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)

Wait. As Kit said earlier in the discussion, she said that there should be 1 SW for every 3 apprentices/warriors, but what if some aren't active? Just to let y'all know, I'm asking a question, not pointing out something. 05:02, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I think once the number of SW's gets to 13, it shouldn't matter about percentages and fractions, etc. We have plently now, and when it comes the time to re-open nominations, we'll discuss it there. 06:17, 22, 03, 2012

Actually, the percentage should be all that matters. If we were to, say, get 100 members, 13 senior warriors would never cut it. We'd need at least 25, of not 33. 12:27, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

If the projects size calls for it, we will up the number of SW's. Also, the percentage should only count for active members. We have about 60 (can't be bothered to count) members. The ammount of SW's we have now is plenty to me. 01:16, 24, 03, 2012

You know...when we have senior warriors, we need to take into account the number of active members we have, and not just the total member count. So, personally, I think we have enough senior warriors. However, that's just my opinion. But, with the departure of 'Teldy, Twi, Splook, Icestorm and Shelly (although she's a warrior now, also, sorry if I forgot anyone...xD), I think we're fine, although some extra help wouldn't kill anyone.

So, are we closing the nominations, or are we keeping them open? My opinion is still roughly the same as it was when I first started the discussion, but now we have less senior warriors. Regardless of what's done, it should be decided soon, or moved to a forum; this is cluttering the talk page. 01:52, March 28, 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)

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)

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

Wait. Do you mean one master file? 02:18, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much. One master file for each tutorial, like one master for the classic tabbies for instance, and just use the archives. That way we can still edit the text, which we can't do when it's one big image, and it won't take up space, which it's doing with a couple of the tuts now that have multiple images. Plus not having all the different fonts that come in programs like gimp and stuff I think will make it look a bit cleaner and more orderly. 02:44, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I don't think Mounty linked this yet, but I made a draft of basically what I'm hoping it to look like. Here. Just the basic idea, it can still be worked around. I'll work on an example for the whole archive image thing. 02:52, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes! Finally, I love this idea, I've wanted to fix the tutorial since the idea of a single tutorial. 15:37, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Seems good to me, and it would be great to get into depth and make it easier for other users to understand. 23:03, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Works for me, but question. Should we have a specific tutorial for photoshop as well? It's such a rare program, it might not be worth the effort. 02:06, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Scarlet, I use photoshop, and I was SO lost when I was looking at the tuorials. It's rare but it can't hurt to add it. c: 02:51 Wed Mar 14

If somebody's willing to do it, then yes of course. I know of at least 4 SMs people who use it so I think we'd be fine. It gets confusing when there's no tutorials in your program, and I think PS is common enough to add. 03:30, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have a photoshop tutorial. I use PS too, and though not too many use it, it'a pretty confusing program at first, and I'd like to help out myself with it, too. 21:48, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Yes! That is a great start Paleh, it'd take some work, but that won't stop us. Photoshop is used enough to be put in the tutorials. 05:50, 15, 03, 2012

I definitely think Photoshop should be put in the tutorial. It's a really tricky and intimidating program until you figure it out. Breeze whisker  02:57, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

Another thing that Shelly suggested is that we have kinda a "Tips" section for things that don't need full tutorials. You can just put any tips or tricks that you know of, sign, and be done. I think it's a great idea and I'd really like to have it in there, what do you guys think? 14:03, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A tips section would be great. 01:10, 24, 03, 2012

Okay, reading through this has certainly made me realize that tutorial needs cleaning. Paleh, do whatever you need to fix it.

A tips section would be wonderful, and perhaps even I could help with that. Same with the Photoshop section. I have PS, and I know for a fact it's far different then GIMP, Pixlr or any of the other programs. I could probably help with the basics...but...that's about it. GIMP is where I make all of my images. 23:14, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

An Alt Image for Berrynose?
Well, I was looking for a charart to do and I saw that in Berrynose's trivia section it says: "When Molekit protests that he doesn't want to be an apprentice, Berrynose is said to have lashed his tail, even though he only has a stump." Does this mean he would get an image with a full tail? ϚίĿʋεʀϝƪσώȅƦ ♥  Live  like  there's no  tomorrow! ♥  01:03, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think he would get an image for that. I think it's already in his trivia, although I may have to go check. 07:37, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

No, he wouldn't get one... At least I'm pretty sure. Yeah, it's in his trivia, but not everything in the trivia section needs an alt. If anything, it's a typo on the Erins part, who may have forgotten about his stubby tail. 07:41, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

But he got an alt for when his tail got stubby, and the alts are for mistaks usually, so..... I would think he would get one, but it seems so minor. But then, his kit alt is minor too. I'm not sure. 12:39, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Losing a tail wasn't minor. Being mentioned with a tail was. It's entirely possible that his tail's just long enough to be tread on and lashed a bit and we just drew it too short, you know. 13:06, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

True. But still, his tail is mentioned as being nothing more then a stub stump, and last I checked, stubs stumps can't do some of the things he's been mentioned doing. As an apprentice, his "long creamy tail" is said to have rippled the water. And he's said to have used it to put his kits closer to him. It may be minor, but the alt would still be the same as having an alt for a stubby tail and long tail as a kit really. It may not be for the same reasons, but it'd be the same differences with the alts.

So, have we come to a conclusion on this? Is he getting the alt for the longer tail, or not? 01:56, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Bumblestripe and Leafstar
I was just wondering if Bumblestripe whould get an alt. for having a pelt like his father's. Or Leafstar would get a loner charart because she never bothered the clan(s). 14:31, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that all of the cats from SkyClan originally would get loners, but they were all called rogues in the book so that's what we went with. And "pelt" can refer to the length of the fur or the consistency, not necessarily the color. 14:38, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay just making sure. 16:15, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

It's all good. You made good points. It's just that we can't draw conclusions from an ambiguous word like "pelt". 16:29, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with Bumblestripe getting an alt, as yeah, what Shelly said, pelt refers to length or thickness, ect. Leafstar, she lived with a large group of cats, but was loner-like. I believe that she gets a loner image, including all of the SkyClan cats. 16:53, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't Bumblestripe redone to be longhaired? Or am I just going crazy? 17:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Bumblestripe is longhaired. I disagree too with him getting an alt for having a pelt like his father, since he already has one, in a way. As for Leafstar, she was already classified as a rogue, so it'd be either she gets a rogue or a loner image. 01:52, 17, 03, 2012

He was tweaked to be long haired, yes. <font face="Arial" size="1" color="Blue" >Sky Exterminate! 01:51, March 17, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the SkyClan cats getting loner images...since they really never caused any issues. It's like Sasha, honestly. She was called a rogue, but in all reality, she really wasn't, since she didn't bother the Clans. 01:58, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Mousewhisker and Golden Tabbies
I was just wandering through the wiki character pages, looking for needed chararts, and I noticed there wasn't a cite or anything in the trivia for Mousewhisker's alternate, grey apprentice. I don't know where he was described as an apprentice like that so I cannot cite it myself.

Also, why does Lionblaze have an alternate for being described as orange, which is basically ginger? I thought golden tabbies were a type of ginger coat? If you Google golden tabby and then ginger, the golden is pretty much a pale ginger. That could very well be where the "orange" comes from, so I don't think it needs an alt. I also would say the same thing for Firestar with his golden tabby alternate. Unless he was specifically described as "dark ginger," (which he may be but I can't find it in his gigantic description) he could very well have a paler ginger coat. After all, book covers and COTC pictures aren't always the most accurate depictions. Breeze whisker  17:05, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I may not be able to explain this right, but I'll give it a go. It would almost be like saying cream and dark ginger are the same thing (I think cream is a variant of ginger but I'm not sure). Golden and dark ginger are two different pelt colors. Cats have gotten alternates for being described a shade darker or lighter. And yes, Firestar has been said to have a flmae colored-pelt, which is basically dark ginger. 17:13, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

I brought Firestar up for the flame reason. If you look at a fire, it is a multitude of colors, and the insides can even be golden or white. I don't think "flame-colored" qualifies as dark ginger. And he wasn't described as a golden tabby anyway, just golden if I remember correctly. It could've been the lighting. I don't think it needs a whole alt. (And yes, cream is a variant of ginger. It is a very pale shade.) I just think that they are given an alt for something that could possibly be in their pelt already with the given description. Breeze whisker  17:26, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

There used to be no alts for ginger cats if they were described as orange or tawny, since I think it was Mossy or Night Shine who said that an alt should only be made so someone could truly appreciate the difference. I can't remember when we decided to make alts for orange and pale ginger and etc. But it doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me, since, as Breeze has already pointed out, there's not real difference. Thoughts? 23:15, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

There's no real such thing as a golden cat, just a light, yellowish ginger cat. Lionblaze shouldn't have a ginger alt because gold is a shade of ginger, same goes for Firestar having a golden alt. Now, if Russetfur was described as gold, that's a different story because the shades are completely different. That would qualify for an alt. Ginger has a wide range of shades and flamed colored doesn't specify a shade. 23:34 Mon Mar 19

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). <span style="">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. <span style="">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)

A Friendly Reminder for Senior Warriors
Hey all. I was just going through the tweak nomination page and archives, and I've noticed more than once that some senior warriors are removing nominations from the page without archiving them. That's no good. For instance, on Shellheart's tweak nomination, I had asked Sky a question before the thing was taken off, but since it wasn't archived I had to go digging to find out if my question was answered, and since that page is edited a lot I had to dig through quite a bit.

Please remember that all nominations, whether approved or declined, must be archived. Thank you. 18:11, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

Also, people are going back to reserving chararts that nominations have not been archived, and actually, have been sitting there for a while. Please don't reserve anything until it is archived guys, I thought we agreed to this. 16:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Why should warriors have to wait more than 24 hours for a nomination to be archived? The point of having this many senior warriors is so that this stuff gets done, but it isn't. I say that if a nomination isn't archived by the time 24 hours has passed, the senior warriors have failed in the duties they were nominated and voted for to complete and the warriors should be allowed to reserve the images they nominated if they please. 16:41, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

One- eye alt?
Hey, just wanted to bounce this idea off of everyone. I've finally (with Cloudy's help) been able to cite the page in Bluestar's Prophecy where it says that White- eye lost her eye completely, which forced her to retire early and take on the name One- eye. I was wondering, would this constitute an alt warrior image? It'd say alt. elder, but the elder's blind eye is facing the wrong way anyway. In any case, I think that since Brightheart got an alt. apprentice for when she lost her eye, One- eye should do the same. Of course, it was already decided a while ago that we'd leave her with both eyes in her description since she only had a missing eye in one book, so that's out of the question. 20:55, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It kinda feels like its in the category of an eye color swap, but it also feels like Crookedstar alt. kit since it brings in a name changing. I think this could go either way. sorry, that wasn't much help *Scarlet's braindead today*  02:21, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

It's a major, permanent injury, like when Berrynose lost his tail. We did it for Brightheart, why not this? 05:16, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in making an alt, as we did it for Brightheart and it is a permanent injury, so I don't see why not. <span style="">06:04, 22, 03, 2012

The only problem I have with this, is that it's not actually a permanent injury. It would have been, but this was a mistake, so I'm kinda on the fence about it..... 20:00, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but mistakes get alts all the time. That's why I proposed this. 20:03, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the alts /are/ mistakes. I say she gets one 22:15, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Then Berrynose should get one for being described with his full tail. 22:17, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Well I think he should get one (if I ever stated otherwise, I don't remember saying such a thing)  22:31, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yep she should (I would say she should also get a elder alt but you already explained that. 22:34, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Longtail got one for his eye being damaged by the rabbit (I think...?) in Firestar's Quest, and Berrynose is more then likely getting on for the tail mention...so this shouldn't be any different. I say go for it. 02:04, March 28, 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. =/ <span style="">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 <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥ <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> Live <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> like <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> there's no <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> tomorrow! <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥  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 <font color="red" style="background:none;">♥ <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> Live <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> like <font color="blue" style="background:none;"> there's no <font color="purple" style="background:none;"> 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)

This was coming soon.
Hey guys ^^ Probably forgot about me, eh? Well, my computer is permanately broken, so I wanted to do this now. I was waiting until I got my computer back originally, so here goes. I'm sure you've predicted that... I'm quitting the wiki. Not being on it for months shows me how much stress the wiki has put on my life. How much of it was actually taking up my life since the past year, and without it I feel a lot better and healthier. I'm just frustrated with it as well. I'm tired of all the new rules, users, and the decisions being made with no one's consent. There's more to life then sitting around at a computer screen all day, editing articles and making character pixels. On another note, I was also shocked during my time here at all the sudden drama dealing with just coloring in blanks. It made me wonder why. What's wrong with coloring in a blank and asking for approval on it? Why was there so much bickering? I guess there's just questions I'll never get to see answered.

I wish you all the best, and thank you for enjoying me (well... some of you enjoyed me :P) while I was here. I might come back when everything has settled down, but I don't know. You'll see me on Deviantart if you really want to talk to me, or Skype when I get my computer back. I wish you all the best, and good luck in life. With much sadness, 19:59, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

D'aww Splooky DX You were the best mentor ever! Have good luck in life! 20:01, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Everyone's leaving... I never knew you, but bye, stay safe. =( 20:08, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

D'aww, Splashly... See ya on dA and Skype, kiddo. I'll miss ya. </3 20:09, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Shellheart, did I ever say you did? I know you're comment isn't there anymore, but I read it. I do feel guilty for leaving the wiki for awhile, and that I apologize for. I wasn't accusing you of anything, Shell. :P 20:20, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

We'll miss you Splash! Best of luck in everything you do and feel free to come back and visit if you ever wanna have a trip down memory lane. May StarClan light your path! 20:22, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry. Been having a bad week and I felt like you were slamming the door hard on your way out.

The fact of the matter is, Splashy, I completely understand. There is an inordinate amount of fighting here. And internet addiction is a serious problem, and it's good that you've been able to (albiet accidentally) recognize and overcome that addiction. I'm glad I'm in college and don't have time to be on here 24/7, or I'd have the same problem. My brother does. Best of luck to you. 20:25, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shell, that means a lot. I'd say we should part on a good note. Friends? Heck, I'd give you my Skype if you wanted it, but I don't think you would xD 00:50, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. ^^ Just send it through Cloudy. 02:05, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Splashy...Bye, and I wish you best luck. =( You were an amazing user of this wiki, and PCA won't be the same without you. Life goes first, I guess. May StarClan light your path.~ 02:08, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Splook Dx I didn't even know you, and now I really wish I did. *sobs hysterically* Must all the most epic users leave? We all wish you well~ 07:39, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I did not predict that! Splook... you were an amazing member of PCA. The wiki won't forget you. We all wish you luck in life. DDX <span style="">00:55, 24, 03, 2012

....yeah.
I'm coming back. I can't stay away from you guys <3. Weylon Distinctly Unique. 22:12, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Welcome back Eli! <333 22:12, March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Elork, you're too epic to stay away~! Welcome back!! 07:37, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

Told ya you would come back. xD 00:17, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back Elo! 8DDDD <span style="">00:52, 24, 03, 2012

Shredtail
Why is his tail shredded? When is he mentioned with a shredded tail? Did someone make an assumption based on his name? Because it's not in his description. 04:07, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I remember when I first tweaked him that someone found a cite saying that the Erin's pictured him with an injured tail, like a spray of spagetti or something. 04:11, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I think it was said during one of the Erin Hunter chats... I could probably dig around and find it, if need be. 04:13, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

It does need to be cited if possible. Otherwise the tail needs to be fixed. 04:32, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I remember reading it straight from a chat, so it's legit, it just needs to be cited. 19:19, March 24, 2012 (UTC)

I managed to dig my way through the chats and on Erin Hunter Chat 7 Kate states she imagines Shredtail's tail to be a tail spray, like a handful of spegetti. (http://wandsandworlds.com/community/node/9726 Ctrl F and search Shredtail, it's the fourth match out of five) Or just look at my screenshot here... <span style="">09:39, 27, 03, 2012

Lilykit and Seedkit
Ok, I know The Last Hope hasn't been released yet, and they might correct their mistake, but on the Browse Inside for the book, Lilykit and Seedkit are said to be a dark tabby she-kit with white patches and a pale ginger she-kit, respectfully. Since they have tortoiseshell pictures from what Kate (right?) said on her blog but not in the book, would their book descriptions take priority over their supposed looks on her blog? Honestly, I think the book looks should be made their main image and the tortoiseshells their alts, but that's just me. What do you guys think? (assuming this isn't corrected by the time the book comes out). 18:27, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

It's kinda like Mapleshade's situation so we should go by the book once it comes out so we can cite it unless you have a cite already. 19:10 Mon Mar 26

I know for a fact that I'll be getting it on midnight when it comes out, so I'll definitely be able to cite it, if that was an issue. 19:11, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Use the book, once it comes out, and the tortie descriptions can be alts. Simple, honestly. Mapleshade got the same thing, did she not? 19:12, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Atelda already published the alligiences so should we change it now? 19:19 Mon Mar 26

If my memory serves, allegiances are only post once the actual book comes out, not when the Browse Inside is released. 19:27, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

The allegiances can be posted before the book is released, but no images are to be made until midnight on the wiki clock of the date the book's released. 19:28, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

Ohh, finally we get a canon torbie in the form of Lilykit! 8D (excited) Yeah, wait for the release date to reserve and make the chararts, as always. 20:02, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm doing this....
Well...... I'm not exactly sure how to start something like this..... So I guess I'll just say I've thought long and hard about this. And I hope you guys accept my decision (hopefully without yelling at me in chat. :P). I've decided I'm stepping down from being deputy. I'm honored that Scarlet chose me, and honored you all accepted me and supported me. However I feel like I'm not experienced enough for the position, and that someone else could do a better job at this. I admit I always wanted to be deputy, and never imagined I'd actually step down, but I just don't think I'm ready. And I don't want to harm the project while I fumble around and try and get the hang of this. Maybe one day when I'm more experienced I'll be chosen again, however I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't. I'm glad to have had this chance to serve you. Gosh, I feel like I'm being so overdramatic.....

I've discussed this with Scarlet a bit, and I'd like to request a deputy to replace me. Most of you will probably have guessed who I'm choosing, though I've only told two people. I feel she's the best fitted for the position right now, and I've always felt she should have been deputy instead of me. She's experienced, mature, great at chararts, friendly, and personally, one of my best friends. All reasons she wasn't chosen before have been resolved, and therefore I request her now. I request Cloudskye to replace me. I know she'll do a great job.

So yeah..... I guess that's it. I'll still be here as a SW, so feel free to still come to me if you ever need anything. :P Thank you. *bows* 22:46, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

My chararts aren't as good as yours, Paleh. They never will be. Regardless of who's deputy, leader, ect..you're still a valued member of PCA. The fact that you stepped down of your own free will shows just how mature you really are. I'm honored to have been chosen to succeed you. No one's going to be able to replace you as deputy, Paleh. 22:58, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Cloudy, Paleh. You've been a fabulous deputy and your charart skills are fantastic, as you already should know. Pop in on us and say hi whenever you want to take a stroll down memory lane, and should you ever want to rejoin us, you'll be welcomed back happily. May StarClan light your path. 23:02, March 27, 2012 (UTC) DERP... :S Yay, we have a couple more weeks before the world blows up because Paleh leaves us! xP

I'm not leaving the project Scarlet. XD Not right now anyways. 23:03, March 27, 2012 (UTC)

Aww... you actually did a great job of being PCA's deputy. Your chararts are amazing and you are really dedicated to PCA. Cloudy will do a great job, although Paleh did an awesome job too. <span style="">07:57, 28, 03, 2012

I accept your decision, but, you know me, I admit I'm still a little disappointed. I know you told me you didn't want to get yelled at, and I respect that as well. All I want you to know is that you were a perfectly good deputy. That's it. 10:52, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I am very unhappy right now. But because I am a good PCA member, I'm going to leave it at that  16:32, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

We should just respect Paleh's decision to step down. I'm not saying this because she chose me to be the new deputy in her place, but, because we're her friends. I'm not happy with it either...but it's her choice, and we should honor that. At least she hasn't left the project altogether. We should be glad she's staying. 16:36, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

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



Alt for Tadpole?
Should Tadpole be given an alt because of his apperance on the cover of Return of the Clans with the white on his should and if so may I please work on it? 08:33, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think he gets an alt for that... I think that was an error on creator's part or something....since every other edition beyond that doesn't actually show that. I don't think, anyways. Regardless, it's not enough for an alt. 08:42, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. What about Sootfur? He was decribed gray-black multiple times in Twilight and Sunset. 08:46, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

No. He already has an alt for that, and I'm currently working on his alt for that same description in Firestar's Quest. Next time, please check a little more carefully...most of these alts are already done, or aren't needed, since they're too close to the original description. 08:48, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

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)