Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Linear Art Matching
^ We need specific guidelines on whether someone should match the other's linear art.

In my opinion, they should match because different linear arts make two chararts look completely different. It's almost like scar placement in a way. But no matter what I'd be fine with making either clear on the guidelines so long as it's enforced consistently.

its not the same. ragged or messy fur can easily change all the time and there is no reason to force someone to match it, especially at different parts of life. this is supposed to be about being creative, not limiting it. 23:29, April 25, 2019 (UTC)

It depends on what the alt is for, as sometimes it does need to match in certain ways (eyes, scars, ear tears, lost limbs, Brightheart), but generally I agree with skt.

Unless its major tweaks, like Spooky said, I don't think they should match and I'm agreeing with what David said, PCA should be encouraging creativity not limiting it. Also, by having people use the same base that someone already has had approved, no one would be learning lineart tweaking skills as much and I personally think that people should learn how to tweak lineart at some point. 23:41 Thu Apr 25 2019

Agreeing with above. If it still matches the description, why does it matter? Doing your own line art tweaks is fun, why discourage it? Why does every fluffy/plumy tail have to look exactly the same? They wouldn't in real life 🤷 23:58 Thu Apr 25

Thought I should add, I do agree though that where ever this discussion ends up, the guidelines should reflect how lineart tweaks/matching goes to avoid further issues in the future. 00:01 Fri Apr 26 2019

I agree with the above comments. We shouldn't be required to match line art, unless it's torn ears, etc. 00:14, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

to be honest, imo the linear art should match just because it looks more consistent in the art gallery: especially for things like plumpy tails, it just looks inconsistent/weird when you have 1 tail that is much larger/a completely different style than the other. but regardless of what happens, enforce a single rule consistentl and dont bend them for other people .-. 01:31, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Fox and Burnt. The art just looks incosistent when they don't match and I honestly think the artist should match them. 01:51, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

So, many of you don't know me but I'd like to put my two cents in. I don't believe we should enforce a lineart to match, but suggest to keep the lines as similar as possible; of course, being artist's choice to comply or remain creative. Restrictions ruin the beauty of creativity and would destroy the drive for many to put in their effort for Project: Character Art. I personally joined this project to develop and better myself as an artist and personally would not be able to develop and enjoy the process if I just had to use someone else's work. Thank you 02:19, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a "set" style for ragged or spikey fur. Every charartist knows what ragged fur is and is capable of doing it themselves when the need for a ragged cat charart arises. Altering lineart is fun, it gives artists a chance to make their image stand out via their own style. However, if it's the same character (like if the cat with ragged fur has an alt) then I could see the reasoning behind getting the lineart to match? I think that might be the initial point Fox is trying to make. 03:12 Fri Apr 26

Honestly, I think they should match. Every one I've done I've been told to match the person's before me lineart. I do understand ragged fur and such but when it comes to characters that have major body characteristics such as Thistleclaw and Mistcloud I think the style itself should match. Like I feel we should be able to do our own but make sure the stule itself matches the one before it.  Ellie  life is an illusion 04:37, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

im not saying that we should use the exact same linear art for all the cats across the board, im saying that within the same character, the linear art should be the same because it will look consistent within a gallery– this applied especially for flat muzzles/torn ears/tail tweaks. 05:41, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

torn ears and whatever are fine to have to match, as theyre permanent. whats not fair is being forced to match non permanent things like ragged fur. as long as it matches whst the text is saying theres no need and frankly will lead to a lot of uneeded redos. feel free to nominate images of yours that were made to match where they shouldnt because how are people going to learn if they cannot experiment with lineart in their own way? 06:33, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I wasn't even talking about ragged fur. I was soeaking more of the permanent effects such as Cinderpelt, Mistcloud, etc. Like those should all match with tge same style so it doesn't look inconsistent because I have to agree that when we have different style on ine character it seems a bit off.  Ellie  life is an illusion 06:46, April 26, 2019 (UTC)

im agreeing with david on this, pca is about being creative. i dont think it'd be fun copying the same ragged fur design on a set as it limits creativity. cats like cinderpelt who have permanent injuries should be matched and mistcloud's spikey fur can be interpreted in many ways.

i dont think we should all have the same styles as it leaves the set boring and similar, and it will feel like a "code"

12:51, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

(my poor two cents) I feel like alts should match with the original image. Maybe not directly, but close enough so they don't look drastic. I agree with David that ragged fur in general should be artist's choice...let people learn and express their creativity, but I also agree with Ellie and Burnt that the major and/or permanent ones should generally match style. 17:57, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

for permanent things they ahould be being matched anyway if part of the true desc set, because those are permanent and consistently depicting the same true appearanve of that cat. though i feel with alts, if its a mistaken desc, is there really any harm in having different lineart? its a mistake and not their actual consistent appaearance, and i can onlythink of longtail and tigerstar even having their torn ears described in a very specific way. as long as it matches to the text its not going against anything and alts are often peoples only way to actually get lineart practice in because chararts often get taken quickly. 21:30, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the alt are just wrong colors, the alt and pelt styles themselves should still match imo  Ellie  life is an illusion 21:32, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

why though is what im asking. its still an error and different lineart isnt erasing the description and the art isnt consistent to begin with anyway since its multiple users. 21:35, April 27, 2019 (UTC)

Jesus, it seems I've missed a lot. Anyways, I'm pretty much in the same boat as David here. Main images should match, but I kind of feel that alts, unless they depict a major thing (Poppydawn's or Feathertail's tail, for example, or Raggedstar's raggedness, since he was named for it), they could be left up to whatever artist is doing the image. In the cases of major things where a cat is named for it or it's been explicitly described in a location (Tigerstar's ripped ear was very specific I believe), then they should match... that kind of thing isn't going to change.

Cinderheart's TUG Alt
i feel like we should discuss this, so i'll be posting it here. i posted the vote since it looked shorthair but others who voted pass on it also said the colors looked off. we discussed it on discord but i felt like putting it here to hear more opinions about this. 04:35, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna throw my opinion in here. Cinderheart was never confirmed as a longhair and since TC doesn't have requirements like RC and WC, it shouldn't happen. The coloring itself is gray tabby which is what her other images are for. The added coloring comes from the lighting and it seems kinda unfair to allow this one when other images were declined for lighting.  Ellie  life is an illusion 04:47, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

fur length alone unless its named for shouldnt be an alt thing. it is utterly pointless to have 50 dark grey tabbies where the only difference is fur length. that image depicts what she is, aside from bushy fur (which she may only be medium haired, not even long. dont remember seeing that.) 04:50, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

if that alt stays for any reason, i feel like it would be because its not dappled when cinderheart actually is. the fur length stuff shouldnt be the justification 04:57, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm agreeing with David here, the TUG art's only true difference is the fur length. The artist's style in the work is notable, but, it does appear to depict her with her current descriptions (dapples and all - very minute to my eye, looking at the way the markings are painted).

This should, in my opinion, be taken to a revote to decide whether or not it is a passable alternate image though, as its only fair to engage everyone's opinion again.

i seriously dont see any dapples nor "smoke" on the picture. she looks more just of a plain black or gray tabby. 06:11, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I think she looks like a blueish-gray tabby with darker stripes and random brown blotches. Kind of like Silverstream's alts. Cinderheart is not bluish in color, she's smoky gray. I think this alt is okay to stay but I'm not exactly sure. 15:21, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

smoky if anything is likely referring to her colouring being similar to smoke, not the actual smoke genetics thing. since it doesnt specify, we cant really use that. and the brownish is very minor; ive had an irl grey one become sunbrowned. doesnt mean she wasnt still grey, and it very much does look to me like shes in the sun. 21:45, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

I personally don't see enough of a difference between her normal description and The Ultimate Guide's artwork to really warrant the image. also, lighting can drastically change the color of a cat; I've seen many pictures of said cat David is talking about and she definitely looked brown in some and gray in others. (cause I'm pretty sure they're talking about Fluffy) Also, we're assuming 'smoke' refers to the pelt style and not a coloring, so that's definitely out the window with this, and I think that Wayne (who painted those) was only given a basic description and not some insanely in-depth one like what we have listed on the wiki. It makes sense that certain things like 'dappled' are missing, it's not necessarily a mistake. Those things were listed in the text, not the allegiances. Who are we to say it's an error when Wayne might not have even known about it?

As someone who's worked on projects from minimal descriptions, I can agree that it was possible that the artist, Wayne, might not have been given a complete description - like we have compiled on-site. I still don't think that the art itself requires an alt. image though, as it's only depicting her with short fur, which as mentioned, isn't enough to qualify an alt. to begin with.

Part of what is confusing to me about this and continues to be is that we really don't have proper guidelines as to what "dappled" or "smoky" or whatnot means. Like, I'd agree that the TUG alt isn't dappled but like...when I did her warrior it doesn't necessarily look that much more dappled just more complicated. It might be in PCAs best interest to just...define all of these more common descriptors and then come back to this. 18:09 Thu May 2 2019

Non-OA Pattern Redoes
I've been observing this for pretty much all my years here at WWiki, and I believe now it is the time to stop disregarding the old pattern just because the blank is redone (only applies to non-OA claims in a blank redo). And I'm not just talking about images in a set (yes, like Shade Pelt, if you were following the drama), I'm also calling out stand alone images (too many examples, if one wants them, I'll gladly list them out, but picking out my example, Scarlet). Yes, I'm as guilty of this as most of you are, and I'm willing to redo my images to match the old pattern if a policy is set in stone.

I'm not convinced that being the only image in a set automatically disqualifies the OA's rights to the pattern. Here's an argument I frequently heard on Shade Pelt's image, "the only reason it is not in use is because the blank is being redone hence it should be matched," but then also "if an image is the only one in the set, it can be redone." But for what reason? The OA of a single image shouldn't have less claim to the pattern than the OA of a separate image does. What is the difference? Is it suddenly less, quote "disrespectful" if the image is the only one in the set? I'm genuinely confused by most of your comments on Shade Pelt implying that redoing the pattern is ok if it's a single image, but not if it's in a set. If we are to force people to match patterns, then force it for all instances, not just one. Call for the redo of all images that were unfairly redone, not just ones that have other to-be redone images in a set.

I agree that in both instances the pattern should be matched due to respect for the OA, and this shouldn't change regardless of whether it's a single image or not. Currently there is no policy for this, and I would very much like it if all unused images - regardless of being in a set or not - were matched. I'd be happy to comply, but don't force it on a single person. If this is agreed on, either from now on (after Shade Pelt, because whatever new policy wasn't reinforced back then), match the original pattern regardless of the image not being in use due to blank redoes, or redo everyone's images prior that did not match the original pattern. There can be no double standards for this.

reinforce all, or reinforce none. redo everything from before, or keep everything. my two cents. morally speaking (yee tok), i think we all know whats the right option 12:04, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

what burnt said^^ 12:06, April 30, 2019 (UTC)Tybaxel

Agreed, there's no valid reasoning behind "the image is old." The image should still be matched regardless. I think that either all of these images should be redone, or enforce the rule AFTER Shade Pelt is approved so images can be matched from here on out. Edit: Just realized I repeated what Fox said at the end because I didn't read all the way through, but I'll leave it because I agree.- JArtz11  Oblivious to EVERYTHING!  12:34, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, I will be redoing my images if I had redone them in a different way or form. I apologise for the lack of respect I had given to you, burnt.

13:25, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Just curious, did anyone even ask an inactive "original OA" how they would feel about their patterns being redone? Or are we just projecting random feelings to make arbitrary rules? Especially when images are redone or tweaked for silly reasons all the time in this project, like the fifth attempt at matching Firestar to Jake or whatever. I have watched, in the four years inactive or lurking, nearly two-third of my original images redone or tweaked anyway. It's something expected in this project and most of those inactive users redid or tweaked images at some point in their PCA career, unless they were around before tweak week and in that case their images are probably already redone years ago unless it was like a black cat lol

Honestly, I'd say try to make a reasonable effort to contact all the original OAs of all the old warrior or elders or kits and if they don't want the image/care about the pattern its free game to do whatever with the pattern. 13:57 Tue Apr 30 2019

Sure, we may not know how the OA feels, but changing the design of a character that already has a valid one doesn't make sense to me. Why should designs be changed just because? If a design still matches with the character's description we should leave it be. Also images being redone/tweaked is different from what's going on here. Tweaking only fixes mistakes and redoing chararts is simply just pasting their pattern onto a different blank. The design may need to be changed in tweaking, but its for a reason and isn't because the new artist just felt like it. - JArtz11  Oblivious to EVERYTHING!  15:01, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

There’s a lot of different ways to look at said issue, honestly. I do agree that OA patterns should be kept where feasible, but there’s a lot of times in which it isn’t. If an OA is here and active they’ve always gotten claim over everything. But, as an encyclopedia, we also evolve. Many older patterns and color sets aren’t things that would pass today. I personally don’t count feelings into it - I’m a bit of a cold heart, I suppose - but I believe in doing what is best for the wiki even if that means one of my favorites gets sacrificed for it. Validity is another issue because images sometimes get redone several times, tweaked beyond recognition from its original, fur length switches, all the things. We’ve been telling people, for several months now - if it’s the only image in the set you’re free to redo the pattern. It’s rverywhere in the discord. An issue now crops up - how is it fair to make them scrap their design, which achieved validity through the approval process? If this extends to deputies and MC redos, in which this happened some - some people who aren’t here anymore are going to get their stuff retconned. OAs are important, but I don’t believe it provides invincibility when it comes to pattern; rather, a right of first refusal type of deal. We should be better about the asking, and also about keeping calm in stuff like this. I think we could make it a rule going forward, and for anyone wronged previously, if they are here, they can contest that case. But, the state of the wiki has been somewhat fragile due to recent events, and shooting ourselves in the foot by adding to our to-do list isn’t something I support. And, since I’m sure this will be divided as heck, it’ll eventually go to a vote; and in policy changes, precedent holds that it doesn’t apply to the past, but only the future.

I agree with Spooky on this. 15:27, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

since ive never stated an actual opinion on this matter (ive literally just repeated "redo everything or nothing" over and over because i was, as some of you may tell, annoyed by the fact that i was being shouted down for doing something everyone did) ill just state it lol why not. practically, why go back and redo a bunch of also perfectly fine images (which contrary to popular belief it seems, the new artist did spend lots of time and energy into) for... what reason exactly? is redoing these images really the best use of our time right now, especially with the other blanks and stuff being redone? does redoing the images really add anything beneficial to the wiki itself? im against redoing every image before just to match the old OA pattern because imo its a big waste of time. i guess if the OA themselves comes back and is greatly offended or something, then sure let the poor guy keep their dignity and bring the pattern back lmao. in terms of whether or not the OA pattern should be kept, im not going to lie but im pretty neutral. both sides have pretty fair points that i buy. but really no matter what happens, the ONLY thing i am passionate about in this entire debate is to keep a goddamn consistent policy FROM NOW ONWARDS and dont just randomly shoot at random people to follow arbitrarily reinforced rules. also seriously lmao how is a single image suddenly redo worthy and a set not?? 15:48, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

That's what Im confused about. Why was the "if there is only in the set it can be replaced" rule put into affect in the first place? I don't see the logic in allowing this with singular images and not a set. I guess you could argue that if it was a set then you'd have to replace all, but it would have been a completely unnecessary change in the first place. - JArtz11  Oblivious to EVERYTHING!  16:19, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Spooky is 100% correct; this will only apply to future images, as per the precedent that we already have set. To apply to past images could be seen as rigging, just like the issue we had with the voting a couple months ago. We cannot apply current policies to past instances.

While I personally don't have a lot of images that weren't mine, I myself would also go back and redo the ones that didn't match the original pattern if it's feasible and possible to do so. I would also be fine with contacting the OA to find out if they want the image or want to keep the pattern; if they don't answer within, say, 72 hours, then the image is fair game. That's pretty reasonable and acceptable and another alternative that I would willingly support.

Also, it was never a rule, perse, and my thought process with the sets was: if someone makes an advanced or complicated enough pattern, that almost guarantees them an additional image in the set due to people not being able to or unwilling to match the new pattern. I have seen this plenty of times in the past, and chances are it'll happen in the future. ​​

Just gonna pop in and say that I have been working on a full list for the KP redos for the ones that weren't kept to their pattern.  Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 20:23, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Just gonna keep it short and say that future images should match the old images, just so we don't disregard the OA's previous work. 22:37, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

I'm throwing my two cents in on this - like might as well.

A lot of the past month or so have gone so quickly and so many images have been done anything has seemed difficult to discuss let alone enforce. If this has always been an issue then it should've been brought up before these big redos were done so that it could be enforced from the get-go. Past images shouldn't be subjected to this new ruling as it isn't fair to do so.

I think it should be from the decision of this, onwards so that we properly enforce it and such with a paper trail, I don’t think it’s fair to those who have already redone images as it does take time away from them if they’re redoing images already approved recently- if they do so wish to redo them to match old patterns, I feel like they should be allowed to nom those images them themselves.

I'm a firm believer in keeping the OA patterns, but redoing images and changing patterns has been going on for longer than just right now. My images have been redone and the pattern has been changed completely and it's discouraging tbh because you work on an image to get it approved and then your personal piece of creativity and artistry is covered up. On the contrary, I don't think it's possible to get every OA input when it comes to redoing an image, and some patterns are going to get covered up (especially from OAs that aren't around anymore to ask). I don't think the "let the poor guy come back and bring the pattern back" is a fair comment to make. It's not about that, it's about keeping the history of users who worked hard on their images alive even though they're not here to do it themselves. I don't think it's a waste of time. You're making an image anyways, and part of PCA is matching images to others, so I don't understand why it would be such a hassle to just... match another image. Summatively, I think the art of past users is to be considered because they did lend a hand into making the character come to life, no matter how long ago they left the site. <span style="">05:06 Wed May 1

Honestly, I think we need to keep old patterns unless something is wrong with them. but I think a vote for those should be held <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; color:#000080; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.22em; font-size:90%"> Ellie <span style="font-family:comic sans ms; color:#25383C; text-shadow:#737CA1 0.2em 0.1em 0.19em; font-size:110%"> life is an illusion 04:45, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

TUG Alts
Forgive me if this counts as a duplicate section, but, I think it should be addressed.

Some of these TUG alts are seemingly only partials to a character's description, and or, depict cats with different fur lengths. I know the discussion for Cinderheart is still ongoing, but another recent one is Willowshine. Her new kit alt is for her appearance in the guide, but the only difference between that and her short description is for short fur (which isn't enough for an alt in the first place).

I haven't had time to look for other alts that also fall into this discussion, but, I think there should be a revote for these and or clarifications made to the guidelines to avoid these discussions popping up again.

I agree with max. Willowshine looks exactly similar with her description, and only the fur length was changed. I got to say Willowshine's vote was made before her description changed, but now that it did, I feel like the alt isn't needed.

You could argue that she looks different but I think the artist was just given a simple description for the cat. 10:22, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

The Willowshine issue was just a kerfuffle from the start, to be honest. She was listed as a dark gray tabby, which is why she got an alt for being light gray, as she appears on the tree (not for TUG, since that only showed the face). However, her description was overturned to be a pale tabby per that being what's canon, and thus making this useless and just never got removed as an oversight. For other cases we should make guidelines, but Willowshine's was never for TUG anyways, but for a prior version of the tree.

OA claims
Since a bunch of us are already uploading our claims (with permission), would anyone in the project object to allowing those of us who want to get our OA claims done first, to let us post them and disregard the alphabetized choice? This would only apply to OA claims and wouldn't make this a free-for-all. A lot of us have a bunch of OA claims and it would be easier for us to get those out of the way and leave the newer art for the rest of the project. I'm sorry if this makes very little sense- I've been sick the last few days. Basically in a tldr, a few of us want to focus SOLELY on our OA claims for now and I'd rather ask permission from everyone else first to see what the project thinks. ​​​​

I don't really mind if it's just OA claims.

Yeah go for^^ OAs can do whenever and then they won't be tied up

I think it'd be a bit confusing at first, but I'm all for it. 03:21, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

If OAs want to focus on their images first before any others, they should be allowed to. 14:05, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

Let's try it and see how it goes. 15:56, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

I'm cool with this. Is there a date/time when an OA would lose a claim? 18:13, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

please.i just want my crap done. 19:44, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, and Scarlet does bring up a good point. When would an OA lose their claim? r ♥  <span style="style" title="will i ever be more than i&lt;span data-rte-entity=">' ve always been" data-rte-attribs=" style title=will i ever be more than i've always been"&gt;waving through <span style="style" title="cuz i&lt;span data-rte-entity=">' m tap, tap, tappin on the glass" data-rte-attribs=" style title=cuz i'm tap, tap, tappin on the glass"&gt;a window <21:19, 6/01/2019> ​


 * I feel like if an OA just has a lot of old images that they're trying to get through, so long as they don't suddenly stop half way through, any amount of time is fine. But if an OA goes MIA in the middle of redoes, then I think it'd be fair to re-evaluate 23:59, June 1, 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If a user is working through them, they should have the time they need. I think that if a person doesn't edit the wiki itself (overall) for a solid two-three months, they lose their rights to their images, unless there's a truly extenuating circumstance and they say as much. That's definitely enough time for someone to make an image or check in. As for the OA thing, it's so unanimous, we can probably start that now, no?


 * Agreed with above. And let's go for it. 19:04, June 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed^ For the OA thing, I see no reason why we can't start now. Better sooner than later if you ask me, since I know a lot of us have premade quite a few. There's no point in leaving them sitting when they could be getting approved. 20:14, June 2, 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed with above. I think we should start it now, and have it finished quicker. We have loads to do 16:21, June 6, 2019 (UTC)

Any other comments on the topic of OAs losing their claims? If they haven't made any edits and 2-3 months do go by, me personally thinking 3, I think it would be safe to allow those to be free game. I think we could possibly nudge the OA, either on their talkpage or another form of contact, after a month has gone by. If there's no response by month 2, one more nudge, then by 3 and nothing still, they're free game. Or if 3 months is a bit long, could do the same as I said above, but in the time span of 2 months. 00:04, June 14, 2019 (UTC)

Temp leads
Alright, so this was mainly an administrative action between myself and Spooky. We also consulted Patch since she's the deputy of PCA. We've decided to proper Scarlet and Max as temporary senior warriors because of the massive amount of work we have to do. Scarlet, as most of the older users know, was PCA's leader before the PCA shut down, and the one I served under... so having her as a temp and back on the team is something that I personally am glad about. Max was also chosen due to their unbiased and friendly nature and their extremely helpful comments. We also got someone in a different timezone than most of the US, because otherwise we have leads staying awake until 4 or 5 am just to archive images. tldr, once the rush is over, these two users will go back to their regular warrior rankings, unless the project needs permanent leads, in which case they would be nominated the proper way and a formal vote had from there.

Frecklewish Alt Warrior
Does Freckle need her alt with her clouded eyes? Since there's discrepancy on whether or not she got bitten or if venom was spit in her eyes, so I don't know if she has scars. If she doesn't, then her alt would literally be me blurring about ten pixels in her eyes. Thoughts? 18:29, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

I think it's best to make them cloudy. I believe you can go blind from it being spat (at least spitting cobra venom) and while adders aren't cobras, I don't think they normally spit anyway? 18:45, June 13, 2019 (UTC)