger... could be one of several things. [10:08:02 PM] Kitsufox: Ginger is a fuzzy color-word to begin with.<Br> [10:08:07 PM] Shelly: Mmhm. [10:08:29 PM] Shelly: PCA is discussing the matter (peacefully) at the moment. Because we've had a cat described as both dark ginger and bright ginger. [10:09:04 PM] Kitsufox: Then I'd assume it's "bright" as in saturation level, and more red than yellow. [10:09:42 PM] Shelly: So he'd be a bright dark ginger?<Br> [10:10:04 PM] Kitsufox: That's how I'd personally deal with it. Is just assume both are accurate, since they describe diffrent aspects of a color.

For your consideration. 02:12, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

* nods* Makes sense to me. I'm happy with that answer. Anyone else? 02:20, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Paleh on this, I'm perfectly happy with it. 07:41, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yep, makes sense to me. <span style="">01:00, 24, 03, 2012

Yeah, that sounds good. I'm agreeing with this one. 14:24, March 25, 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. So, they're more or less the same thing, and no alts are to be made. Are we agreed? 02:05, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Mhm. Agreed. <span style="">06:28, 29, 03, 2012

Archive Idea
I was looking through the archive list, and I noticed it was kinda long, more so on this page, and the approval page. So, what I was thinking, is that we could group the archives together. Perhaps in groups of 50 or 100, probably 50, since I don't think we're going to get /that/ many discussions, and the approval page archive thing is getting really long...

So, here's how it would work. You see these archive pages? That would be the storage for the main archives, and we could move the pages for archives 1-50 (or whatever number you guys want) into another subpage called something along the lines of  Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Discussion Archives/Archive  (replace number with actual archive number, as usual), and so on and so fourth. The approval page would work the same way, but the page would be called  Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Approved Archives/Archive , and the same would be said for the declined archives  Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Declined Archives/Archive .

So, yeah. We don't have to do it, but I think it could save us a lot of space on the pages... Anyways, comments? 05:21, March 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah. I forgot to mention...we could have the links to the other archives up at the top of the page, and it could read something like this [1-50]. 05:23, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a really good idea. It saves a lot of space on the talk pages, and will be more organised. I think it should be 1-50. It's quite annoying having to have a whole chunk of archives listed, clogging up space where you're trying to read discussion/look at artwork. <span style="">07:49, 28, 03, 2012



Tabbys with pale undersides
As many of you have noticed, adding a pale muzzle and underside to tabbies have become artist's choice recently since that's a common pattern found on tabby cats. Fact of the matter is that the pale underside is common on all cats and should be the artist's choice on all images, but I digress.

However, since we've adopted this trend, I feel like we ought to be getting rid of all alts made simply because a cat has been depicted with a pale underside, like Squirrelflight's alt. warrior and Heathertail's alt. apprentice. I've already had my alt. leader for Firestar deleted, which wasn't easy for me since I liked that image so much. Likewise, we should no longer make alts for this reason.

Do you guys agree? 14:07, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why would Heathertail's alt go? She was described as ginger. And Squirrelflight was shown as being short haired and having no white paw. I think if the main image has a pale under belly then the alt should go because it would be redundant. 14:32 Wed Mar 28

I don't know about Squirrelflight. But Heathertail wasn't described as ginger, she was supposedly shown as it. And both me and Shelly agreed that she doesn't really look ginger, more light brown, which is her description. 15:12, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Well, If Shelly's pale-belly alt was deleted, than, it would be fair to have others deleted. 15:35, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think Squirrelflight's alt should stay. As Mountain said, she was also shown as short-furred and no white paw. 16:28, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I remember proposing an alt for a character that was described mistakenly with short fur, and I was told no. If I was told no then, then I'm going to say no to Squirrelflight's alt staying. It's not picking and choosing what gets to stay while other things get shot down, because then that's not fair. 16:30, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I nominated my alt to be deleted. Fairness isn't what this is about. And on Squirrelflight's alt, I don't think missing the white paw is grounds for an alt. Remember the partial description discussion we're having up there? ^^^ Missing a white paw is nothing (in fact, she does have white paws in that image, so the white paw is there regardless), and having short fur doesn't matter because she's never been described explicitely with long fur as far as I can see in her description. Having a fluffy tail is possible for a short-furred cat. I'm not saying add a pale belly to Squirrelflight's image, I'm saying just get rid of the alt because the image it's based on is too similar to the rest of the images. Having a pale belly shouldn't mean anything anymore, and just having a partial description should not either. There are many more images as well. 16:33, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with Squirrelflight's image being deleted. :P Ivy and Shelly are right, other than the pale belly, we don't make alts for the reason I made hers. In my opinion, this is a bit like making an alt for a ginger cat being described as a tabby. Though not exactly, it's a similar situation. Both are things that are extremely common on real cats, and if I remember right, we used to make alts for both before we decided all gingers have to have stripes. The main difference is that pale bellies are optional now, not required. It wouldn't make sense really to have alts for cats who's artist chose not to have a pale belly, then not have them cause other artists did choose to use one. It'd be unfair. And really, since almost all tabbies (and most other cats too) have pale bellies, it's most likely not a mistake, just as showing Firestar as a tabby isn't a mistake probably. Hope that made some sense and didn't sound like rambling. 20:39, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have a general agreement here, and I added this to the vote here under what doesn't qualify for an alt. 14:15, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Rogues
I've seen a few people that are using the wrong version of the longhaired male blank. For some reason it didn't upload correctly or something (?) so I'll post all of them on here because the Wiki is dumb: long male, short male, long female, and short female. 10:30, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Riverfeather - Join Request
Can I join? Please? And what's a charart? Riverfeather 12:03, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

If you dont know what is it, why do you want join the project..lol ,15:49,April 3,2012 (UTC)

...if you want to join, try creating a new message. And, charart is character art. 14:17, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

So... I just made a new heading so it'd stand out more. :/ <span style="">02:23, 14, 04, 2012

Multiple alts.
On page 49 of The Last Hope, Ratscar was called fox-red. Later, on page 59, Molepaw is called a brown-and-white apprentice. On page 245, Darkstripe is called a black tabby. Crowfeather is described with a black pelt on page 308 and somewhere in Twilight (Don't have the book, so I don't know where), and Hawkfrost is called a gray tom on page 319. Also, Redtail is called russet on pages 328 and 329. Wouldn't they get alts. for that?

Also, Pinenose is called a queen on page 272, Boulderpaw has become a warrior (Named Boulderfur, revealed on pg. 267), there is a new ShadowClan apprentice, Stoatpaw, and in After the Flood, Cherrytail is revealed to be expecting Sharpclaw's kit on page 17. One more thing; Mosspelt 's been a queen ever scince her daughter, Willowshine, became Mothwing's apprentice. Shouldn't she have a non-pregnant queen charart? 21:12, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Ratscar, yes. Molepaw, maybe. Darkstripe, yes (mine). Crowfeather, no. Hawkfrost, definitely. Redtail... maybe? Was it referring to just his tail?

Pinenose, yes. Boulderfur, yes. Stoatpaw's already being done. Cherrytail isn't a queen yet, still a warrior as far as I heard. No to Mosspelt. For all we know, she could be having multiple litters. Better to not assume. 21:19, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

It say, "A russet tom followed, glittering with stars," on page 328 and on page 329, it reads ""These cats gave Firestar his nine lives...Redtail-" he nodded to the russet warrior- gave him a life for courage."" (Another mistake, as he gave him justice) 21:36, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and scince Lilykit and Seedkit got alts. for being mistakenly called tortoiseshells by one of the Hunters (can't remember which), wouldn't Mapleshade get a tortie warrior alt.? 21:50, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

She already has a tortie alt of the manga so there's no point in making another for that. 22:37 Wed Apr 4

Another thing; I was going through The Rise of Scourge, an I reallized that boulder was a solid cat, not a tabby. Wouldn't he get an alt for that? 20:08, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

I haz a proposition..... owo
Ok guys, so as most of you are probably aware some of us were planning to make sure Loonie's image wasn't declined in the 9 days she'll be gone, as she gave a clear time she'd be back, and it was only 2 days over the limit, however Shelly brought up a good point about it not being in the rules, and it technically being an exception. However, we've done this kind of thing in the past an I think it's only fair, so I propose we add it to the guidelines. If a user is gone for any less than 2 weeks, and gives an exact date when they'll be back, their image shouldn't be declined until that day. If they're not back when they said, then yes, it would be declined. What harm would come from keeping an image a couple days over if we know when they'll be back really? It seems unfair, and we've made unofficial exceptions in the past. So I say we add this to the guidelines once and for all. I've got a few people supporting already, so what do you guys think? 03:15, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Mmkay, let's move away from the word unfair and move towards making an actual proposal, eh?

How about this: should a user that is currently in the process of getting a charart approve need to leave due to unforeseen circumstances, they may be allowed a five day extension on top of the normal 1-week time limit before their charart is declined for lack of work. If the user fails to notify the project, however, they still fall to the normal 7-day time limit. Sound good? 03:21, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Shelly, that sounds perfect^^ 03:24, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I agree. <span style="">03:26, 05, 04, 2012

In all honesty, I don't agree with this. You get a week to upload or not and that's that. I don't think any user should have an extended amount of time for a reason like that. It doesn't seem fair that somebody should get to sit on an image that a bunch of other people can do. A week is certainly long enough and I don't think there should be exception for any reason except like deaths in the family. I know that sounds extreme, but it's not fair if somebody goes on vacation or something that requires a fair amount of planning beforehand and an image many would love to do isn't worked on. Especially if one knows they are going to be gone. The image shouldn't have been reserved or posted in the first place. So no, I don't like this. Breeze whisker  03:40, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

That's why I said "unforeseen circumstances", Breezey. Going on vacation is a foreseen circumstance, and if you're planning to go vacationing you're irresponsible to try starting a charart, anyway. I'm talking about things like death in the family, sudden injury, natural disaster, things like that. 03:43, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that, but, excuse me for using a specific example, Loonie said she was going to Europe in the image comments, and that usually involves quite a bit of planning. So unless it was an emergency I don't think an exception should be made. So the reason this is being proposed is bothering me more than the actual proposition, which I agree with as long as it is the emergency sort of thing, since unless Loonie's reason was an emergency it goes against the proposition and implies that what I am against in my earlier edit is the reason. I apologize for any misunderstandings or anything of that sort since I don't really want to pry. Breeze whisker  03:57, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

This wasn't made for Loonie. It began discussion because her being gone brought up the problem, but a few of us discussed it and it was decided we'd propose it. Not for Loonie, for everyone who this'd apply to. 04:07, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I am allowed to comment. I agree with this. I have two images on the approval page and I am going to a wedding in Canada today, that I only knew about on Tuesday. I won't be back until maybe Monday or Tuesday and I really don't want my images to be declined. If it is not my place to comment here, then sorry-- 11:25, April 5, 2012 (UTC)Moonshine

The thing is (I hope I can explain this right) couldn't someone easily manipulate and abuse that? They could easily say it was an emergency and not have their image declined. Also, someone could just say something happened and let their image sit for longer. I mean, I'd like to think everyone would be honest, but you can never be 100% sure. I just think that we've been fine with what system we've already had. You could also say that an emergency is how you interpret it. Obviously, serious family sickness or a death is an emergency, but some things, it depends on the person as to whether or not it is. So I say either extend the time limit or just don't change it at all, in my opinion, as it's not fair. 17:19, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not we extend the time limit, there will always be users who abuse that fact. It's common knowledge that there's going to be a user or two in a group that will lie about why they're not around, and get the extended time. But, at the same time, if we extend the normal time limit, there are going to be those users who just let their images sit, thus taking up space that could be used for productive work.

I think the limit should only be extended if it's a legit reason, like, when I left back in December, or if a user is working on image blanks, like Loonie was. Each situation should be looked at differently, and exceptions only made it the situation calls for it. If a user knows their going on vacation or something like that a month in advance, they should only take on images they know they can get approved within that time limit, or just not take any at all. It's different for something like a flood (as I would know first-hand), or other acts clearly beyond their control, like a death in the family, or an accident.

Exceptions can be made, and they have in the past. As I said though, it should be looked at individually, and shouldn't be generalized into groups. 17:36, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I still agree. Something major, like a death or natural disaster, I think there should be exceptions. <span style="">02:12, 06, 04, 2012

Joining Request
I'm pretty new to this, but I'd like to join Project Charart. Please let me know if it's currently okay. Lilywing 18:43, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's okay~ Please take a look at the guidelines, and if you need help, there's always the apprentice tutorials and the mentor program. Welcome~ 00:30, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Re-Join?
Hey everyone. I kind of drifted back. Can I re-join? 20:16, April 8, 2012 (UTC) Shadewing

I understand that you're busy. I don't mind. I'm not in a hurry. 21:34, April 12, 2012 (UTC) Shadewing

As you know, of course. :) 04:52, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

On "black tabbies"
Alrighty, there's been some slight confusion over what exactly a black tabby looks like, so Shelly is here to try to explain.

For starters, they do not look like this: http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20091003012247/warriors/images/archive/f/fe/20110905165346!Crowtail.warrior.png

A black tabby is not black with darker black stripes. Typically, when someone's talking about a black tabby, they mean a black cat with ghost stripes. The ghost stripes are ripples in the fur, they're technically real stripes, just not displayed like stripes usually are.

However, sometimes a black tabby can have a pelt like this. It may look brown, but it actually contains no brown pigment. The base color is still black.

In any case, it's confusing as hell, yeah. I'd say that we should assume that when the Erins call a cat a black tabby, they're talking about black with ghost stripes (like Crowtail's new charart).

That is all. :3 21:34, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Shelly~ c: I was confused about this. That does actually kind of make sense to me, which... really doesn't happen all that often. So good job~ :3 -makes notes- What would you call that second tabby? A dark gray or just highly reflective black? Spark Candy, here I come! ♥  22:58, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

The second one is still a black tabby... yeah, I know it's confusing. I can't properly explain it myself, so I'll transcribe the conversation I had with Kit on this subject here:

''[5:22:50 PM] Shelly: Black tabbies are just brown cats with black stripes, right? Or they could be interpereted as black cats with ghost stripes, I think... [5:23:15 PM] Kitsufox: "brown cats with black stripes" is outright incorrect. [5:23:23 PM] Kitsufox: They might /look/ brown, but it's not actually brown. [5:23:24 PM] Shelly: Really? [5:23:44 PM] Shelly: But black cats with real stripes don't exist, do they? They're just ghost stripes. [5:23:46 PM] Kitsufox: It's barred black/cream on the hairs that are diluted. [5:23:49 PM] Kitsufox: yes. they do. [5:23:54 PM] Kitsufox: Ghost tabbies are real. [5:24:34 PM] Kitsufox: http://media.photobucket.com/image/Black%20ghost%20tabby/brightlight44/a%20Queen%20Eva%20Worship/238f86e9.jpg [5:24:40 PM] Shelly: Yeah, but they aren't traditional stripes. Just ripples in the fur. So what does a black tabby that doesn't have ghost stripes look like? [5:24:42 PM] Kitsufox: There's a nice example. Once that dosen't even need to be in super-bright light to see it. [5:25:20 PM] Kitsufox: "Brown" tabbies are black tabbies, but they're not in possession of /any/ actual brown pigment. So calling the base brown is incorrect. [5:25:30 PM] Kitsufox: Visually brown, sometimes... But acctually brown, not so much. [5:25:36 PM] Shelly: Oh, that /is/ night. I'm trying to explain this to PCA. We're having a hard time figuring out what kind of cat the Erins mean when they described a couple of cats as black tabbies. [5:25:56 PM] Kitsufox: IMO, if they say "Black tabby" I'd assume black ghost tabby. [5:26:16 PM] Shelly: Gotcha. [5:26:26 PM] Kitsufox: If they say "Brown Tabby", i'd assume black-based "Brown" tabby over Chocolate tabby. [5:27:03 PM] Kitsufox: But that's also my CoSC biase talking. But when people say "black tabby" and they're not talking genetics, I can only assume they're talking black-on-black. [5:27:09 PM] Shelly: So this buy would be...? http://www.mooseyscountrygarden.com/garden-journal-07/kitten-black-tabby.jpg [5:27:40 PM] Kitsufox: Due to the darkness of the stripes, and the ticky-looking nature of the dilute bits, I'm guessing black-based "Brown" tabby. [5:27:49 PM] Kitsufox: IE: Genetically black. [5:28:05 PM] Shelly: Confusing as hell, that's what it is.''

Make what you will out of that. 23:04, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Ohhhkay. -slighhtly less confused now- Spark  Candy, here I come! ♥  23:33, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is confusing. So when they say black tabby, it's just a black cat with ghost stripes, right? <span style="">02:51, 09, 04, 2012

Yup, basically. 23:01, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Something Fun
For once, Shelly has an idea that can be construed as a way to make the project more fun. Hooray!

This would just be for fun, to add a friendly competition to charart making. Since PC, PB, and PW get to have features on the front page every month, why don't we feature a best charart on the front page of PCA every month? For fairness, it can only be a charart made originally or as a redo.

I think a couple of additional rules would be that a person that has a charart win one month would be unable to get nominated for two months afterward. The senior members would make the nominations and the entire project would vote for their favorite.

Features would go on PCA's main page, right below the project news (I think).

How does this sound? 23:34, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

As I said on the chat, I think this is a very good idea. 23:36, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I re-thought this. I don't agree. What if each month, a charart made by one or two users will be nominated every time? I wouldn't find that so fun. Also...Though it is for fun...I just don't think it's very necessary...Sorry. 23:38, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

That's why I added in the rule that once a person wins they have to wait two months before even being nominated again. Of course, we can extend that length of time. And of course it isn't necessary, nothing about this project is. It'd just be a fun way to encourage users to do their best and improve their skills. 23:51, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...That would work. 23:54, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fun! Why not? Maple♥ legs  Mischief brewing 00:00, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Spark stands by what she said on the chat. |3 Good idea, Shelly~ Spark  Love me some chocolate~! ♥ 00:02, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds okay, but I had a couple suggestions. Maybe, instead of art being nominated by a user, the OA would put forth their art for consideration and everyone would vote, kinda like the contest. And, though I think you implied this, one charart per user? Where'd the voting be done? And does the charart have to be started and completed in that month, or just started? 00:36, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I think we'd do nominations in a forum like the other projects do. And good idea with the self-nominations. And I think a charart will need to be completed to be put up for nomination. 00:42, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I knew that the charart would have to be completed. I meant within the month, like could it only be a charart started on April 6th and finished April 24th? Scarlet Derp moment 01:01, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

So this is actual chararts displayed on the wiki (ie. I could nominate Whitestorm's Apprentice), not fanfic chararts. Slap me if I'm wrong. Also, what if I originally did an image, and it was later redone by another user, who would get to nominate it? Does it have to be the current version of the image? I like this idea, it will bring more fun to the project. :) I agree with self-nominations. <span style="">02:21, 09, 04, 2012

Ah, Scarlet, I think just finished within the month then. And DJ, yeah, only images that go through PCA. So no non-canon stuff. And I doubt any charart you finish would be redone within the month. 02:41, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not a huge fan of this idea. It sounds fun and all, but I have a feeling it will cause drama, and that's never good. Nice idea, but it may not work out as nicely as you imagine, so I'm gonna say no, I don't agree. Go ahead, shoot me now. 03:46, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

No one is mad that you disagree, Paleclaw. Everyone is inclined to their own opinion. 03:49, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Paleclaw. It's really easy to hurt others feeling with art and it might cause some resentment. I might be wrong, but from what I've seen with PC, PB, and PW, the articles featured are a collaboration of several different users, with edits from contributors and others on the wiki. A charart is really just made by one person, despite the critiques that are given on the image. It doesn't really show what the wiki can do, just what a person can do. Also users might get bitter if their art isn't featured and some of them might decide to cause drama, and like Paleclaw said, that's never a good thing. Breeze whisker  04:11, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. To the warriors, apprentices, and kits, their art may or may not be featured as much as SW+, and that might hurt their feelings. Also, I know who's art would mostly be featured, and even though we'd do the two month rule, we'd still have common winners and it might intimate users about their own skill. I know I am when I look on the approvals and tweaks page, and aside from my few good chararts (Crookedstar, Firestar, Mapleshade), I might feel sure about my skills (this is mostly an example using me, but I might feel a little let down if I only had, let's say, one feature during this whole run, and so would other's). I know you guys who agree only have good intentions, but there could be consequences :/ I hope I explained what I meant right. It sounded better in my head lol  20:17, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe to share around the prize to be featured between the different ranks, we could change the theme each month or every two months. For example, one month might have the theme of "The Most Original Art", and the next month might be "The Neatest Shading" or something. (Someone can think of better names then me). Not sure it will quite work though. <span style="">02:49, 10, 04, 2012

DJ, that sounds like a really good idea~ *claps* I think that we could maybe go along with DJ's theme idea, and that way every charart would have a shot at being featured. 23:02, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Project "Leads", Pay Attention!
Okay, guys. You see this page right here? It's been lacking when it comes to voting, archiving image nominations, and placing them under the correct list. This needs to stop, since I can't do it all, and neither can the select few users who actually help with that page. The "leads" of this project need to step up and start helping with this page. It's part of the job description of "senior warrior", and most of you aren't doing your job.

Short and sweet. If you guys don't start helping out, there's going to be some major changes to the ranks. You don't do your duties as a project head, you're getting demoted.

Thanks to the ones that do help out. Your help is greatly appreciated. =) 05:05, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

Minnowtail's Description
I've been meaning to bring this up... Anywho, I asked if i should post this here or PC's talk page, and I was told to post it here, so I think her alt for being described with a dappled pelt should stay. It was the only time she was described with it, and its not like a pale underbelly or a nick in the ear, its her whole pelt pattern. I doubt that the Erins' forgot to add her pelt pattern to the alligiences every book. So yeah... Thoughts? 00:43, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Once again I argue, alts shouldn't be made just cause something was only mentioned once. Like for instance, Sparrowfeather got tabby added to her description, though it was only once, so why shouldn't minnow? Like a million descriptions would be removed if we didn't add things that were just mentioned once. I think it should be added. 04:39, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

So if we do that...we'd make cats like Mousefur and Mudclaw tabbies, and Russetfur ginger and white? o3o <font face="Arial" size="1" color="Blue" >Skt Here. Yes. Right here. 07:05, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm I'm not sure about the first two, maybe we can find some kind of standard on when to add things that were only mentioned once. But no, Russetfur was in the manga, so even if we did this, she wouldn't become one. 07:32, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with making it the description of the whole cat if it's only mentioned once if it's the whole pelt pattern, but that's of course just my opinion. I don't think that Sparrowfeather should have had his tabby mention put in his description either, since he already is mottled anyway, and was only mentioned once with it. :/ <span style="">08:17, 11, 04, 2012

Erm, need I remind you guys that Squirrelflight was only mentioned with a white paw once? And yet that's always been a part of her description here. I think that if a new aspect of some cat's description is revealed later after the cat first appears, and it doesn't change any part of their existing description (like changing from gold to gray, or Hawkfrost going from a mackerel tabby to a swirling tabby) it should simply be added to the cat's description. Like making a mottled cat a tabby? Totally normal. 15:29, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Also, how many time do I have to tell you people? 'Character descriptions fall to Project Characters. The only part of the article we control are the character images, NOTHING ELSE.' 18:09, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Indeed is Shelly correct. Please keep in mind that PCA handles the character images while PC pertains to the structure, formatting, and the content within character articles. A character description is part of the content within a character's article. Also, if it's a minute problem, a discussion can be put on the talk page of the article. 22:24, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Very true. Whatever is stated in the description, we make the charart on. Currently, Minnowtail's description is "a dark gray she-cat with amber eyes" (There's more to it), so we make a charart for that description. I think that's fair. <span style="">02:16, 14, 04, 2012

New category!
Hey guys! Many of you are already aware of this, but I felt I should announce it here so no one misses it, hopefully.

Anyway, the new image category is Category:Alternate Character Images. From here on, if you approve an alt, add that category to it along with the normal categories.

Thanks! 15:47, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Re-Join?
I really want to re-join. I've learned more from when I first joined. I really want to reserve Tangle's rouge and I wish to join. Please reply first so I can start on the image.<font color="blue" face="Mistral" size="2">S <font color="green" face="Mistral" size="2">p <font color="blue" face="Mistral" size="2">o [[User talk:.Spottedclaw 20:32, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can rejoin~ If you need to, refresh on the guidelines and apprentice tutorials. If you need a mentor, check out the mentor program. Welcome back~ 20:51, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Lots of Questions
Here are some things that I've been wondering recently. (1) Is there a certain amount of time that I must wait before posting my first charart? (2) When I receive a mentor (I've asked for one on the Mentor System page), do I need to wait until my apprenticeship is over before posting a charart? (3) Since my name is not under the "Current Projects" table on the main PCA page, should I add it in myself, or have one above my rank add it in? (4) Is there an updated page that I can go to where chararts needing images are listed? The one on the main PCA page doesn't appear to be updated. Sorry for so many questions, I'm just really confused about the kit system.... 20:44, April 11, 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) There is no certain amount of time before posting your first charart.
 * 2) You do not need to wait until your apprenticeship is over.
 * 3) You can add yourself in. Just make sure you know how so there's no coding errors or anything.
 * 4) The only chararts needing images are listed on the page on the PCA page. You'll just have to find a charart on your own. Sorry, but most chararts are snatched up before we have the chance to really update the list. 20:54, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

Question!
I want to join the project, but I don't know how, the main page said I should come here, so I guess I would like to join! Do I have to wait for a leader to accept my request? Thanks! 21:52, April 11, 2012 (UTC)

This can be your join request I guess. Yes, you have to wait for either the leader, deputy or a senior warrior to accept your request. <span style="">07:36, 12, 04, 2012

Please read the guidelines and refer the tutorials for help or request a mentor. Welcome. 22:26, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

So Sorry
Hello, PCA. It's me, Thistleberry. I hope you all remember me!

Anyway, I am here to apologize, I'm not grounded anymore, and I haven't been for about a month. But when your gone for a while and have nothing to do with the wiki all that time, it's hard to get back into it. Y'no?

Anyway, I wanted to see if I could be added back into the warriors, (I don't even know when I was removed) But this time I'll really try to stay.

But now I'll be fighting to get on the wiki, because my older sister Brooke joined the wiki today and all of a sudden she's eager to edit and what not. I think her user-name is Mistblaze or Mistdusk or something. Anyway, I hope you all can forgive me for being gone for so long without editing.

You don't know how much I've missed you all, and making chararts. ♥

. 05:36, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back~! Yup, it can be hard getting used to the wiki again after being gone for a long time. Anyways, no problem, I'll add you back in now. Refresh yourself on the guidelines in case you've forgotten. =) 05:39, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Thistleberry! :D It's great to have you back :3 11:36, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thistttleeeyyy~ <333333 Welcome bacckk~! 8DD  Vitus  Cheerful Murderer. 13:05, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thistly~!!!! You're back<3 22:01, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Thistley! 8D Welcome back, missed you. <span style="">02:11, 14, 04, 2012

Cinderheart?
Okay, so I just thought I'd bring this up. Kate revealed that Cinderheart would have kits with Lionblaze, no? And, PC added "Queen" to her charcat. Well, if they add that, do you think we should give her a queen charart? 22:46, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Ivy already has it reserved. 22:53, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. =P Just checking. *is a fail* 22:54, April 13, 2012 (UTC)