Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Kits to Apprentices to Warriors
Okay, Breezy just had an insane idea that she figured she'd share.

Basically, it's nearly impossible, especially in dead, inbetween-the-books times like these to find images that need approving to do, and in order to become an apprentice or a warrior, a user needs to have images approved. Now this bothers me because there are always images needing tweaked and redone, but only a few users get to do those. Which, in all honesty, isn't really fair and seems like hogging images to me. So my thinking is, how about an alternate route?

We could keep the system we have in place, but a user could also have periods of activity that get them promoted to apprentice, and then to warrior. Say, if a kit is active for three weeks by commenting constructively on images and participating in discussions OR they get an image up to 80% complete, they then get bumped up to apprentice. Another three weeks of commenting OR getting three images approved, and they are bumped up to warrior. A month and a half of activity is plenty to show dedication to a project and a month and a half of critiquing is enough to help anybody grasp charart skills. It's not like it would be easy to do either - it's hard to sit and watch other people do things you want to do that you're not allowed to do yourself - but it would be better than trying to grab at the sparse number of images needing made, especially since they are often snagged by older members. 20:26 Tue Jun 4 2013

Hrmmm... I think this is a good idea. Knowing how to comment, what to say, and things like that, is just as important as knowing how to make an image, and this has my full support. I know what it's like to be stuck in a dead phase and things like that, and some of the apprentices that have skill, can't even tweak or redo images because they're for warriors and leads only.

I'm agreeing with Skye here. When I wa an apprentice, I waited almost four/five months to become a warrior, because there were no new images to do, and I only had two images approved. So, I think this would make sense, rather than keeping apprentices/kits waiting for so long. Sho ond erp  Like nobody’s around~  20:46, June 4, 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about them being promoted to warrior in just three weeks, probably a bit longer would be good, as sometimes even the amount of time it takes for most apprentices to become warriors the normal way it juuust about enough to get them experienced enough to really be able to tweak and redo well and such. I think three weeks would be a bit quick. But otherwise, I definitely support this idea! It can be hard for members to have to wait much longer than they normally should just because we're inbetween books/series, and plus that would also mean we'd get basically no new warriors after the series eventually finishes. We definitely need an alternative method of getting warriors that doesn't involve getting original images approved, and this seems like a great way of doing it.

I remember that, when we had warrior nominations, the user had to be a member for a month. So maybe if the user hasn't been around for a month after being an apprentice for three weeks (because maybe they got an image to 80% the day they joined), they are held off from becoming a warrior until they hit a month? 21:06 Tue Jun 4 2013

I don't think my comment is contributive to the above 2 comments, but I just want to say, it kinda almost makes me sad to see everyone doing tweaks and not being able to contribute, so whoever started this is a genius.. 8D 22:57 Fri Jun 14 22:57, June 14, 2013 (UTC)

This idea is brilliant, and I fully support it. I remember when I was a new user here, waiting to become a warrior. It took months for it to happen, and its not a pleasant experience to wait, as a number of you understand. It's not fun to wait for a set of blanks to be redone, or a decision to be made to make all Dark Forest cats into rogues, or wait for a new book. This idea has my full support, and I really can't wait for the project to gain new, very useful apprentices and warriors out of it. 14:38 Sat Jun 15

It's really all been said above. It's a brilliant idea. I became a warrior rather quickly, but that's only because we were doing the StarClan images. It also helps get kits and apprentices more involved in the project. 03:07, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'd really like to get this wrapped. As is, I understand that it will go like this:
 * A kit may be promoted to apprentice if they:
 * a. Have been active in the project for three weeks.
 * b. OR have gotten an image up to 80% completion.


 * An apprentice may be promoted to warrior if they as long as they have been in the project for a month and:
 * a. Have been active in the project for three additional weeks since being promoted from kit.
 * b. OR have gotten three images approved.

Sound good? 21:04 Sat Jul 13 2013

I'm not trying to interrupt this, I'm just not sure why I really noticed this post until now. I'm just saying I thought it was nice when there was nominations to become a warrior, because you were nominated based on your work and such. Where as if there's just a few guidelines such as be active for three weeks after being a kit, or get three images approved, they have have gotten those three images approved over a long span of time and maybe aren't all that active. So that brings me to where maybe 3 images approved could come with a little 'As well as active project participation' or something along those lines maybe. *shrugs awkwardly* I really don't know how to word that any better than I did. x3 06:44, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Once you get three images approved, there's a lot more to be active for so I don't think that it needs to be an AND, just an OR. As for warrior nominations, I really don't think we need to go back to those. They tend to put people on pedestals and make it even harder to become a warrior in the first place. I personally think that it should just be up to the individual SWs as they are reviewing the member list as to whether they think that the apprentice or kit is active enough. But if we need to put a stipulation, just editing two or three days a week is plenty active if you're just commenting. 2:02 Wed Jul 31 2013

Hey does anybody else have anything to say on this? 0:31 Tue Aug 27 2013

I believe this should be a closed discussion because it seems everyone agrees. Is this active yet? 00:35 Wed Aug 28

It's not active yet as it still needs to be voted on. If nobody says anything within the next day or so I'll set up the vote. 16:51 Wed Aug 28 2013

Realism
Okay guys. So I was checking for grammar errors and stuff in the guidelines, and came across something that I think needs to be noted. Do you all know how apparently realism in chararts for approval is mandatory, and that triangle tabbies aren't allowed? Well, it's not mentioned in the guidelines anywhere, nor is anything banning triangle tabbies from being made. So, here's the short, sweet, and to the point story; either we add the realism to the guidelines with a vote, or we stop enforcing a rule we do not have. I'm being blunt, because we all know how picky PCA has gotten, and I've about had it. We're enforcing a rule that isn't a rule; it's an opinion and unless it's in the guidelines, we're not allowed to enforce it. We can suggest it, but not command others do it. ._. So yeah, blunt and short. What do we do? Do we add it (not just randomly, it needs to be done with a vote like any other thing we do), or just drop it and lighten up a little bit?

I have to agree. We can't enforce a rule that was never agreed upon. Either way, I think we're getting kinda picky with "realism" and what's "acceptable" anyway. We have to make sure we're being fair to everyone. 23:20, June 29, 2013 (UTC)

I agree, as well. Yes, a triangle tabby might not appear in real life, but we have no right to enforce a rule that isn't already in our guidelines. I think we've become rather picky as of late, and like Ivy said, we need to be fair to everyone. 03:23, June 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to dress this up. The mere fact of the matter is that unrealistic patterns look bad. They do not meet the standards we have come to expect from the artists and that's why they get redone. While yes, we can be picky, we have the tweak nomination page to say "no" to any pattern we think is fine. That's part of the reason we have it, after all. The placement of shading so that a light source source isn't in the guidelines, but we enforce that. Neither is the need for smoothed shading, or that the earpink can't be neon green. But yet that is expected and grounds for a redo or tweak? If the art isn't pleasing to the eye, realistic pattern or not, it gets redone, and if the SWs disagree with the nomination it is declined. Simple is that. There's no need for guidelines on our standards since they are always changing anyway. 4:11 Sun Jun 30 2013

Not all unrealistic patterns look bad, Breezey. And even if we say "no", the image would get nominated again and again, especially if the pattern is deemed "unrealistic". It should be mentioned /somewhere/, especially if we're basically forcing users to do certain things, like make realistic tabbies. Which to some, it's not fair, as they can't make tabbies, thus taking away the enjoyment part of the project. Anything that we're enforcing should be mentioned somewhere. Ghost rules shouldn't be enforced if there's nothing to back it up. Honestly, I'm for just getting rid of the realism in general; Warriors isn't realistic to begin with.

I don't see why quality standards must be lowered because somebody doesn't come in instantly knowing how to make a tabby. We're not here to teach people how to make art, if somebody can't make anything other than a triangle or y-tabby then that's their problem. Art takes effort, time, and practice to learn. Just because some Warriors patterns aren't realistic doesn't mean we shouldn't at least ask for some realism in the patterns. These are cats after all, not alien life forms that have butterflies and smiley faces all over them. That's what you're suggesting when you say "get rid of the realism in general." Take a look at deviantART. 4:53 Sun Jun 30 2013

This is just my two cents, but. The realism thing is really out of hand. It can be relaxed a bit, and I think that's what should happen, I saw a lot of unrealistic images on dA, that looked very nice, actually. Just because the pattern might not be the most real thing, doesn't mean it should be redone. Like, yes, y-tabbies are even more unrealistic than Blackstar and Weedwhisker, and shouldn't be done, but not all unrealistic images need to be totally redone. I thought a lot of them could simply be tweaked to look a tad realistic, and really, it's not in the rules. And anyway, everyone nearly shot B the first time Piketooth was nominated, and he was a Garfield tabby for Christ's sake, which is really unrealistic, and no one wanted him redone until I being the OA, wanted him redone. Everyone thought Piketooth was fine, and he was unrealistic, so really, if the image looks good enough, why redo it because it's not realistic? Ca na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 17:46, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Except Piketooth is also prime example of how PCA isn't completely strict concerning realism. However, I feel as though setting a guideline as to what's realistic or not is getting a bit extreme. To say that only these tabbies are allowed is ridiculous. And when you start with what tabbies are permitted, we might as well also add that shading, a realistic eye color, and a realistic earpink color is required, because we enforce those "rules" as well and that's what realism comes down to as well. As I see it, realism isn't so much of a "ghost rule" but rather an expectation that we would like our kits to rise to. 16:47, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, honestly, it's not fair to some of the users who can't make realistic designs. To have the process to get an image approved on such a high pedestal is outrageous, and it needs to stop. Everyone's getting far too picky, and they break CBAs on perfectly acceptable images for something as small as "ear pink being slightly unblurred" or "shading needing to be darkened or defined" or "lightened" and stuff like that. The comments about PCA being an elitist group are because of this crap, you guys. We're far too picky about what's acceptable and what's not, and it's getting to the point where people are seriously getting into /fights/. Not all unrealistic patterns are bad, as I've said before, and it's unfair to newer users who want to have /fun/. This project has changed so much over the course of the time I've been here, I can hardly recognize it as the PCA I joined back in 2010. These users who go around acting like they're better than others because of their "skill", and things like that, well... it needs to stop. A peaceful project without images being nominated left and right and users getting flat out disrespected because apparently a style they worked hard on /isn't good enough/ for the project, is something that would be nice. At this rate, the project's going to be on a higher pedestal than the chat. Being promoted in this project is harder than becoming a chat mod... ._.

What Cloudy said is so true, being promoted /is/ harder than being a chat mod in many ways, but in other ways, I think we're being to slack in promoting people, sometimes we just give people a nomination because their art is "pretty," which is wrong, we are supposed to look at other factors, including leadership qualities, commenting, etc. But anyways, I think that we /do/ need to have some realism rules, and being picky is absolutely fine imho, we want to take pride in our wiki, the content, and the charart, etc, so if people are being picky, so what? Being picky has made more than one stunning pieces of artwork, and being picky helps other people to see what some of the SW's do in their artwork and helps them improve imho. I think I got way off topic, but whatever. x3 17:10, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

There's a fine line between being picky, and constructive comments. Whether you're being picky because of personal preference, or not, I don't think is the problem. Sometimes, it seems like others are forcing their styles and ideas on others, thus taking away from the originality of the chararts being made.

And sometimes we are, yes. But people are so afraid to speak out against this elite group known as the PCA leads, that it makes me wonder if perhaps we should all take a step back and realize what we're doing. Perhaps see it through someone who's never been a lead, and see how we act then? Honestly, the atmosphere around the project sometimes has made even me consider avoiding it for a day or two. Hardly anyone speaks their minds anymore, and I think this could be the root of the problem.

The thing is, we're not suggesting that we're going to approve of garish pictures getting through, we merely mean that this is a ghost rule that we've never voted on to be approved of, and that we are being way too strict on what's acceptable and what's not. You need not look further than the manga for unrealistic looking cats, as well as Bluestar's fur color in the cat guide. 19:49, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Now hold up. Having standards is not elitism. It's expecting actual work and not wanting extremely unrealistic patterns for the chararts. Warriors may not be realistic, it's a book about talking cats for Heaven's sake, but there should at least be an attempt at making them look like actual cat patterns. I don't have a problem with putting it on the endless list of rules you people love so much, but this "elitism" thing you're ranting about isn't in expecting some realism (which I will not take back what I said about unrealistic patterns looking bad; their place is not in chararts) in images, it comes from this idea that we actually need apprentices and kits and that people can't just come in an tweak a charart if they want to. It's the wide gaps in ranks and the dictatorial attitude of a lot of SWs. 5:23 Sat Jul 6 2013

I'm popping in because I was an early propagator of realism in PCA and I feel I should say something... this has gone too far. PCA isn't just demanding realism, it's demanding beyond realism. Breeze, look at your own chararts. Have you ever seen a cat like that, especially in the wild? Tabby cats. Your chararts. If anything your chararts prove that unrealistic chararts do not in fact have to look bad. It is in fact getting to the point of elitism. And pushing people to make stuff that looks amazing every time just isn't reasonable. If someone tried to get me to put out stuff like yours every time I made a charart, I'd never have gotten anywhere in this project. And you can't be asking every user to do it just because you don't think any charart should exist that doesn't try to highlight every piece of fur on the cat. So all I'm saying is that everyone should chill. People that want to make stunning ultra-realistic-to-the-point-that-it's-not-really-realistic-anymore chararts should go ahead and do that. And people that can at least make it look like a recognizable cat should do that as well. Realism's fine. But don't push it too far. 16:46, July 7, 2013 (UTC)

Not my point. My point is that we need realism so we don't get cats that are purely triangle tabbies and such, like this. My personal chararts have nothing to do with it, as there are others that don't have layers of texture and other junk to make it shiny that can produce fantastic chararts that represent the pattern of a normal cat quite well (and are by-far less busy). In the end I think it just comes down those voting on images (SWs, and hopefully warriors soon) as to whether or not that individual pattern is suitable to be redone. Add it to the rules that realism is grounds for a redo if need be, but leave it open for the voters to decide where it caps. <span style="">17:29 Sun Jul 7 2013

Now forgive me if I ramble or don't make sense, I've just woken up and am a little groggy still.

May I just point out that the project guidelines basically have nothing about making images in them? They don't have anything about shading, they don't say earpink is required, they don't have anything about the pattern having to be blurred rather than pixelated, they just don't have anything. And they shouldn't in my opinion. But that doesn't mean those things can't be enforced. The quality of the image is decided upon by the users of the wiki, and if a triangle tabby is deemed not good quality by them, even though it's not mentioned in the guidelines, why should that critique be gone against any more than shading can be gone against?

While I agree the the realism going way too far lately on what people will redo an image for, that does not mean I think it's a good idea to completely forget about any realism standards at all. I see no reason why things like tabbies and such should be treated any different than shading or earpink or any of that, in the way that anybody can critique any part of it regardless of whether there's something in the guidelines about it. Realism looks good. But then again, realism isn't the only thing that looks good. Basically, there should be no realism standard, but realism and quality should not be ignored.

And on the point of it being unfair to new users, if a user doesn't know how to do basic charart skills like drawing acceptable stripes, that doesn't mean it should be accepted. A lot of new users don't even know how to do shading or blurring. Should we start accepting images without that then because it's "unfair to new users"? It's not that hard to make a good tabby pattern with practice, and so long as hyperrealism (which is nearly impossible on stylized cat blanks) isn't required, there's no reason to change things around for new users who haven't learned much yet.

As for Warriors not being a realistic series, as it's been pointed out time and time again, a couple partially unrealistic cats are no reason to lower standards. The series being fantasy should not effect anything really. Descriptions are for the most part realistic, and are based off of how real cats look. Should we allow extremely stylized cartoony or anime blanks because Warriors isn't the most realistic cat book out there? No. It should have no effect on our standards for images looking good. Nobody's going around saying "Hey, this charart has to look like Mounty's or Whiskey's ones!" we focus on getting the best quality as we can, no matter who the user is. If that ends up being Mounty or Whiskey quality because the artist is talented, great! But nobody's requiring it. My only problem with the current realism standards is that a good number of people are ignoring quality of chararts when it comes to nominating for redos and such, and only focusing on the realism. That's when it becomes a problem. Often extremely unrealistic images such as a complete triangle tabby that looks basically like Garfield end up appearing much lower quality. And so the stripes should be changed to be better quality, though not necessarily extremely realistic.

So to sum it up, I think there needs to be absolutely no change on the actual guidelines or quality expected, and the only change that I see is needed is that people need to focus more on the quality over realism when it comes to redoing stuff. A good quality slightly unrealistic image should not be nominated because it isn't hyper realistic, it should be nominated only if it isn't as good quality as it could be. (which overly-unrealistic patterns could cause) That's our goal. And that's what we need to go back to focusing on.


 * Popping in* I believe that realism should not be stressed too much... To me, if there was a strict border of what my art should be like, well... I wouldn't call it art or my own.. Everyone has a different perspective of things, and everyone has a different way of symbolizing that this art style is their own. Just like any natural living being, every charart (or piece or art) is unique. And somebody's way of making chararts might not be that realistic, but to prevent them from using that style is not right. Okay, I don't mean that making chararts without shading or stripes as cow-looking shapes or adding wings to the chartart is right. You get what I mean.

My point is, we don't need to worry about the realism of the chararts that badly, but still uphold the basic needs and guidelines of making chararts. Honestly, I've liked many triangle/y-tabbies. Also, I believe that viewers will not be stressing out whether the chararts are realistic or not, but will care about the individuality that each charart has in them. I could be wrong; that's just what I think.

Tallstar ~ Kittypet Charart?
In Tallstar's Revenge, he was kept in a twoleg nest with Jake for a few days and was taken care of by a Twoleg. Would that mean he'd get a kittypet charart? 16:17, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

In my  opinion, yes. It's like Leafstar. 16:53, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read that part but from what you described, I'd assume so 19:46, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Probably, as long as he didn't reject their care unlike Willowbreeze, since that's why she didn't get a kitty pet charart. 20:11, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, if he gets one just for being under a twolegs care for a few days, wouldn't Barley get one since the same thing happened to him? 05:04, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I would image they both would. <span style="">2:45 Wed Jul 10 2013

I think in this case, Tallstar and Barley would both get kittypet chararts, going on the information displayed above o3o 03:12, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think both, especially since characters that were only taking food from Twolegs got them. 03:22, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

Default Coloring for Tabbies
Hi guys I like bringing up stuff. Anyways, it's currently said that brown is the default coloring for a tabby...and we give chararts to characters that are only described as tabby. A perfect example of this is Longtail, before the silver cite was found. He was simply a pale tabby with black stripes. Since the default coloring was brown, that's what he was. Then we found a cite that said silver, and well...we all saw what happened with that.

So, anyways, I'm here to propose that we get rid of the default coloring, and say that only having "tabby" as part of a description isn't grounds for an image. Since, contrary to popular belief on the wiki....brown is not the most comment coloring of tabbies, and honestly, it's a cheap way to make an image.

Yes, I realize this would probably eliminate a couple of the images we have, but I honestly think that people need to stop making up reasons to make chararts. Plus, technically, we're assuming that the character is a brown tabby, and if we don't assume for other things, why should we assume just because the word "tabby" is used, eh?

I can agree, although the most common color for tabbies is indeed brown. If the character only mentioned as "tabby", we should wait and see if there will be a cite saying the color of the tabby. And it is true on what your saying about assumptions, Cloudy, because if we can't assume for the trivia section in articles, why be able to assume what color the tabby is? And plus, PCA is not the only thing you can edit on the wiki, you can edit articles, etc. 21:12, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well, in all the cats I've seen, I'm less inclined to agree with that, Hawk. Around here, at least, the most common coloring I've seen is actually ginger, or a silver-gray-ish coloring. I hardly ever see brown tabbies around here. And you bring up a wonderful point about the trivia sections, and for that I thank you. If we can't assume there, then this is the same thing.

You are right with the silver/gray. But for the brown tabbies, its actually the most common in the real world. That's what I meant by most common. Sorry for the jumble-up. 22:24, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, I think it's not the most common in the real world, Hawk. I just disproved your point by providing a real world example. o.o I understood what you meant, and my point is, that it's not necessarily true. I wasn't talking about characters in the book series or anything; I was actually talking about /where I live/.

Oh. Okay then. =3 22:32, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

According to the University of Florida, brown mackeral tabbies are the most common tabby coat color. I should think the default stays. <span style="">4:48 Sat Jul 6 2013

Well, we're still assuming they're brown tabbies, though. Even if it's a default color, how is that any different from adding theories and assumptions to family sections, or even the trivia? Honestly, tabby doesn't seem like enough to make an accurate charart, and it's misleading to some.

We could possibly link that part of their description to the trivia, where it states that we don't know the cats definite color, and that it's a default one. For I do agree with Breezy, the default should stay. In my opinion, them being said to be a tabby is enough to get them a charart. 05:01, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

How is it misleading? "Tabby" is a pelt pattern; it is darker stripes on a paler background. Not specifying the color doesn't mean it isn't a valid description - nobody knows what color anybody's collars are, or where exactly their markings would go either - and the Erin's use just "tabby" all the time. I don't see how it is an assumption, since a brown tabby is in fact a tabby cat and the most common color, too. Using brown just gives everything a bit of consistency. <span style="">5:05 Sat Jul 6 2013

The same could be said for tortoiseshell as well. While most are black based with ginger markings and possibly white spots, who's to say it's not a dilute or if it's a calico? I honestly think that the default is fine, like Breezy said, if we go this route then we can't assume for eye colors or collar either and wouldn't warrant an image for said assumption. I do see what you're trying to get at  05:19, July 6, 2013 (UTC)

I disagreed to default coloring when it was first being talked about. When a description says a cat is a "tabby", it doesn't give a color. We care so much about accuracy, so why are we going to just use brown when a cat is noted as a tabby? We want this wiki to give the real descriptions of the characters so browsers won't get thrown off when visiting the page. Sure, a brown mackerel tabby may be the most common color of cat, but does that mean all tabby cats are brown mackerels? Certainly not. If a color is not given, there's no grounds to make the charart off of, considering the color is, you know, everything. So yeah, I'm still giving the same opinion I gave when this thing first started off: if it's color isn't named, it shouldn't get a charart, despite it being noted as having a tabby pelt pattern. Patterns aren't everything, the color matters a lot in making the charart too. And to Ivy: eye colors and collars are easy fixes if said in the book. If an image is made with blue eyes but noted to have yellow later on (and same with collars), the OA can just edit the image and not have to put it on the tweak page. If we give a cat a default brown tabby and do the same with all of it's images and it's later said to be a silver tabby, /all/ the images are going to have to be redone. I know you all like redoing images, but really, it could be avoided.

They may not even be given a description other than being called a tabby. If so, then that's that. They're a tabby, with no color. Hey, if we're giving them art, just make them a transparent cat with stripes. Just kidding.

Anywho, this is my two cents. And before someone says "but we can just redo the image with said color", yes I understand that. But just giving them a blank page will give you an open canvas to do the art if a color is revealed. <span style="">20:15 Tue Jul 9


 * I must agree with the fact that there should be no chararts given to cats that are just described as "tabby". We don't know their actual coat color, so assuming that they're brown conflicts with how we try to enforce how assuming isn't acceptable on the wiki. Sure, brown may be the most common color, but it doesn't mean that every cat is brown. 20:35, July 9, 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the time to type out a lot right now, so I'll come back to this later, but I just wanna mention that if we decide not to give chararts for tabbies because they have no color specified, technically we shouldn't give chararts for torties, as torties can be a number of different colors and it's rarely specified in the books which they are.

True, but torties all have one color pallet (usually) involved. There's no gray tortie (although colors may resemble gray in diluted styles) or a brown tortie. Tortoiseshells are all based around the same colors, whilst tabbies can be a variety of different colors. I know there can be diluted torties, but we haven't come across one yet. As Paleh said, no torties are really described thoroughly and are seen as one generic description themselves. <span style="">18:25 Wed Jul 10

It's not just as simple as plain torties or dilute torties though. Need I list off all the options that a tortie could be? Black and ginger, chocolate and ginger, cinnamon and ginger, gray and cream, lilac and cream, fawn and cream, all varying in exactly how they look, ginger sometimes looking more yellow/golden or more brown, the different dilute colors varying a lot in how dark they are, and add on torbies which probably wouldn't always be described, and you've got a ton of options on what a tortie could be. And we don't even go by those options! Anything that resembles the pattern of a tortie is just fine, even if the colors aren't any of those. And I'd also like to point out that there have been a lot of different varieties of torties canon in the series, such as Silverflame and Stormkit for dilute torties, and Spottedpaw and Daisytail for chocolate torties, though they are not always described specifically as tortie, just as gray tabbies aren't always described as just plain tabbies.

So why should we disallow images for cats described as just tabby when we allow tortie to be accepted and not even regulated that the colors are colors torties could actually be? Tortie is basically free game, and yet a set default for tabbies, which is the most common color is being opposed? That makes no sense.

Not to mention the fact that in real life, brown tabbies are often called simply tabby cats, whereas gray, ginger, cream, etc. tabbies rarely are. The vast majority of the time they have their color specified, however plenty of people call brown tabbies things like simply "the tabby kitten" or "that tabby girl over there" etc. without specifying the color. It's a very common thing, and likely carries over into warriors.

Longtail was a bit different, as we had his shade and pattern, but not specific color. And also, the cream Longtail wasn't started simply by us. It was wikipedia and various popular artists along with us slightly. And just one false trend that happened in the fandom that we were a part of doesn't seem like nearly enough reason to disallow the tabby default. That trend likely would have started even if he didn't have an image.

May I also point out that we also assume eye colors and skin colors and white patterns and tabby types and fur lengths? We honestly have to assume a lot of things for chararts as the erins will rarely go into complete and total detail. And it's never caused us any problems really aside from Longtail, who again, wasn't just us.

To be quite frank, PCA is based on assumptions. If we're gonna get picky about a regulated assumption, almost every charart should be thrown out because of the ridiculous amount of assumptions made in them. We can't get too picky about assumptions without PCA being forced to close.

Assuming is part of the project. You design the cat to what you picture it to be. Yeah, I agree, PCA is based of assumptions, but we work with what we have. When the cat is just a "tabby", yeah it would be fun to make it brown or whatever you want to do with it, but we don't have a /color/. Whereas torties (although there are many, like Paleh listed) are structured off of color alone. Keep in mind that these are forest bred cats, and I'm not a pro in genetics or anything, but they're going to keep the same genes that have been illustrated in more detail descriptions the Erins have given. I'm not trying to diss your point or anything, Paleh. I understand there are many torties and we're assuming most of them, but we're making logical points about designing them as regular tortoiseshell (black, orange, and white) until further stated.

Now, I know what I just said contradicts my point of going against the default color tabby design. I'm trying to say, tortoiseshell is a description within itself, or it has been for the number of years this project has been functioning. A tabby is not a full description. There could be various colors that come with tabby, as well as design, but we make that up as we make the charart. To make the charart we need a pattern and a color, and the rest is up to you. We don't want to take the bit of creativity out of making chararts, do we?

PCA is not going to close, we're always going to assume, I realize this. The things we assume are things that are just us depicting the cat. We can to that, at least. Be creative. Anyways, my point is that tabby is not a complete description in of itself, whereas tortie is more of a complete design than that. <span style="">00:33 Fri Jul 12

I'm not sure you quite realize the amount of colors for torties compared to the amount of colors for tabbies. Let's compare.

The general description of tabby is a cat with a paler base and darker stripes. Tabbies can be brown with black stripes, brown with chocolate stripes, pale cinnamon with cinnamon stripes, (all three of which are accepted under the same description of a brown tabby) ginger, cream, fawn, (cream and fawn both accepted for a cream description) gray, lilac (both accepted for a gray description) and lastly silver. So the actual descriptions possible, and not just appearances, are brown, ginger, cream, gray, and silver. Colors that aren't possible and white are not accepted here unless described.

The general description for torties is any cat with more than one color. Torties have nearly twice what I just listed for tabbies considering we have no rules on whether they have to be solid or can be tabby when stripes aren't described, and whether there's stripes or not makes a huge difference on the appearance. And the various color schemes aren't all combined under the same five descriptions like tabbies are, as on torties is makes a much larger difference in appearance than tabbies. Also on solids, smoke is possible, which does make a big difference appearance wise. That is not possible on tabbies, as the tabby equivalent is a silver tabby, already listed. Plus the combinations of colors that aren't possible on real cats, such as black, brown, and ginger, black and cream, black and brown, varying shades of all brown, and brown and cream. And then on top of that, it's doubled when you include the white that's completely artist's choice. Added up I believe that's more than five times the amount of colors accepted as tabbies are.

Now tell me again that tortie is a description with a color and tabby is not. Go ahead. Again, it can be argued that when someone says tabby alone in real life, they almost invariably mean a brown tabby cat. The generic tabby. Just as much as someone who says a tortie without any other specification generally means a black and ginger cat without stripes, the generic tortie color.

If we're going to disallow a regulated assumption for cats described as just tabby, you can't ignore the assumptions we make on tortie cats. There's no getting around that. If tabby goes, tortie needs to go with it, otherwise we have a double standard which would need to be addressed.

Maybe we could just grayscale tabbies or something along those lines if there's nothing else specified? Because, despite what some university says, brown is not the most common everywhere. That's just a general observation, and doesn't speak for the entire world. I know in the state of Pennsylvania, I see more orange and gray cats than I do brown...and in all honesty, I think I've seen probably like five brown tabby cats? If we grayscale those seen in the graphic novels, but make those unspecified brown, isn't it a double assumption? Why do we grayscale the graphic novel images, but not those seen in the books? What exactly is the difference? A simple picture? Because if that's the case, then we either need to pick one color and stay with it, or find another solution. Because why should we do one and not the other?

Grayscaling the image would be the best way to go, considering gray is a neutral color. And Skye has a point, with the graphic novel tabbies. There's no color to the picture, unless the cat is pictured on the cover, so can we really just pick a color an go with it? I'd been meaning to bring this up, but Skye beat me to it. <span style="">16:44, 07/12/2013

Actually no, brown tabby is the most common color in the world. I don't care whether in your area you haven't seen as many tabbies, I'd bet money on the fact that there are more brown tabbies in the state than other tabbies. We voted on the default color and it passed as brown. I see no reason to change that when it is the most common color, no matter what you say.

The difference with the graphic novel tabbies is we're visibly seeing a gray tabby cat. To make them brown would be assuming what we're seeing isn't what they really are, which may be right, but would still be going against what we've seen of their color. On cats simply described as a color, we haven't seen anything. We're not going against any description they currently have, as they've not been shown. To make the manga tabbies brown would be like saying let's make the brown tabbies ginger, cause hey, after all the erins make mistakes so the brown description may be wrong. I know that it's slightly different because we know they're grayscaling, but it's still an appearance we'd be going against.

Unless you have scientific, citable, evidence that there aren't more brown tabbies in your state then you just wasted your time typing that comment. Personal observations are completely useless in this sort of scenario. Because there are more brown tabbies - I already linked to one source, where's yours? I don't see a study presented of the cats in Pennsylvania.

I can say that Paleh is completely right about how many many more variations of tortoiseshell cat than there are tabbie, one of the main reason is that torties can be both at the same time, i.e. torbies. I see no point is changing the tabby default from brown, nor setting a tortie default. How often the Erins actually specify what kind of tortie? They usually don't, but they later specify the color of tabbies many times. Tabby most commonly means brown tabby, so that being the default is far from an assumption. <span style="">17:02 Fri Jul 12 2013

Just because I am not backed by scientific studies, does not make my opinion wrong. ._. It seems unfair to me that we make one set of tabbies one color, and one something else.

I withdraw my opinion and bow out, since I'd rather not snap and say something I'd regret for not having the same opinion as someone else, and I just don't want this to turn into another fight over something else for letting personal stuff get in the way of what /was/ a nice discussion, which seems to have gone sour due to my lack of thought behind my words. I apologize if I've offended anyone, and bow out of the debate.

It doesn't make it wrong not to have proof, but it means you can't argue your point against one with proof. I understand that there are many things that may be right that can't be proven or cited, but when we have proof here that's actually been linked, unless you have something that directly goes against it that can be proven, it can't be argued.

I understand that a few people have issues with having two different standards depending on whether the cat was in manga or not, and I get why, but my point still stands on the fact we'd be going against something we've actually seen to make the manga cats brown.

Also, though this really shouldn't make much of a difference, contrary to popular belief it's as easy and probably actually easier to change brown into another color than to recolor gray. It may use a different method, but it's still equally easy to change either one for the most part. Just wanted to point that out. So that's no reason for brown to be changed under that reasoning.

And my point still stands on the fact that any assumption we make on the tabbies is ridiculously less than the assumptions we make for torties. This applies for having a default color or choosing brown over gray, which actually has more backing than just picking one randomly.

Yes, Paleh, I understand how many torties there are. I know how many mixtures and color combinations there are, alright? I understand your point, and was just expressing mine. A tortoiseshell has been a description in of itself on this wiki for a number of years, and nobody has had a problem with it or has questioned it, whereas a tabby is more of an accessory to a description. I know what you're saying, there's no need to correct me. I'm just expressing what the wiki has seen for a number of years beforehand.

I'm going to have to follow Cloudy and bow out of this debate as well. I've expressed my opinion and, like her, I have no proof to back up my claims as well because they were just outsmarted. This discussion has went south but I hang my hat with my stance on the subject: to throw out default coloring. I understand this was the decision in the beginning, I was there. I didn't support it then. As much as I like arguing, I don't want to argue on a subject coming from my opinion that is shot down and has no proof.

So, uh, yeah. I'm following Cloudy on this one. Sorry if I offended anyone. <span style="">23:59 Fri Jul 12

I wasn't pointing out the number of tortie combinations just for you, I was doing it to make a point that everybody could see when reading over this discussion. If you already understood that, alright, though I still don't see how anyone can call making tabbies brown an assumption while we allow all those torties. I know you said you're bowing out of the discussion, but am I just missing something completely? I honestly don't understand, and if I'm missing something, please by all means, tell me. I just don't get it, and I would like to if I can.

I know it's how PCA has run for ages, though the amount of time something has been allowed shouldn't influence changing it in any way, but I'm not in any way suggesting we change anything to do with torties. I'm pointing out that these are the kind of assumptions we make on many characters, and that's just fine. But with that in mind, you can't disallow a small assumption at the same time.

I don't think there should be a change in the way we make torties, but there's so many ways tabbies can be-not only colorwise, but patternwise also- that it seems like a cheap way to deal out art just to keep the project busy. We shouldn't just deal out images because they're "tabbies" because that's almost like dealing out images because, "hey that character has eyes!". Sorry if that was offensive, I just wanted to participate more in these kinds of things ;3 <span style="">19:50 Thu Aug 8

"Somebody else said I could redo this image..."
Okay, I'm sorry, but this has got to stop. We have a tweak nomination page for a reason. You need three "yay" votes to redo an image, and going up to a SW and asking them if you can completely redo an image defeats the point. After all, many images are denied for redoes but approved for tweaks. Doing this is going against the purpose of the tweak nomination page. Any and all redoes, whether they have been approved for tweaks prior or not, need to be nominated on the tweak page. That's why it's there, so we approve every tweak or redo that needs to be done. This should go without saying. .-. <span style="">19:37 Fri Jul 12 2013

Perhaps it does, but there are sometimes where tweaking an image is impossible to do. I recently did it with Barkface after being given permission. I see no problem if you asked another lead if they could do it. If you're just asking someone randomly that isn't a lead, then no, you shouldn't be allowed. But honestly, it's a double edged sword with this; everyone does it.

The fact that everybody does it is a reason it needs to stop. The whole point of the tweak nomination page was to stop people from just editing or redoing images without the rest of the project knowing and/or agreeing. There are a lot of images that could have been tweaked that end up redone because they get permission. No, I'm sorry, but they need to be renominated. Even if you think it's just a silly extra step, there is a very strong chance that the redo would not pass because the voters don't think it needs redone. Skipping that step is disregarding the nomination page and the opinion of the project. <span style="">19:55 Fri Jul 12 2013

Then perhaps every image that's on the tweak page, or has been in the past like two weeks, should be reverted and renominated? I have no issues with it, since it's not really that much of an issue, but hey. If it's got to be done, it's got to be done. I have no issues with renominating Barkface if I have to.

This should probably be pointed out about solids, imho. It says in the guidelines that if the leader or deputy (like Scar or I) gives permission, then it's allowed. It also says that "Characters with a solid pelt style may either be tweaked or redone, depending on the tweaker's discretion. As it is a one solid color, there is not much to keep if the tweaker so decides to redo it."

Then I am highly for changing the guidelines so that all images must be renominated, no matter what the circumstances. <span style="">20:57 Fri Jul 12 2013

Well, perhaps we could start a forum discussion on changing different aspects of the guidelines, since this appears to not be the only thing that needs to be changed? Like, the matching alt thing, too, and what is and isn't acceptable in images, ect.

As I said in the realism discussion above, I don't think any of that needs to be added to the guidelines. And the discussion on the matching alts should at least be started here and talked about a little first. Honestly I think all the separate discussions should just stay here until there's more agreement and it looks like the guidelines will be changed. Otherwise with three or more topics in one forum, some of the subjects will be lost in discussions of one of the other two, and it'd just generally be a bit less productive until there's a little more agreement.

I completely agree though, one single SW who isn't even required to be named by you giving you permission to do something that should take three votes if it were being done right? No. That's not right. It may be convenient, and the images often do need to be redone when someone asks a SW about it, but that doesn't mean it's alright for a single SW to give permission. The guidelines should definitely be changed removing that whole thing, and specifying that asking permission to redo is no longer accepted.

On the note of "everyone does it," that is in no way a good reason to keep it allowed. Everybody made triangle and y stripes constantly before things were changed too. Along with countless other aspects of the project that have been changed. Everybody doing it has no effect on whether it's a good idea to change it or not.

I very much support this suggestion though.

I must agree with this. It's not one user's opinion hat matters most, it is the project itself. It's better to have others' opinions than completely redoing and image that is perfectly fine. Although realism kicks in, the Warriors series is not meant to be realistic to begin with, because some cat's description don't even exist in the real world. Just because a user says you can, doesn't mean you should without the permission from the other project members, because, all in all, the images the project creates belong to all of us, and we should be giving opinions to decide what happens with the image. And, to agree with Paleh, asking for permission from a single user alone shouldn't be acceptable to redo the image. 16:21, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

SWs and their duties
Now, I'm probably going to get shot or murdered in my sleep for this, but it's a trend that I feel needs addressed. Also, some feathers are most likely going to be ruffled by the topics and general idea of this discussion, so you've been warned.

For as long as I've been on WW PCA has had senior warriors, and senior warriors do good things for PCA, but recently a trend has been happening where some SWs have practically abandoned the project, maybe posting a charart once every 3 months, voting or commenting once a month and that's it. Now I might be the only person to feel this way, but I think that's wrong. When you were nominated into the SW spot you basically agreed to help the project by doing the basic duties, archiving, voting, CBAing, and approving, but some of the SWs haven't been. I think that PCA should have an addition to their guidelines that a user must remain active, by active I mean more than sitting in chat all day, in order to remain a SW and I think that when a SW is removed from the list they should not be added back in until another nomination has passed, this will ensure that SWs will be active and if not will be removed, and the project will have to agree with their reinstatement. I think that this is only fair to the SWs and other members, too, who are working their butts off for this project.

Also, chararts sitting: some chararts on the tweak and approval page just sit and sit there, if this should be instituted it would insure that users wouldn't have to keep asking for comments (though that is by no way a bad thing) and chararts wouldn't sit there for three days with no comments. It would also help the project run more smoothly.

Just to clarify, I do not mean this towards leads that have other obligations, camp, family, etc, I only mean that if a user clearly has enough time to sit in chat half of the day, then PCA should have lead activeness rules.

Yeah that's all. x3 00:53, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with this. Same thing with the tweak page, some tweaks just sit and sit there for days without getting approved and such, and warriors can't do this kind of stuff. And that's true what you say, Duck, If you have time for chat you have time for PCA. Laziness is not a part of this project, and if someone's leaving, please clarify it to the project before leaving. 19:58, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oh and another thing I forgot, some leads have recently been accepting only their images or only certain people's images and this is just as bad as letting an image sit, now some people could argue that it's because theirs was the only one ready or that one was the only one ready, but that isn't true there are obvious images that have been sitting there under CBA or just sitting for much longer, and that is also wrong, that suggests that you're only approving your images so you can get another one before other people that cannot approve, or that you're showing favoritism, which is blatantly wrong. I can think of three times this has happened in the past few months and it very well could have happened more than that, but that also, needs to stop. PCA is supposed to be fair, that is why we have the reservation dates and time limits. owo 20:05, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I know sometimes I only approve certain ones, but that's because I often go by my personal clock, not the wiki clock, and I keep forgetting that they're not the same. Or, I do happen to overlook the images, and/or misread the timestamps. I try to go through every couple hours and see if there's something to be archived, but as I've been known to do, I do forget sometimes. x.x I apologize, but if I do it, it's totally accidental and nowhere near intentional.

I didn't mean to be accusing anyone, I know thy might be accidental, but in case they're not, I wanted to address them, and it happened 3 times by 3 different leads, so I wanted to address it, if it happened once I wouldn't have said a thing about it. 20:28, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

More often than not, an image is only sitting there because it has comments on it. Also, SWs are to only CBA something if they think it's ready. Not because it hasn't had comments for nearly a day. However, that doesn't mean we need to make something, and often times something about the image can look like it isn't ready, but it's hard to pinpoint what, so it's usually waiting for somebody to come along and point it out. I'm sure we all know what I'm talking about.

And another note, begging for comments and CBA's does not help anybody. It's rather annoying and a waste of an edit. I've never seen a time when PCA has ever rushed to crank images out, and either way images get approved a lot faster than nominations in other projects. We will get there eventually. Just be patient.  <span style="">20:57 Mon Jul 22 2013

If you cannot figure out what it is, maybe try to describe what you think looks off about the image to another user and they can point it out, because regardless it is not fair to any user for an image to sit there for three plus days with no comment. And yes begging is wrong and a waste of an edit, but asking when your image has sat for three days is fine. It even says on both the approval and the tweak page that you can politely nudge a lead to archive an image after 48 hours. I agree that every day is too much but after a few days it is no longer begging. And yes many users are being patient, though some aren't, but if a user can sit in chat all day then they can contribute to PCA if they're a lead. And anyway I started this discussion as a way to not let leads make 5 or so edits every 3 months and still be a lead, which is not fair, not for the images sitting rule, which I branched off into, but there are some problems in our leads that have gone on for too long to just ignore anymore, PCA has been getting more and more exclusive and hard to make any rank in, and it's turning back into the 'cabal' that it was when Iceheart was the leader. PCA needs to go back where kits and apprentices aren't afraid to comment and even warriors rarely comment anymore now. We need to have /active/ leads that will be a benefit to this project, not a name just sitting there. kthxbai 21:12, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Duck, no. The cabal comment is uncalled for, and I wish you wouldn't bring that up. x.x We're past that...or at least I thought we were. Asking for comments on an image that went 48 hours without comments is okay with me, but not 24, as more often than not, a vast majority of the real active PCA leads are away, and do have jobs. Myself, Sheepy, and Breezey being three of them. You cannot sit there and say that you expect us to stalk the PCA pages every five seconds, when at least three of us work a good seven/eight hours a day, and come home tired. ._. We are not a cabal, and have not been for well over a year. I would appreciate that you not compare us to that time, because that's extremely offensive, and really doesn't sit well with multiple members. We're not a cabal, and just because users do not get images approved in two days like some others can, does not mean we're not paying less attention to them. Something's telling me this is going to snowball into something else, so I request that we cease and desist all "cabal speak".

Fine, the cabal comment was a bit much, I'll admit that, but PCA is getting more and more exclusive with images and users. Anyway, no, nobody expects that from the leads, what I'm trying to say is some leads do barely anything for PCA, contributing wise, and the job - this cannot hold water for some leads, because they're in chat all day, and the approving thing sprang up after some users are approving only certain images and are letting things sit, while they're CBA'ing other images that are of the same quality. And yes like I said I think that asking every 24 hours is way too much, I'm just saying that if a user asks for comments after three days or if an image sits for three days a lead should do something about it. 21:52, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Then make inquiries about those users. However, I must specify that leaving their username in the chat does not always mean they are online at the present time. I leave mine up most of the time, and I'm not always at my laptop.

Yes, I know that, but a lot of the time I'm on, they're active in chat, also, if they have enough time to even get into chat, they have enough time to do something for PCA, there's join requests or they could comment, there is /always/ something to be done, it's the same in every project and all over the wiki, I just think that PCA should have some sort of guideline where even though the user is online, in chat, they cannot be a lead unless they are active in PCA. I by no means mean ten or even five edits a day, but a couple edits every couple of days would be enough, I just think that PCA needs to make sure their leads are active. 22:04, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm just going to jump in here. In my opinion, the leads are fine. They aren't the only ones who can comment on images, warriors, apprentices, and kits can do it as well. As for approving only certain images, the leads CBA images that they feel are ready to be approved. It's a matter of what they think of the image. 22:40, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

I understand that everyone has lives and being a SW also means having ample duties, but when there's fourteen leads and it still takes seven days to add a new user in, a major overhaul seriously needs to happen with the leads, probably something more than just a few inquiries. Like, how many of the senior members still actually want to do all the duties they're charged with and are they even aware of them? It's not like PCA is struggling for user activity and therefore aid in leading the project. I'm aware that everyone else has a part to play concerning activity in PCA but it is the leads' activity that will matter more since they keep the project "in order". 22:54, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

That is basically what I've been trying to say all of this time. ^ 22:56, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

If you have problems with leads and don't think they're doing their jobs right, then set up inquiries. I do agree that not all fourteen leads are doing their jobs as they should, time restraints or no, even if there are some people that just need to be patient. That system is there for a reason and there's no need to be nervous about doing so. <span style="">1:07 Tue Jul 23 2013

I know I rarely contribute to PCA, but I frequently lurk the pages so yeah. In regards to the topic at hand.. While the begging for comments thing can get annoying, I find it justified after a few days- especially when other images are being CBAd at the present time. I understand completely that everybody has a life, but Teldy has a very good point. As for the chat-room thing; not everybody is at the computer when they are listed in chat. I know for a fact that Cloudy and a select few others are listed in chat, but may not actually be there. -shrugs- -- 01:33, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

This still stems from the fact that if you have problems with the activities of the leads, you're not going about it correctly. If you don't feel they're doing their job properly, or at all, place an inquiry for them, as we've done before for PCA leads. It's not all that hard.

*jumping in.* Please do keep in mind that it is summer currently, and many of us are out on vacations and going through with our personal lives. Although I do agree that select leads aren't being active in commenting and approving everyday (myself included), but our lives come before the wiki. I apologize for my lacking recently, but I've had week-long activities and my mom is fairly restricting my internet access in these months. I know it is not just me that has a summertime agenda, and we shouldn't blame them for not putting PCA in front of their family and friends.

Not just this, but there's school that will begin soon, and a majority of our leads attend it. We can't afford to be on top of things all the time. I try to come on and comment, CBA, and approve images when I can, during all the months. I'm sure everyone here tries, and we thank them greatly for their commitment. There should be enough of us to balance out our agendas to approve, comment, and CBA even when a few of us are away or offline. We should work together as a team of SWs, and not just have this "every SW for themselves" thing.

I'm not dissing your point though, Duck. I see that many SWs don't show their face often as of late (again, myself included). I'm just trying to get across that we do have personal lives that are to be put first. I don't think we should demote them just because they haven't put up an image recently, or don't jump into discussions. They earned their right as a SW by showing great commitment to the project, and I wouldn't like to see it get taken from them. wow that was longer than it needed to be. <span style="">20:48 Wed Aug 7

Hai. Imho, if there are inactive senior warriors (just saying yes I know people have jobs, work, lost of irl stuff to deal with which come first), but if you come on once a month or so, then face it. In my opinion, the right thing that should be done if you know that you can't keep up with a project is to just resign when you know you're not up to it. I kinda agree with Duck's pint^^

I do agree, but I think it should be treated on a case-by-case business and treated as such. For example, for life events that could not be prevented, I don't think they should be demoted for, but if it's just because they're being lazy than that seems a tad more appropriate. Now I know that I haven't been the most active SW, either, but I have been trying to show effort despite my offline obligations, and I really think that effort is demonstrated at least more than once a month that that should be taken into consideration as well. Just my (albeit confusing) two cents  23:17, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do think offline obligations come first, but I also think those SWs should warn the project by using the vacation list or just leaving a small message here, on the talk page, like "hey, I have stuff in rl to do, so I won't be active for a few days/weeks". But I just think that even though a SW did earn their spot, after awhile of not being dedicated or active in the project, they should be demoted, regardless, for the good of the project. 01:37, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly we're agreeing or disagreeing with considering that there really is nothing to discuss nor argue unless a proposition of a better demotion system is presented. We all have events in life that comes before the computer, and I get that telling the wiki isn't exactly the first thing on the mind when life comes out of the ground and smothers you. Therefore, to potentially fix both problems, how about a new demotion system? Inquiries, woo, great, long process though and no one is honestly eager to throw each other under the bus (nor should they be); senior warriors automatically get demoted (supposedly) after a month of inactivity, yet a month is pretty long and activity can range from either doing your senior warrior tasks or having an image up for approval. So any suggestions as to a demotion process? 02:26, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I think what we've got is fine. It's hard to become a senior warrior, and therefore I think that the process to demote them should be lengthy. A more effective method would be to encourage one to fill out an inquiry if they do not think that a lead is doing their job correctly and therefore eliminating the sense that an inquiry is a personal (almost attack) and a huge occasion.

Or it could merely become a monthly duty of the leader and/or deputy to review the senior warriors and perhaps set up a vote for those that aren't doing what they need to.

But it's also important to remember that this is just a website and that the fact that your image might go more than 24 hours without comment is not going to kill you. <span style="">6:54 Sun Aug 11 2013

I would be fine with the monthly idea that Breezey suggested. As a month, in the wiki sense, is a huge thing, then perhaps we could do something along those lines? But at the same time, should it just be the leader and deputy? Or perhaps include others? I mean, from what I understood, the deputy and leader were just representatives of the project or something like that, and didn't actually hold any power that the other leads didn't hold? Don't quote me as I'm not entirely sure on the matter o3o

Maybe its a good idea that PCA's leader and deputy can review the work of other SWs, and put of votes for them if they are being inactive, ect, as Raelic just suggested. At the same time, any other user could post an inquiry, and the community can discuss it. Also, its happened to everyone that an image goes over 24 hours, and there's no need to get stressed and angry about. 3 days or more might not be a very good thing though...

Also, about a new demoting system, maybe it's not very accurate to center it around a SW's activity, as any PCA member would be removed from being inactive. I think that even though a PCA SW comments regularly and posts images (as any member can do that), they also would have to do the jobs they were nominated for. Otherwise, what's the point at all? Just my two cents.

I think this is a great idea for a demotion process for Senior Warriors of PCA, as this is a very real concern. However, before we jump on this idea, it's important to set some boundaries. First, on images, comments should never be demanded every 1-2 days. As it's been said above and before me, a comment asking for more suggestions should be allowed every 3-4 days.

As for the Demotion process, I agree that it should be lengthy, as the nomination is lengthy as well, but should not be intimidating. I'm sorry, I don't know who mentioned it, but it's a great idea to have the leader and deputy to consider their SW's every month. On the first month, if they see lack of participation from a SW, then a warning should be given first. Only one is really necessary. Then an inquiry should be posted on the next month, if the attitude continues. That is what I think would be fair, and is a suggestion as to what might need to happen.

Also in the demotion process, I think there should be a thumb rule and guide to edits. I set myself a goal to get at least 2-3 edits per day, which adds up quickly. This doesn't work for everyone, but about 10-15 edits a week per SW should be considerate. That is just my thought, and please let me know if that is too much or too little. I'm also curious as to see if leniency on this rule should be made for "slower" times on the project.

Last, it's important for a Senior Warrior to always consider to honorably demote themselves if they don't think they can improve their participation, or if they don't meet their goals. It's been done before several times in the past. I don't mean to point or draw attention to anyone, it's just an option to always consider. Oh, gee, that's long, sorry, sorry, sorry... 01:04, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

I very much agree with Knight's point. A SW might lose track of how long they've been inactive, so a warning would be great to set them straight. We shouldn't go straight to a demotion process without warning to the SW involved in it, because I don't think that'd be fair to them. Like Knight said, if they disregard the warning, then it would be right to set up an inquiry. <span style="">03:46 Sun Aug 18

I like what Knight said, a warning, that would be good, but the only thing that I'd be worried about with the leader and deputy reviewing the SWs (no offense to Cloudy or Scar) because it can be hard to warn your friends that they're getting inactive and that an inquiry might be set up for them, and it can be even harder to actually set up that inquiry, I know I'd have a hard time doing if is I was pointing out my friends.

Also, I agree with Stoner, I think it should also be about being active in duties only leads can do, because if a SW is only going to comment, vote on nominations, and post images, then there's no point of them becoming a SW, I think that should be another reason to give them a warning. 14:11, August 18, 2013 (UTC)


 * To touch on a few of your points, Knight:
 * The thumb rule of edits, I am assuming consists of edits to PCA since edits include everything outside of PCA too (-sigh-), needs to be flexible as you explained. However, due to this flexibility and the multiple holes it has, it'll probably last as a thumb rule for maybe a few weeks.


 * Having the leader and deputy reviewing the senior warriors is a good idea, yet, to go along with Duck's point about separating friendship from duties, it's a pretty large task to accomplish in evaluating each of the eleven(?) senior warriors in depth by looking at not only their contributions, but their lead activity, and even to the point of if they've been following the guidelines. To do this every month is trying for even the most active of any user. For such an idea to work, it would basically be like requiring the leader and deputy, two people who also have lives, to write eleven FAs on all of the senior warriors every month to thoroughly review their activity. And when talking about that in the other project standards, that is beyond overwhelming, especially when trying to make it great. It could also present an imbalance of power as it could set a misunderstanding that only the leader and deputy can evaluate the senior warriors when in fact, every single user has the ability to judge and raise an vote of no confidence on Wikia. Of course, the evidence, the credentials of the user, persuasion and a number of other factors will decide the outcome of the discussion they raise. 18:54, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Re-join
May I re-join? II know I kept leaving, but this time I intend to stay (at least for the rest of the summer... ;S)

Alts for Tornear and Webfoot
In page 67 of Rising Storm, it mentions that after Fireheart follows Bluestar, "He was aware of (the WindClan cats) rustling through the heather behind him, and when he looked over his shoulder, he caught glimpses of their lithe, brown shapes among the purple flowers." It's shown that Mudclaw and Tornear are two of the cats on the patrol earlier, and Webpaw/foot's mentioned later. Would this grant Tornear and Webfoot/paw alts for being described as brown? ouo 02:19, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think so. I don't know exactly which cats they're talking about, save for Mudclaw, who's already brown, and who appears to be the main focus. It doesn't specify which cats are brown, or at least that's how I read it. So, I think not.

They're talking about the WindClan cats, I believe - which include Tornear, Mudclaw, and an unnamed apprentice, I believe o3o 03:57, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, be that as it may, but how do we know which WindClan cats they're talking about? They could be talking about two of them, or all of them? Seems like an assumption to say they're calling all three brown, imho.

"They aren't named for it..."
I have clearly had enough of this, seriously. Many of the chararcters out there have citations for 'abnormal body parts' Dunno how to put it sorry XD  and yet whenever someone puts it up in the tweak nominatins it always goes like this:

"They aren't named for it, so we don't need it." This in my opinion seems lazy.

We are a wiki. We have users. We have people who come to this website for information, and the thing that users will look at the most is the picture, and yet, some of the chararts may be missing something that they are cited for, let's say if they are cited for a long tail, they should get a long tail.

It's like Blackstar. His chararts have a long tail, yet he isn't named for it, and yet Thistleclaw, on the other hand, is cited or a long tail but doesn't have one "just because he isn't named for it". We should give users the most descriptive charart as possible, and also complies with what they are cited for.

There are some members of the project who somethimes have nothing to do during the day after school or whatnot, and if this is agreed with, will give some members something to do on their non-busy days, because the project doesn't revolve around one member. If you are busy, let the other members handle it. 19:13, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

We should not be tweaking because we have nothing else to do, first of all that's just wrong. Blackstar's leader was the only image that had a long tail and I just tweaked it back. But I think in some instances we should and shouldn't, for instance if a character is mentioned with a long tail, could it e because the other cat has a short tail and they view most tails as long? But for other things like fur, yes we do need to tweak the images. But it varies upon circumstance. x3 19:18, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Like Duck said, we shouldn't be tweaking chararts just because there's nothing else to do... And for things like a long tail, it could just be in comparsion to the other cats around the cat? I know I'm basically repeating Duck, but yeah. x3

For things like fur, yeah it should be tweaked, but there's a few things to take into consideration on it. If they're a kit, with being described as 'fluffy' or something along those lines, it's like with a stubby tail, most kittens are fluffy. And then fluffy can mean soft, not a visible difference from other cats but... y'know. Gah I can't find the right words. <span style="">19:43, 08/11/2013

The majority of cats have long tails. And honestly, I think the "must be named for it" is probably the best we're going to get. Of course the rule has large pit falls, but if we start thinking about descriptions including abnormal body parts, we have to include the descriptions of "massive/broad head", "broad-shouldered", "muscular", "long/sharp claws", "soft/long/broad/etc. muzzles", and so on. 22:57, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

This seems like it's finding more chararts to unnecessarily tweak.... if it's not a defining feature, such as Tallstar's long tail, or Feathertail's "feathery" tail, Raggedstar's fur, or something along those lines, I don't think their images should be tweaked (such as a long tail or long whiskers). At the same time, however, if it's something that has been mentioned multiple times (such as Cloudtail being called fluffy, or Featherwhisker's tail), then perhaps we should tweak their images? Eh, I just don't think every image should be tweaked if their tails are called long or something like that, since most tails /are/ long, unless otherwise said. ouo

So perhaps maybe a thumb rule that cats should be tweaked for features they are named and known for, and also for features that they are mentioned with more than twice? 22:07, August 12, 2013 (UTC)

Charart Competition
Omg I've been wanting to do this for like forever! Lol keep forgetting... so as quite a few of you know, I've been wanting to start a charart competition for a while now! I've already requested with three leads, and I was wondering if I should ask the project in general for their opinion on me holding one. Maybe it could be an "official" thing in the project. So, comments? It feels like I've written so much, but rereading it I've written like three sentences ;D <span style="">03:49 Thu Aug 15

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I'm against another charart competition as I feel it promotes the already unhealthy with PCA that this wiki has, and the focus needs to be shifted elsewhere. If PCA has nothing to do, then so be it. Perhaps these users should edit elsewhere, as the wiki is not about PCA.

Cloudy basically said it. Honestly, it's a really thoughtful idea, and would be fun, but it says that "we're running out of chararts to do," and I don't think that's a legible reason to focus on this competition, and it's not what PCA's about. Yes we've had a few competitions before... Yet, I'm still not sure of whether its a good idea or not., in my opinion.

I don't think that there should be a charart competition for as long as there are still so many articles that need written. If the amount of time and dedication that was put into PCA was put into other projects, they'd be done. So no, while I love the idea, I don't think that we should do one, sorry. <span style="">4:11 Thu Aug 15 2013

What Breezy said, basically sums up what I think.^ 01:56, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

However, I possibly think that maybe the project can organize a competition for a upcoming special event later on, like halloween or Christmas. Just an idea.

I agree, Stoney. Halloween or Christmas is always a fun time for charart competitions x3 17:55, August 18, 2013 (UTC)

Leopardstar
I was reading Mistystar's Omen the other day, and I realized that Leopardstar is decribed as if her spots are disappearing, Mistyfoot says the have "faded" so they barely look like they are there. Should we make an alt off that? Or is there not enough evidence of actual change in the leader form? Just wondering. 19:48, August 17, 2013 (UTC)


 * Described*  19:53, August 17, 2013 (UTC)

Definately not an alt for something so minor, but I guess it does warrant a tweak. ouo

Okay, thanks Stoner. o3o  11:38, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that you need to make sure that there's a cite for it before nominating it for a tweak, and there probably is anyways but yeah.

I wasn't really nominating it, I was just asking..Eh, doesn't matter. If someone who reads the Talk Page sees this as tweak-worthy, then they can do all of that, I guess. xD I'm not experienced enough to re-do Leopardstar. 02:01, August 23, 2013 (UTC)

You can place a nomination for it on the Tweak Nominations Page if you have the cite and all. If not, just so you know for future reference. 22:14, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Joining?
Yes, it's Sea Light again here, and for a very good reason this time.

Previously, I was punished severely for doing something -personal-. I wasn't able to hop on my computer and help the project in any way for a long time. I wanted to help very badly, but I knew I would be punished even more if my parents caught me. So after that, life got busy for me in different ways, and then when THAT was over, I hopped on, but it was too late. :( So I'm requesting to join yet again. At least I got in some good practice. :) I thought about this for a long time, asking myself questions like "Am I sure I want to join again?" "Will I be dedicated to the project?" and all the answers were "yes". Now, after my humongous, dramatic apology, may I join the project as Seakit? :3

Sea Light (talk) 12:41, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Of course! The guidelines are here if you need refreshing, and the tutorials and mentor program are here too in case you lost your way there. Welcome back! :) <span style="">01:18 Fri Aug 23

Hollyleaf
This may have been brought up before, but in The Forgotten Warrior, page 313, it says that Hollyleaf has scratches on her shoulders and down one side, with tufts of fur missing from her flank. Should we add this into her page and charart? SilverstarOfRippleClan (talk) 10:07, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

But fur can grow back. Also, the scratches may not have been deep enough to make a scar or permanant mark. 13:25, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hey, next time you want to nominate an image tweak make sure you put it on the nomination page. <span style="">04:11 Wed Aug 28

Join Request
Hello! May I join Project Character Art? Thanks for your time! ^_^ Cherrycloud (talk) 16:44, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

Of course! Please direct to the Guidelines to get familiar with the rules. The Mentor Program is open if you would like to request a mentor to help with your skills, and the tutorials are always there for help. Welcome, and thank you for your interest in joining! :) <span style="">01:05 Tue Aug 27

Snowy. New Rogue Charart?
In the description of her and the queen charart of her, it specifically says/ shows her as a white she-cat, but, in her rogue picture, she looks a lot more gray than white. Should there be a new rogue image? Thanks,

That's the shading. And place things like this on the tweak nomination page in future. 14:58, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, and, sorry.

"Smoky"
There is such a thing as a smoke cat - it's a cat where the first half the hair is a light color, and the rest is the pelt color. It's usually most visible on the chest fur, neck, and sometimes the tail. Shouldn't cats with "smoky" in their descriptions have this depicted on the charart? It seems to me as though it defines a smoke. It'd be a bit like Darkstar (SC) only with the undercoat being the lighter color. <span style="">0:29 Tue Aug 27 2013

Uhhhh, could you elaborate on this a little more, maybe? Like pictures too? It sounds like a good idea and I'd be willing to go with it, but I wouldn't know where to even begin searching.

I don't really know how to explain it more. But this would be an example of a smoke cat. <span style="">1:10 Tue Aug 27 2013

Personally, I agree with this. If it's called smoky, why not, imo.

I agree. ^ 00:11, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed <span style="">00:21 Wed Aug 28

I must agree. I have even read a cat coat color chart and I saw "Smoky", so this made me think about this. But, on the other hand, smoky could also meant he type of gray, so let's say they have a smoky gray pelt, it could be the color of smoke. 00:37, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Since it's a real thing, I agree - why not? 00:42, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Aye, yes, I love this color of cat. 01:43, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way that a basic charart example could be done for this? Like, maybe say on the warrior blank? Maybe perhaps for the ones who aren't really well aware of how Darkstar's chararts were done. I mean, I made those images and I'm still not completely sure about them. Like would the style be reversed? I think before it's implemented if it is, it should be explained a bit further (for ones like me who can't tell heads from tails and I don't have cats and stuff) , and maybe a couple different examples could be given? I do apologize if I'm not making sense. xD

Like perhaps an apprentice tutorial on it, and we all could look at that for reference? I should think it'd work kind of like texture, but using an even lighter effect, especially on the belly and neck and such. I don't know if right now would be the right time to mention it, but I'd be happy to work on or help work on an example or tutorial for the color. Don't have a cat either, but I do understand how those colors work out. 22:05, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

I tried to make a smoke awhile back on Smoketalon, mainly by making the places such as his neck, ears, and haunches have almost patches of white that were smudged out. Something like that is sorta what I would think that a smoke could be represented on a charart. <span style="">23:53 Wed Aug 28 2013

Reincarnations
Well, I was reading Dove's Wing and a thought popped up in mind:

"Hmm, if she was reincarnated as Dovewing, wouldn't they look the same?"

Although this contradicts the fact that Cinderpelt and Cinderheart are re-incarnated as each other, yet Cinderheart is a tabby, I was still thinking this as Jayfeather and Jay's Wing, Lionblaze and Lion's Roar are almost identical as each other, while the only difference with Dovewing and Dove's Wing is that Dove's Wing has textured fur.

In Sign of the Moon, Jayfeather looks at Lion's Roar and thinks that "Lionblaze and him were identical," so should they be redone to match each other? (this does not include Cinderheart and Cinderpelt). 17:58, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. As 'identical' wouldn't always mean pelt color, tabby such. Maybe they are identical in body frame, heigth, ect., in terms of their skeletal structure. I don't see any need for them to be redone imo.

If they hadn't been described as identical, no, they shouldn't be redone to match each other. They are reincarnated, yes, but that doesn't give us a reason to redo them to match each other. 22:06, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

Alt for Tawnypelt?
'She was shown to have a white chest, muzzle, paws and part of her tail in Cats of the Clans.' As said in her trivia. There is no alt for her in her character pixels. Should there be and alt for this? If so, may I do it? Thank you, and sorry if I wasn't supposed to post it here. <span style="">01:20 Thu Aug 29

I've brought this up before, and it was said unnecessary or something like that. I've forgotten what the reason was. What's that still doing in the trivia..? 01:32, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Really? It's been there for a while. ?? I don't understand. If it's still up there, doesn't that mean it's true..? <span style="">01:34 Thu Aug 29

I added it at the time, and I or someone may have forgotten to remove it. 01:35, August 29, 2013 (UTC)