Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Hunters
aight so I'm well aware it's early but with Thunderstar's Echo comes the listing of hunters. new blank or no? I think we could use the already exisitng early settler blanks tbh, since they were made in the absence of warriors not yet existing, and they fufill pretty much the same exact roles as each other. (hunting obviously, patrolling, etc) what's your guys opinions? 21:40, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

I say use the early settler blanks, as many of the characters are the same anyway. This book seems to take place before the manga of MFV, and characters like Honey Pelt were given ES blanks because they were seen in that as adults. So I think that they get the Hunter rank, but get the ES blank

Seems to be a good idea to me; There isn't anything different that would warrant a blank change, so I agree with continuing to use the ES blanks.

New blanks for only one book don't seem like that wise of an idea, so we should just use the Early Settlers ^^Broken_Foot

They don't really seem much different from regular early settlers. I agree with everyone above, a new blank is unnecessary.

I agree. It seems like they just gave a name to a rank that's been around for a while, and they haven't really named until now.Stealth f🔥re ❤Warriors Forever!❤  02:00, April 13, 2017 (UTC)

Blue Whisker was called a ThunderClan warrior in Thunderstar's Echo, though. This poses a question: are they warriors now?

maybe...the structure of a clan and what a warrior is is basically set up now: they have leaders, deputies, medicine cats, those listed as hunters mentor cats, they hunt for the clan, fight if necessary, even have the rank of apprentice. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to a warrior blank, (and I know this is pc but) with a hunter and warrior listing. 19:59, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think we should use the warrior blanks. Yes, they don't have warrior names yet, but as said above the structure of the Clans is basically all formed now. 20:25, April 14, 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we should use the warrior blanks for them. It seems fine to use them now

I vote for using the warrior blanks for the hunter rank 19:03, 4/18/2017

I looked at the allegiances and they were even listed as warriors (just with a bracket and "hunters" on them). I agree with using a warrior blank.

It seems like everyone agrees. Do we implement this now?

We should 17:29, 4/24/2017

Do we add the warrior ranking on their page? bc it literally lists them as warriors (only with hunters beside it)

I think the ranking would be a PC question, as there's a discussion there on the same matter. However, I change my previous statement, now that I've read TE a few times, and agree we should give them warrior blanks.

"It's fine"
Ok, so I feel like this needs to be brought up - and no I'm not acting as leader. I'm acting as one of your superiors (since that's technically what a SW is..). You all need to stop with the "it's fine" crap. It's getting way out of hand. Of course it will look fine to you if it's your image. If someone else says that they can't see something, or something looks wrong that makes it look like it doesn't match the other images, fix it. Don't say "Can I have a second opinion?" or "I think it looks fine to me, thoughts?" (which the latter is just another fancy way to ask for a second opinion). While you are the artist of your image, of course everything is going to look fine to you. No one likes to be told that something on their image looks wrong (me included, don't get me wrong), but it seriously needs to stop. Constructive criticism on an image is supposed to be criticism, not just a voice that gets brushed off, because that's really seriously rude. :/ 12:36, 4/22/2017

yeah, I agree. there's nothing wrong with using it sparingly, in the case you really think it's fine. but using it for everything gets really really tiring. 23:55, April 22, 2017 (UTC)

This has been a PCA issue ever since I can remember- it always has been. I agree with you, but I doubt this will make much of a difference unless some rule is enforced for it.. --PyroNacht (talk) 00:20, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Yup definitely an issue. I definitely think there's a time and place for asking second opinions, but it should only be used sparingly, as Skt said. People should do the comments given to them, and not try to brush them off, unless they're super positive that it's perfect the way it is. And even then, not so much imo, because one is not likely to see faults clearly in their own work.

Yes, and personally I don't feel like my chararts are great. Just saying. But obviously when someone just disregards your criticism, then you feel like you aren't respected. That's not ok. I think people want to believe they have done somrthing perfectly, especially with something minor.

Duly noted :) 01:10, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

@starry I know it's always been a problem, probably always will be, people may just need a reminder from time to time. especially those who haven't been here for years. 01:13, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

I agree. My comments on some images have been brushed off a few times, and I've felt like I've been too picky (which, at times, I admit I am a little picky), but then I noticed it happening a lot more with other people. Like... what's the point in having an approval page if no one listens to others criticism? I'm fine with people asking for a second opinion every now and then but this is constant. 02:05, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

I'm very proud with the one I'm working, but I make sure to listen to all the comments even if I think that it's fine myself. The "it's fine" thing is really annoying and basically the approval page is to make chararts better, as Patchfeather said. I haven't been on the wiki for even a year yet, and I honestly thought that Warriors Wiki had always been picky when it comes to chararts, but then I looked back at older archives and it was better even then. 02:25, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Alright, so thoughts on how to deal with this? I've been trying to incorporate a way, but really all I can think of is people being given a warning. Maybe like a 3 strikes you're out, kinda thing, but idk how that would work? Maybe if you do it 3 times your image gets declined? But idk if that's too harsh or not so don't take this to heart. Also prior to this, I've just been telling people to stop, but it kinda gets brushed off in itself, as you can see in some previous archives - like I tell people to stop, and they do it again 2 days later. So idk *shrugs* 19:56, 4/23/2017

OK, so, I read half of what you wrote before I got up and I liked the three strikes thing. While I got up, I thought "how about three strikes and your image gets declined?" Then I read the rest of it and it said that same thing! :) So I totally agree with that. 20:02, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends. I've done it more than three times myself, and it's not always a bad thing, because often I can keep whatever it was I thought was fine. Especially for some with sharper shading styles, I've noticed in older archives that they often ask for second opinions if someone tells them to smooth it, because it's fine. Setting a strict three-time limit then having your image declined is a mite harsh, I'd say. I would, however, be in favor of declining if a user uses it three times on three separate issues. Then, that'd draw the line between an artist just trying to prove their point on one thing three times then getting declined, vs. a user who tries to refute every comment thrown their way. There's a difference between the two.

Yeah, that's kind of a better explanation than what I said earlier, but I digress. Like if a user uses it 3 times in kind of a harsh way then it could work. For example, if you Spooky were to ask someone to smooth their shading and they say "I'd really rather not, I think it's fine", then maybe that'd call for a warning? 20:14, 4/23/2017

That would work^^ Especially if someone used a tone that seemed like they were brushing someone off. But if someone just explains that that's their shading style, then I don't think it would be a warning, as they show that they value the other person's opinion but just don't think it's correct. If the artist gives a legit explanation for why they don't wish to change it, but offer to change it if someone else thinks it's not okay, then they shouldn't get any type of reprimandation for that. Especially if it's just on one issue, and they don't use "it's fine" very often in general.

What if it's not the artist that says it's fine, but a commenter? Like you know, when commenter 1 goes: Define the blah, and commenter 2 goes: its fine!! Does commenter 2 get a strike? 21:01, April 23, 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would especially get a strike in this case. 21:53, 4/23/2017

Whoops, my bad I read the question wrong. I'm not sure actually how we'd implement this for the commentors, but I do believe they should get some kind of warning, because just because one guy can see it, doesn't mean the others can. 21:54, 4/23/2017

.....when did we decide to impliment a strike system? Because I know that's nothing I agreed to. =\

Skye I never said we would actually input a strike system. :/ I suggested it and explained my ideas for said suggestion. There was nothing here that said we input a striking system. We're just putting in our ideas and thoughts on what to do for the it's fine thing.... 23:25, 4/23/2017

We're not penalizing people for saying something is fine, aside from asking them to do said comment.... and if they don't upload or it becomes disrespectful, then it would become a wiki rule issue.. but otherwise? That's a bit too much and I really think it would just cause more harm than good. Plus, your comment and Danny's comment basically stated you wanted to start doing that- which is seriously too much for an art project that makes pixels of talking cats.

I really disagree with having a strike system. If you only say "it's fine" every once in a while and you actually have a valid reason, then that should be all right. At worst, like Skye said, you should just be told to make whatever change to your image that you're resisting. And in response to Danny's comment, you should be allowed to discuss a comment on another user's image for sure. In order to make sure that we're not being overly picky and that someone isn't told to do something that isn't even correct, we need to leave the page as an open discussion. As long as everyone is being respectful and considering others' comments instead of automatically saying "it's fine", I don't see what the issue is. 00:49, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I have not seen people blowing off comments in months. A LOT of the comments lately have been terrifyingly nitpicky, and are actually matters of style. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to say "It's fine and I am not changing it" in regards to how I personally shade images, as I have always done it a certain way, and suddenly people are wanting super smooth shading. The strike system would just make people even more hostile and defensive about things regarding personal ways of doing charart. There is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing that if you do something you will be told to undo it, or that different people do things differently depending on what program they use, if they use a pen-tablet or not, etc. And this is going to only make people more picky about minuscule detail. Just my two cents before I get told off. 00:59 Mon Apr 24

Well... I think it shouldn't go that far. See, comparing the chararts in general from like 2013 and the ones now, tons of new styles have developed. It's 2017, different shading, texture techniques etc are used and I think it's a good thing? Some people now are just telling people to change stuff because /they/ don't like it, or misunderstandings (for example, it was a misunderstanding that the white on belly should be defined on Sparrow Fur while she is mostly white, but people forgot about it and that's okay) I mean myself had probably done something like "The ear pink should be more purple instead of orange" -_-...?? I kinda don't understand whether it's annoying to say "it's fine I'm not changing it" or "I'd like a second opinion"? Yeah, they're happening more and more, but people are also commenting on personal styles more and more as well. It just happens because we're having more diversity in terms of how to do chararts and of course it's okay to say your opinions - I think that's exactly when "asking for what others think" is useful? Like we all know asking for second opinions to clean off waste is not logical, but strikes may be too far. Yes, rejecting a comment is a voice brushed off, but not being allowed to do that is too. I'm sorry if I'm sounding rude or harsh? I'm trying to say we should just get to understand the difference between a problem and a preference, that's all.

Shading Placement
So I noticed this is getting to be a major issue that is going on here. What is with you guys and shading placement? I have noticed a lot of comments about small issues with shading placement and light sources. So what is the deal? Do I need to redo the placements each and every time someone begins being picky about little things in the shading? Light sources are not always cut and dry, and honestly, it is fairly annoying seeing things about "add this little bit of shading" on most images, namely the apprentice bases. If that (perfectly valid, realistic, and even referenced might I add) guide is not good enough, go ahead, redo it.

I am posting this here because obviously no one would even see it if I put it in the tutorials area. I am the head of the tutorials. If you have issues with them, I can always start a vote on if they should be renovated. I'm really not trying to start shit, but this is getting out of hand and needs to be discussed I think. 01:09 Mon Apr 24

Hmm, you're onto something. Light is a fickle thing, and it isn't always clear on where it will hit and where it won't. I mean, the placement will also changed based on position and it's minor, so. ..

The tutorials are fine, and given that you're the one who most recently updated them, I'm pretty sure they're more than acceptable. You know light sources, shading, and art... and while there's more than one usable source for each blank, and I'm not entirely sure why everyone seems to be focusing on one source and forcing it on others. As I said before, the shading placement chart is fine, and it is not a requirement in this project to have 10000% hyper realistic shading. It looks 3D, shows lighter areas and shadows, and actually exists on any given image. Therefore, it meets the requirements of the project.

there isn't anything wrong with the tutorials, people are just being picky as. honestly as long as the light isgenerally coming from one side who gives a crap lol. they're cat pixels from a series of fake cats, chill out people. 05:53, April 24, 2017 (UTC)

DOUBLE POSTING AND REPEATING COMMENTS
Okay seriously I had a message typed up before, and I guess someone archived it before anyone saw it. ANYWAYS.

There has been way too much of this "sorry for double posting" thing. Double posting is allowed and not against any of our guidelines.

What is not allowed is the excessive repeating of comments before an artist has a chance to reupload their image; such as telling someone to define the shading, and then another user coming along also saying to define the shading.

The only exception to this rule is if you tell someone to define the shading in a certain spot, and then someone goes and says define all the shading, or if they add another area. This would be like me saying to define the tail shading, and then Winter coming along and saying to define the leg shading or something to that extent.

Please stop apologizing for things you aren't doing wrong. There is nothing wrong and we welcome as many comments as you can muster in this project. You're not going to get yelled at if you comment more than once in a row on an image. MAYBE IF I BOLD-FACE PEOPLE WON'T ARCHIVE THIS BEFORE OTHERS CAN READ IT LMAO.

I totally agree with this, the repeating coments thing needs to stop. Even though I don't post art, I try my hardest to not repeat comments when I critique other's art. I don't really know if I should comment here but I did because I agree, It's annoying Rainbowmistake (talk) 13:34, April 26, 2017 (UTC)Chat

Rejoin
Permission to rejoin?

14:15, April 26, 2017 (UTC)

bump?

19:44, April 27, 2017 (UTC)

Whoops, sure I'll add you in! Make sure to read the guidelines! 19:51, 4/27/2017

KatsCandy - Join Request
I was wondering if I could join project character art

KatsCandy (talk) 04:31, April 28, 2017 (UTC)

Welcome! I've added you in as a kit, and make sure to read the guidelines

Question Regarding Files/Colors

 * I know it's never been addressed, but I noticed that lots of members here use color codes or transfer files. My primary concern is: is this a rule? Do I need to preserve all my files? I make art via my iPhone (it's easier for me because of precision) and I have yet to find a way to keep a layered file. Will that be a problem for me in the future if I decide to do charart? :/ --PyroNacht (talk) 22:26, April 28, 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not required. Though, I know a few people who make art on their phones, so maybe ask them how to save the files, if you so wish. And the colors don't have to be saved either, bit in consideration for others, you could probably just copy down the hex codes in a document for later. It makes it easier for others, but it's still not required.

The Missing Kits thing
So, im confused, what falls into this category and what doesn't and where is the confirmation of non canon? Rainbowmistake (talk) 00:54, April 29, 2017 (UTC)chat

Everything Missing Kits is in this category, as per this confirmation

re-join?
Hey, it's been awhile but I was wondering if it'd be chill if I joined again? 01:23 Sat Apr 29 2017

Hi Beau, welcome back! Make sure to refresh on the guidelines and I added you back to your former rank of warrior.

Streamdapple- Joining Request
May I join? I have always been awestruck at the images provided on this site, and would like to help!

Streamdapple (talk) 10:30, April 30, 2017 (UTC)Streamdapple

Welcome! I've added you in as a kit, and make sure to read the guidelines

Nominations
I'm not sure what the heck's up with you guys lately, but this excessive pickyness has got to stop. I shouldn't sleep for like.. maybe ten hours, and then come back and see a whole slew of nominations (including at least one that's mine), because you guys can't handle someone having a different eye style or shading style that isn't the "PCA norm". Who cares if an image is a tiny bit flat in the shading department? Or if the ear pink is maybe one shade off. You guys need to cut this out, because I've about had it with the unnecessary nominations all because someone doesn't like the artwork; if y'all keep this up, I'll very likely consider closing the tweak nominations page temporarily until you guys get the point.

I'm not trying to make anyone angry, If I nominate an image, I think its far enough off to be nominated Rainbowmistake (talk) 16:33, May 1, 2017 (UTC)Chat

"Far enough off"? Erm, that's somewhat rude, Rainbow. Technically we don't even need a constant tweaking process. We could just go back to tweak week lmao, or only change images of there's a description modification.

I wasn't trying to sound rude. What I meant was that some just looked like they were perhaps more worthy of a nomination than others. And I'm sorry if that came off rude Rainbowmistake (talk) 17:18, May 1, 2017 (UTC)Rainbow

The tweak week process seemed to work quite well, from what I can tell of the old pages for it. The only times we'd need an open nomination page really is after book releases for new description cites and such - because I agree w/Skye that there's an excessive amount of nominations being posted. I find myself patrolling the activity feed nowadays, just to keep track of them :/

tbh i dont really want tweak week back; too many users spam the pages asking the same "why isnt the art right???" ive been debating bringing up a limit-smth like 3 or so nominations every fortnight per user. as well as there being newer people not asking questions about the art not being right, it would also force people to consider if its really worth it, would they want to use one of their only avaliable nominations on it? thats just my onion though. 18:04, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

I like skts idea with the 3 nominations per user, and i do agree a lot of nominations lately have been really nitpicky. 18:35, 5/01/2017

I have noticed a lot of nominations that have been very picky lately; I agree that it has become a bit of a problem. I don't suppport bringing back tweak week necessarily, since I think it's a positive that images can been improved whenever an issue arises (provided that issue is legitimate and not somebody being nitpicky). I think that it's a good idea to have a 3-nomination limit per two weeks as long as that just applies to people nominating images for shading, earpink, or eye styles and not for, say, a description change. 20:47, May 1, 2017 (UTC)