Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Idea for charart pages
The heading is simple, but mainly wanted to discuss how we do the redos again.

So, as you can see, the kittypets were approved yesterday and edit conflicts have already happened repeatedly and there is so much activity going on. There are 159 images for the kittypets. Over 1200 for kits and warriors.

I want to propose we split the approval page to subsections, such as Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Approval Page/A-F, which would be where characters listed in alphabetical order (such as all warriors starting with A-F) would go when the warriors are redone. This pattern would be repeated with other increments of the alphabet. Only two would be active at the same time.

Also, since edit conflicts are such an issue, Xd1358 suggested that we use a preloaded edit, seen here. Basically, what you would do is type something in the box he has, click "enter", and what would automatically load is already an entered template for how to put up a charart which would all you have to do is replace a few things. This, in turn, would be on the approval page as subpages (or templates, is what they look like) and stop edit conflicts and make the pages easier to load, especially on laptops/phones that cannot handle so many sections. There is also an edit intro that would explain this. You are welcome to test this if you wish.

So, we could use that on subpages, or we could use that on PCA's approval page, or we could not use it and just go by how we normally do and use subpages, or go by we normally do in increments on PCA's approval page only. Thoughts? 00:44, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Also, if people were in approval of doing it by Clans, we can still do subpages but split it up such as /ThunderClan, /RiverClan, etc. Or, if anyone else has any other ideas on how to do the workload without crashing PCA's approval page / getting into so many edit conflicts, please share them. 00:47, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

I really like Ecks' idea of making a generator, specifically for subpages. —

I think the subpages and the generator would really help with the edit conflict problem! I noticed it happening a lot today, and people were getting frustrated. It will only get worse and worse with these insane redos we have to do. I support this idea for its efficiency. 00:55, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

I'm for the generator but not the subpages. Just the generator alone would solve the edit conflict issue with how it works, and having not all the images on one page will get confusing because of how we've done it for so long, and people might forget to comment as much. It's also a bit more cumbersome for leads, imo, so just the generator would be best

This is indeed a system we have been using for years now over at Wookieepedia and it works really well. I've added a list of pros and cons, as well as instructions for the new system, over at my subpage User:Xd1358/test. To clarify, the "generator" is merely a way of making subpage creation as streamlined as possible; it does not solve edit conflict issues unless you actually use subpages. With this approach, the images would still be visible on one page, as all subpages are transcluded (like any template) rather than linked to. The difference is how you nominate new things (and eventual achiving); the commenting phase is essentially unaffected. 1358 (Talk)  01:07, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

In theory the subpages sound like great idea, but considering there's something like 1500 images being redone with the new blank redoes (possibly more, I have no idea the counts on the kittypet and leader images, just the kit and warrior), that seems like an awful lot of subpages. Will they be deleted after copy/pasting their contents into the standard archives?

I really wish there was an extension or something to improve wikia's edit conflict handling. I don't know enough about how mediawiki actually handles edits on the back end, but it doesn't seem like there's any reason edits to different sections of the same page can't be resolved automatically.

There would be many subpages, yes, but all things considered, there's already over 85,000 pages on the wiki. You could, of course, choose to copypaste (or just use subst:) to gather them on one big archive page but you'll lost the associated edit history. As for MediaWiki and edit conflicts, I'm not entirely sure how it works but this seems like a problem Wikimedia would've solved long ago if it was feasible. 1358 (Talk)  19:42, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Minor, but I do not think that if this system were to be put in place, it would be in use for kittypets. However, if it were to be, I would like to try a test run with the leaders. 23:55, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Just tested it out on PCA's approval page with Ruby. What showed up was. When I tried to edit the section, it brought me to a separate subpage that edited that section only, therefore would not edit conflict PCA's talk page. The only issue that needs to be addressed this moment is possibly adding a date to the preloader and changing it to be more title friendly as well. Thoughts on this? 02:35, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

I think this is actually a really good idea for the project in general since we seem to be doing art quite a bit especially with the recent blank redos. 03:01, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

It's gotten bad with KPs, we definitely need an organized system for kits/warriors. I think this idea works beautifully. —

Agreed, there's been so many ECs since the kittypets... don't want to imagine what it would be like with warriors and kits. This will help greatly and i'm in support for adding it.

03:17, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

To be more specific, Spooky and I used a former roleplaying wiki to sandbox things: Here is what happened. So, on the page, there are two transcluded subpages: and. When you edit the approval page, only those will show. But when you edit certain sections, such as if you wanted to critique Iceshine, you can click 'edit' and it would take you to a separate subpage to edit. This, in turn, would stop edit conflicts because most of them are on the approval page, and it would be much harder for people to consistently be edit conflicting when there are separate subpages for each character. Yes, this would be a lot of subpages, but it is much easier than what we have so far, not to mention easier for the lead team. If anyone wants to test this out on said wiki, they are more than welcome to.

As linked before, ecks also created preload, seen here, an editintro seen here (which would explain what to do), and the test page in general would generate what you have to put. Basically, all you would put in the "generator" is (Character) (Rank), so Firestar (Warrior). Then it will take you to the subpage to create it and fill things in and it is there. And then what would be next is to put the template given to you on that subpage, so if I were doing Firestar's warrior, the edit intro would tell me to put on PCA's approval page. Does this make any sense?

And generally I would like to revoke my idea of doing 6 separate subpages of the approval page alphabetically. Thinking this over, we may benefit from doing increments of the alphabet, not all at the same time. 05:22, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Hmm just out of curiosity, what happens then when an image is posted twice on the approval page (such as if it's declined/withdrawn and reposted, or if at some point in the future we redo even more blanks once this system is already in place)? Does the contents of the subpage just get cleared and replaced, only existing in the history then?

Ahhh, now that makes more sense. Honestly, I'm all for anything that'll help with edit conflicts. 19:21, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

The only con to this is that there will be a lot more subpages on the Wiki. However, if this is the only thing that will stop edit conflicts, I still think this is a good idea. 21:12, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Edit: As said before, we could subst the pages on an archive, but we would lose the edit history. Thoughts on this? 21:13, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

As I said to you earlier this morning, what really turns me away from this is the ungodly amount of subpages that we're going to have. I really can't justify that much clutter on the wiki, especially if we're going to continue to use this past the warrior and kit redo. While this will probably help with edit conflicts, I honestly cannot get past the clutter that we're going to have and unless we have a solution for that, I cannot support this idea. These subpages will just sit when they're done and it makes zero sense to me to continue to have that many useless subpages after they've completed their run. ​

Why not just transfer the content of the subpages to the archives and delete the individual pages after? Not all leads are admins/CMs obvi but it could help rather than just let them "sit" there. We would lose the editing history but we'd still have a record of what was said at what time with sig timestamps and everything. —

I agree with Echo here^. I love this idea, but I'm with Jayce on the clutter part of it. Edit history wouldn't really matter when we can just copy/paste to see what everyone said after the CBA is completed and the image is archived. We're really going to need this system, and I honestly think that's the best way to go about preventing the clutter aftermath 22:09, 02/5/2019

You could indeed transfer the subpages onto one big archive page (you don't even need to copypaste, just do ), but you do lose the edit history of said subpage. However, I'm also not sure what kind of problem having many subpages is -- storage space is virtually infinite and it's not like the subpages are inflating the article count. There are currently pages on the wiki already and another thousand certainly won't break it. 1358 (Talk)  23:20, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not totally sure that bringing up what we already have eases me any more; it actually just makes me even more concerned for the amount of pages we have. It kinda feels like you're brushing my concern aside by bringing up the page count, and I'm definitely not a fan of that. We don't need that much clutter on here. ​

I feel like the clutter issue is much less important than the issue of redoing images and possibly getting edit conflicted at every turn (as we have seen with the kittypets) and as said, pages are not going to hurt anybody. There is no max page count, so I have to disagree that there will be a major clutter issue because it will not affect the Wiki in a negative way. 23:28, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

I think you've jumped to conclusions by saying me and Ecks were trying to brush your concerns aside. We're not - we're trying to find a solution or explain the process. It will be a clutter, but we can find a way to manage it. —

I haven't jumped anywhere. I fail to see how the massive amount of clutter is not an issue. We already have enough as it is. I am entitled to my own opinion and the fact that you don't seem to consider this a valid enough problem is a bit off-putting. You might not think it would affect the wiki in a negative way, but that doesn't mean I don't. You told me to bring up a concern I had, and I did. =/ ​

We'll still have image limits; I'm thinking they'll be no more than 60 extra pages at a time if we stick with the image limit we have now. And, if we go rank by rank, clan by clan, it won't be so overloaded. Once and image is approved, the subpage's contents is moved to the archives and the subpage is deleted. I see no reason why we should keep the subpages any longer than needed. An archive isn't edited - the subpages will no longer be necessary to prevent conflicts and will be deleted, with contents moved just like we do now with individual sections, is my understanding. 23:35, 02/5/2019

The subpage will have to exist in order for the contents to be displayed. If the subpages are deleted, so is the content. No one is brushing aside your concerns, we are commenting on it. May I ask how the extra clutter affects the Wiki? 23:37, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

Of course you're entitled to your own opinion, Jayce. You said your opinion and we explained a way to work around this. It's not an argument, and I genuinely think you're taking this a bit personally as you're accusing of as not considering your opinion as valid and saying we're brushing it aside when we're not. We're trying to find a solution and figure out a work around to make it manageable. It is a concern, but you have neglected and ignored our solution and anything we say to try and counteract your concern. No solution we find to this will be perfect, there will always be a con, and we're discussing this to figure out what will work best. We are not against you, but we're trying to work with you to find a solution. —

Icy, the subpage can't just be copy pasted for comments and we just... type a header on an archive page?? An then delete subpages? More work... but we don't need all these subpages that no longer serve their purpose of preventing ECs. 23:40, 02/5/2019

Can you try and reword that? I do not understand what you said. 23:42, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

If this section about this topic were on a subpage, and we came to a conclusion on the topic and it needed to be archived (like a CBA being finished on the approval page), we edit that subpage, copy the contents of the section, and paste it to the archive page with the heading ==Idea for charart pages==. Then the subpage gets deleted. Literally the same as we currently archive things, just with an extra two steps. The only thing lost is edit history which we don't need. Once an image is approved, it's approved. Done, archived, the section is never edited again. 23:53, 02/5/2019

The only issue is, not everyone has the delete tool and that puts twice as much work on people who do have the tool. So, unfortunately, not all leads would be able to do it. That is just my thoughts on that. 23:55, February 5, 2019 (UTC)

We have the deletion category for a reason, if that's your argument, that we don't have the tools. You, Jayce, Spooky, and the other CMs are on often enough to keep up with it. 23:58, 02/5/2019

That is not the argument I am trying to make. Yes, we do have the tools. However, if we were to go the subpage route, these would be over 1300 images to create, and unfortunately we may not be able to keep up on it. It is not a matter of our activity but it may prove to be a hassle in the end. In my personal opinion, I do not see why we need to delete the pages (other than the clutter issue, which, generally, would not have any negative effect on the Wiki, it would not collapse it / break it / prevent users from editing). But, however, that is just how I see it. I am also not quite sure how other staff would react to wanting to delete those many images. 00:03, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

the edit conflicts dont even seem to be that bad of a problem.....this just seems less user friendly, an unecessary extra couple of steps, and this is what the limit is for?? also just because we do have the tools to delete it doesn't mean we're on the wiki all the time to keep up with deletions. we are doing other things. 00:06, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

http://prntscr.com/mh6cm0 edit conflicts really aren't that big of an issue to create all this clutter. we don't need it. 00:09, 02/6/2019

So... you wanted the idea but now you're against it? You've flip flopped a bit and it's a bit confusing. I was edit conflicted 5 times in a row when trying to fix the spacing issue left by VE, and it's just the redoes. We have incredibly active newer users and PCA's moving so fast. In the end, you don't have to agree but you kinda grilled Icy on the process for a second before going "nevermind," so its left it a bit confusing. —

Ok so here's an idea (i don't think it was brought up before but i haven't read all the replies), what about using the forums instead of subpages? That's what the other projects do for their nominations, so it would make sense. And we can still include them all on the approval page for easier viewing, I double checked and forums can be used as templates. I believe we can get around the standard forum template and breadcrumb links being included by just wrapping them in noinclude tags in the generator, so it would look exactly the same on the approval page as the subpages. I'm still not sure how it's handled when the same image goes up for approval multiple times (do the other projects have a way of handling that with nominations?), but at least this would avoid having a bunch of subpage clutter without requiring page deletion or history loss. Not sure if it would be an issue of crowding out the votes and discussions that are normally in the PCA forum, but if so perhaps we could have a separate forum just for art. (note: yes i realize that the forums are still pages/subpages, but the mentality behind it is different since there's meant to be lots of forum topics, so it probably won't feel like clutter)

WHile that's another solution, it still doesn't truly combat the main issue which is the massive amount of subpages. Ultimately, we can always just put all the subpages under the same category and that'd have almost the same effect, so I don't know if that much extra work to store it in forums would be beneficial... —

It wouldn't really be any extra work compared to the normal subpages. And I believe PC has well over a thousand nomination forums, and (afaik) nobody's had a problem with there being so many of those so far. The amount PCA would have would be very similar, especially if we didn't start using this until the kits/warriors.

But what is the difference, really? It is still the same clutter - there would still be several hundreds of forums left over, there really is no difference between the forums and the subpages, at least from what I can see. 03:57, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

Honestly there's not a big difference, it's mostly just the mentality of it. The forums were meant for that, and there's already a precedent for having hundreds of separate threads in there, and that method is used by all the other projects. Afaik the only reason PCA never did that originally was because it was easier to be able to view all the images on one page, which is now resolved, so it seems logical to just follow their lead. It's still a lot of pages, the only difference is that these are pages that the other projects already have lots of, and have no issue with.

Hm, so are you saying the difference is that people mainly will not have an issue with it because they are forums instead of subpages? I just do not really see the difference other than that, and forums usually are just for silver nominations/discussions/what not. Sorry if I am misunderstanding what you are saying. 04:06, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. That is basically the only difference. And posting images for approval is basically PCA's versions of nominations, we just call it by a different name.

Got it. Thanks for clearing it up. But still, the same issue stands, the amount of pages. 04:10, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

Addition: You brought up an excellent point with the other projects, the amount of pages are not an issue there... not really sure why they would be considered one here as well. Still, my opinion is that the forum namespace is also probably incorrect. I do not know, what does everyone think? 04:13, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

My main issue with using forums is PCA forums are used for blanks as well as the family tree votes and official art votes. Unlike PC, PB and PA, PCA uses forums primarily for business related things. I think adding the chararts and "nominations" to that may genuinely make things cluttered. I think they should stay as subpages where we can contain them easier. —

Any other comments?

Tabby Rulings
So Spooky brought this up on the discord and me as well as some of the others talked about it, and I decided it'd be good to bring this up. Nuking some of our tabby rulings, that being that cream and ginger have to have stripes, and making that optional, as well as the default tabby coloring nuked as well, and tabbies of unmentioned color getting to be any color. That's the basis of this, and to sum it up, tabbies with unspecified colors getting to be any color rather than exclusively brown, and the option to have solid cream/ginger cats. Squidward Plays All  Star. I Am Ranko <font color="#836FFF" face="Segoe Script" >Kanzaki. 02:51, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this 100%, as long as its a tabby it should count. Well in my opinion but with this when it just says pale tabby/tabby would a calico tabbies be able to be used? 03:00, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

That'd be great. --<span style="" title="No need to rush, my pace"> Silverfur's   <span style="" title="Don’t compare">  starry   <span style="" title="It’s alright to go slowly">  paws    <span style="" title="Go on your own path, my lane">  ~    04:11, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

kill the “brown tabby” bull. that makes means we have so many of the SAME type of image. Minor characters is a big example of why we should get rid of the tabby ruling. So many described as jut “tabby” that if this ruling stands, we might as well just use one image for all unspecified tabbies lol <span style="">16:17, 02/6/2019

I am 100% in favor of nuking the brown tabby rule. It forces people to make the same image over and over again, while there is a lot of room for creativity with vague descriptions. I also think we shouldn't be so strict on tabby styles. That also depletes an artist's potential for creativity. The tabby rogue I put up received several critiques for "triangle tabby" stripes (I hadn't even heard of this before), when it is a very common and fun style that I like to use. Not everyone wants to/can make super realistic tabby styles and there is really no need to with chararts, which is just fan art in reality. 16:27, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

To me, tabby color can be whatever van artist picks. For ginger cats, stripes optional because genetics, but i really think cream cats shouldn’t have them unless specified because it’s a huge assumption. I still personally support the original ruling against triangle tabbies, and would like that not to change, though. The project decided that for still valid reasons imo, and there’s a lot of ways to be creative and work around it

we should stay consistent with ginger, either all or none. and I for one am not going back to tweak all those, as it's a waste of time. if you really don't want to add stripes, just add like two stripes on the tail and face markings and make them really faint lmao (don't know about cream since that was only extended since cream is dilute ginger I guess)

triangle tabbies should still not be allowed, mostly because those don't look like actual stripes. (not a realism thing here. just that they don't look like a tabby.) and one of two triangleish looking ones on a tabby are fine, it's normally an issue when it's like this. 20:08, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for artist's choice for unspecified tabbies, especially with all the minor characters tabbies so many tabbies. Especially since the authors have different takes on what color a simple "tabby" is. I'm with David about the ginger cats. I see no harm in adding stripes to gingers, and I really, really don't want to tweak all of them. Not really sure about cream either. 20:31, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Well we wouldn't have to tweak any of the ginger tabbies. In fact we wouldn't need to touch any. What I'm trying to say is that if it's agreed on then after that were to happen onward, ginger cats can be solid OR striped. <font color="#302B54" face="Segoe Script" >Squidward <font color="#483D8B" face="Segoe Script" >Plays <font color="#6A5ACD" face="Segoe Script" >All  <font color="#836FFF" face="Segoe Script" >Star. <font color="#302B54" face="Segoe Script" >I <font color="#483D8B" face="Segoe Script" >Am <font color="#6A5ACD" face="Segoe Script" >Ranko <font color="#836FFF" face="Segoe Script" >Kanzaki. 21:08, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot to say that I am okay with the ginger cats and cream cats being optional tabbies unless cited otherwise. Also yeah I see what you mean about the triangle tabbies, David. But I also don’t think the stripes on my image look like that at all. 21:12, February 6, 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for this as it'll create diversity between some very minor characters enough to make them individuals. But, would it still be acceptable for a person to make them brown tabbies if thats what they think, as the artist, the charart should be? Sounds a little stupid when I type it up, but, for clarification purposes it might be handy to have a response. 21:51 Wed Feb 6 2019

I agree with making the color artist's choice when the description just says "Tabby." Obviously the artist should feel free to make a tabby brown if they'd like to. Personally I like making most of my tabbies brown, but should artists want to make them gray or golden or something they should be able do that.

Please nuke the tabby rule, it annoys me greatly. There's zero reason why we need to make them brown. I'm also perfectly fine with making stripes optional on cream and ginger cats, but would also not object to removing the stripes on cream cats we've already done, since that's the only reason most of them were tweaked to begin with. ​

I agree that people should be able to make their tabby any color they want. I am also in favor of making tabbies on ginger cats optional - we do not have to go and remove stripes from every single tabby, but perhaps if the OA wants to nominate it to get rid of it, that should be allowed as well. 03:23, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

I agree about making unspecified tabbies whatever colour. I also agree with not having stripes for cream cats. I’m still mulling over the ginger thing, though. 03:56, February 7, 2019 (UTC)

I am and always have been a big supporter of realism, and this is no different. I'm still in support of requiring stripes (of some sort at least, if only on the head since "solid" and ticked gingers still have those), however PCA draws some really odd lines for when realism is required and when it's not. Some examples being tortie colors being allowed to be basically anything two-tone even those there's a very small set of color combos torties realistically come in (with all of them including either ginger or cream), and all sorts of unrealistic stripe patterns being perfectly fine, or highly unrealistic white markings/markings on top of white, or overall unrealistic color/patterns on cats that have otherwise realistic description, along with many other things. So despite the fact that I highly support realism whenever possible, if PCA doesn't care about realism in all other cases, it is questionable why ginger stripes are an exception to that.

I would like ginger cats to have at least some stripes on their heads, but since we're not super realistic, I don't mind if it's optional. As for default tabby's being brown, I'm in support of removing that. The artist should be free to chose whatever color they find most suitable for their tabby chararts. 19:45, February 8, 2019 (UTC)

gonna be that person but... if they're just cited as being tabby, should they even get art? we are making a huge assumption about their colors. if they do get art, however, the brown tabby rule should be removed. about the ginger cats, i support making the stripes optional 04:13, February 9, 2019 (UTC)

I guess tabby indicates a specific pattern so they should get art based on that. It's enough for visualization. We're also assuming that manga cats are in grayscale, but since they have a visual they should warrant art.

Any other comments? This will likely result in a vote to confirm the consensus, since it's such a staple and part of the guidelines etc.

Vote is here.

Discord "Pre-Reservations"
I noticed a lot of this lately. Basically people "reserve" things before blanks are approved, and tell an admin on discord or something. If someone happens to reserve that image before they do, they receive a lot of backlash and the image goes to that person who "pre-reserved" it eventually. This happened to me before with Needletail, and I should've brought this up earlier. I think we either stop with these "pre-reservations" altogether, or make it an official thing on the wiki. It's unfair to those, like me, who don't use discord and have no idea who reserved what and what's "available", even though technically they are all free game. Thoughts?

I think the pre-reservations are helpful and are actually more fair in a way. Lots of us have totally different timezones and always get screwed over by wiki time when things get approved and we don’t get to the ones we want in time. It’s really helpful and takes a lot of stress off.

However, I wasn’t aware about the issue with it going to the pre-reserve person. I think that if you manage to reserve an image before the big pre-reserve, it should be yours.

I agree with need to fix this, and maybe making it official would work, or at least having some sort of notice/page for everyone to see. Good on you for bringing it up Fox!! :) 05:24, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

its unfair to those who dont use discord. on the other hand, timezones and edit conflicts suck, so i support the idea of having an official prereserve page where people express interest in prereserving images. people with reservation conflicts can discuss it amongst themselves. however, as of now having it done on discord is unfair and this should be addressed. 05:27, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with people wanting/pre-reserving images because yeah, timezones put people at a disadvantage. But when people who reserved images fairly are forced to hand over images simply on the basis of people saying "I wanted it" "I told an admin on discord" etc., it becomes unfair, especially if the person wouldn't have known about it beforehand. For me personally, I had no idea Needletail was "pre-reserved" because I didn't go on discord, but my reservation was rebuked and changed. I shouldn't be punished on the basis of not going on discord and not knowing about an unofficial reservation. The reason I'm bringing this up now is because I don't want a repeat of this for the leader blanks, warrior blanks, etc. If we make this official where everyone's decisions are transparent with everyone, I'd be fine with it.

I will admit, I was one of the ones who did a massive pre-reverse because no one took an issue and it was usually only 5 or so hours in advance. Although I think a pre-reverse table beats the idea of a reservation table in general since it is first come first serve, I think Fox brings up a very valid point. Also, I want to add that "I told an admin on discord" is null and should not qualify in any way shape or form. But, if this proves to be an issue, then it should not be allowed. 05:36, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Addition: Pre-reverses, whenever they are, are not official and never have been. So Fox, whoever removed your reservation if you reversed first was completely uncalled for. Other than that, I can only see pre reverses being official in a case for OAs. 05:37, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with everything Icy said. Prereserves are unofficial, and they don't hold any claim until they're put up. I do like the idea of trying to find another way to do "prereserving", but unsure where we could include everyone since not everyone has Discord, etc. —

If anything, if there were pre-reserves you could always do them on the wikia chat (when/if enabled). That way everyone could get involved. 05:42, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

We could make a disscussion forum perhaps? 05:46, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Chat is easily missed for those who don't come on the right time. If anything, it should be a forum/discussion page.

But, if we officially pre-reserve, the reservation table loses its purpose as well. 05:49, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Why have these at all? Like, if it wasn’t an issue then hey why not, but having them on a forum and stuff like that with discussions and everything just seems kinda not. Wow it’s late. I’m for just doing things the traditional way, racing to their own and that’s that. And perhaps generally try to CBA blanks at a time that isn’t 3:40am for a good chunk of our EST editors (and many who are otherwise in the US, 2:40 or 1:40am). About 12:00 would work for a lot more people and would hit pretty much all of our editors timezones.

I'm in agreement with Spooky. I'd rather keep things the traditional way. 05:59, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I have been the one doing the pre-reservations, I believe now is the time to stop. 06:02, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

What about a page within PCA that's basically for marking your interest in an image? No official reservation, just something to notify people that you would like to work on it, and the other people wanting to reserve it can do what they wish with that information. Most people are fairly good about working out conflicts among themselves when multiple people want the same image, either by not reserving the image at all or contacting the other person who wants to reserve it. And if the conflict can't be resolved, then they can always resort to the traditional method of trying to be the first to place it on the reservation table. This would at least give people who can't be online as soon as the images are available a higher chance of getting what they want, without being an official reservation and making things unfair.

But whatever the case, I don't think there should be any rule that says you can only reserve images for yourself. People have always been allowed to personally ask friends to reserve an image for them if they won't be online, and that seems a lot more reasonable that a mass reservation via discord. Plus it still follows normal rules, if someone else beats your friend and reserves the image first you just have to deal, so it's not any less fair than you trying to reserve yourself. The sketchiness only comes with when there's an organized big batch of images being added all by one person imo.

"Sketchiness" implies there's ulterior motives... which has never been the intent. Mass reserving spiraled out of control, as it initially started with just a couple of people and it escalated to a larger group of people. There was no ulterior motives here, it was just something nice Icy wanted to do for everyone since lately images have been approved in the early AM when some users (mostly American) are sleeping. —

honestly ive once been involved in the prereserving thing (over skype tho not discord, and a reaaaaaally long time ago loll) and i sincerely does think it does help users who are disadvantaged in terms of timezone and stuff. however i dont support the fact that it happens solely off wiki. instead i agree for a page that allows you to express interest in certain images, as paleclaw suggested. in no way would it be official, but i think it can help settle the edit conflicts a little better especially in a time where many blanks are being redone and mass reservations and stuff are happening like every week 10:06, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

The term sketchiness wasn't meant to imply ulterior motives or anything of the sort. It was only meant to imply that it enters into the gray zone of what's considered fair or unfair.

Wait, what? The mass reserves are only supposed to be done after the blanks are approved... am I missing something here, Fox? They were typically only done if someone couldn't get online, or to reduce the amount of edit conflicts. There's never been any ill intent behind these to my knowledge, but if people agree that it seems unfair, then we'll definitely put a stop to it. =) ​​

I mainly have an issue with people who tell the admins or whoever on discord that they "want" a certain image (before the blanks are approved). And then if someone else happens to reserve that image first, they would get backlash. Others would avoid reserving the image altogether, which sort of defeats the purpose of the reservation table? not talking about one person reserving images for their friends, I don't have a problem with that. The main issue is some of us don't go on discord, so there's no way of knowing who wants what and what to "avoid" reserving when the blanks are approved. For example, someone "wanted" Needletail on discord, but I reserved it first (since I don't go on discord, I didn't know about it). My reservation was removed. This morning someone also told me that they wanted an image and told Icy about their intent. I was reminded of the Needletail situation and didn't want a repeat of it.

Though now that mass reservation has been brought up, I think it's somewhat unfair to those who don't use discord. It defeats the purpose of the reservation table because you can technically "reserve" something beforehand, and if you aren't part of this mass pre-reservation thing you're automatically at a disadvantage in terms of claiming images. I think Paleclaw's idea of having an "interest page" is great. Those who don't go on discord and have a time zone disadvantage can express their interest in doing an image.

Okay so here's my two cents: prereserving was meant to be a way for others to get images if they really couldn't at said time, and they wouldn't be online for another couple hours or so. I myself have been screwed over by this recent CBA, since it occured at a time where I wouldn't be online at that time. And I can't stay up so no chance of jumping on it. I agree with you Fox that doing it soley over Discord is screwing over non-Discord users, but the idea of an official prereservation page defeats the purpose of a reservation table. Having something loose where we can discuss said reservations would be ideal, as others have suggested. However, CBAing images when most people aren't asleep or at school would also be helpful. Not trying to sound passive-aggressive or the like, I'm just trying to state my feelings. It kinda pisses me off when people are online at the approval time and I'm not soley because I'm sleeping or at school. Now if I'm not online because I chose not to be, then that's my fault. I'm not mad that others reserved it beforehand, I'm mad that they could get to it earlier and I couldn't because I couldn't be available at said time. Sorry if this is a mouthful to read and it jumps all over the place I'm not very coherent since I just woke up lol.

I mean, at one point I expressed interest to do three images, all of which belong to Jayce, and she said i could, is that ok? Malina457 (talk) 19:28, February 11, 2019 (UTC)malina

This thread is discussing "prereservations" that happen in Discord, where one person mass reserves for people right after blanks are approved. This is not about discussing OA claims. —

Malina, what I did was gave up my OA claims and passed them onto you; that is most definitely allowed and not quite the same thing. The three images I personally gave you (Finchflight, Breezepelt, and Nightcloud's warriors) are all yours to create and you have first dibs. ​

If I may, I have a suggestion. Although I am not exactly a huge part of PCA.. I can see what's going on here. So, I suggest that maybe there is a page made. Users who are particularly passionate about a certain character they want to try will be listed, assuming that the OA has not claimed the art piece yet. This would probably be best prior to blank approval.. On that page, if there is discontent, then perhaps that can be solved individually? Furthermore, the users will also put a time they added their character. I'm not sure how to explain this. Sort of a vote? I understand it might be more tedious, but there's no way every user is gonna be online and be able to land the pieces they want. I will also be willing to help out with a spreadsheet of some sort. Idk. Just a thought ^^ -- PyroNacht

I really like the idea of a spreadsheet/google doc

Any other comments? It seems that a lot of people are on board with the idea of having an interest page, if I'm not mistaken.

(This be Pyro on a new account ^^ ) I am more than willing to put together a Google spreadsheet and/or document, as I am extremely proficient in Excel and the related functions. However, in order to do that, I will need to ask: if we go through with this Interest page/document/etc, how long should we give others to review and solve? I'm sort of envisioning it like this: we have a talk or subpage for Interests only. That is where all things will go. I will add interests to a Google spreadsheet accordingly with proof of the edit (so anybody who DMs such would need to post on the page for fairness), and there will be a timer function that counts down from the moment the edit was made. My question is, what should the time limit be? And if there's no dispute, that character goes to said person. I hope this makes sense and I apologize if it seems like I'm taking charge - I just would like to help out however I can ^^ --OhlookSinesta (talk) 19:01, February 17, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a timer function because that defeats the purpose of the reservation table. I think, as Paleclaw said, that we should just let people do whatever they want with the information about other people's interests.

I also think a talk page/sub page would suffice, though a Google doc would also work.

CBA timer
It was brought up yesterday in Discord that some images were CBA'd rather quickly and didn't give others enough time to critique. With this, I suppose a limit that an image must have been up for 24 hours before granting an auto-CBA, or have been 24 hours since the last comment to get a CBA. This way, people will have 48 hours to comment on an image before it gets approved and get a critique in. Everyone has a different set of artistic skills, and sees errors that some others might, so I think it's a bit unfair to auto CBA images after only a couple hours of them being up, and it honestly feels horrible to break CBAs. A limit would help prevent this. — ♡ <span style title="If you can believe,">you're such  <span style="style" title="you&lt;span data-rte-entity=">' re such a dream to me." data-rte-attribs=" style title=you're such a dream to me."&gt;a dream to me. (21:37, 2/11/2019) ​

I'm okay with waiting until an image has been posted initially for about 24 hours before CBA, because + CBA that'll be 48 hours approval time total at a very minimum. However, the point of a CBA is 'comments before approval' in the literal sense, so waiting 24 after the last comment, instead of last posting, is duplicating a CBA; the final call for critiques. While we should wait around one full day for an image just posted, people can still get a critique in during the CBA phase, and it's what it's purpose is anyways, instead of just approving them. I really don't think people should take breaking CBAs personally. It happens a lot and it isn't really a big deal; you just fix whatever it was and it gets re-CBAed.

I have to agree with Spooky on the "24 hours after the last comment" thing... that is what a CBA is. While I'm perfectly fine with having an image on the page for 24 hours before CBAing it, I'm not sure I'm okay with having to wait an additional 24 hours after someone's last comment to be able to CBA. That seems like a bit too much, when instead you can just break the CBA and be done with it. Otherwise someone would essentially be waiting two days or longer to get an image approved since it would essentially be a double-CBA. ​​​

I support having the image up for at least 24 hours before CBA. I feel that would give all users a chance to see the image and comment, since not everyone is on every single day or may even be on the other side of the world. It seems very fair, and it doesn't clutter the page for more than 2 days. 22:27, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

This is the point of having senior warriors being the ones to CBA images. They need to be able to look at an image and access whether there needs to be anything done with it. The insta-CBA has always been a rarity: most of the time its on a really good image and any further edits will be very nit-picky. Also, if there is something wrong with the image after it is completed, that is why the tweak page exists and what it is intended for. (It is not a personal attack on an artist or on the image to submit it for tweaking). <span style="">22:49 Mon Feb 11 2019

If a lead believes an image is ready to be CBA'd before 24 hours have passed since the last comment, there should not be anything preventing them from doing so. I don't think a set time for it should be placed. Correct, what one person sees as a complete piece of art ready to be approved, another could see mistakes on that should be fixed. If that is the case, they can break CBA to address the problems. CBA is comments before approval, afterall. I would rather not have images sit for an unnecessarily long time, although I do see where you are coming from, I occasonially prefer to wait a while before CBAing images, but If a lead thinks it's ready, I think they should be free to do it. 23:05, February 11, 2019 (UTC)

But less than 24 hours is not a needlessly long time and people might not have the chance to comment. Also, people may see other things that leafs do not. Personally I agree with there being at lead a 24 hour limit before an image can be CBAd. 00:08, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I think the way we CBA is fine as it is. Too many images to have to wait basically two days for an image to be approved. 1200+ images is going to go slow enough as it is <span style="">00:43, 02/12/2019

In my opinion, two days is not long. Patience is a virtue and the quality of images should trump the quantity. 00:44, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I think the current way is fine, I haven't really seen any SWs or leads CBA fast at all. I'm gonna have to agree with Patch and Ferk on this. 00:51, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Arguably, most images sit two days anyways in total so making that official isn't any harm. Images should sit for a full day before a CBA (as in, having been posted for a day). The issue comes into having to wait 24 hours after the last comment, which will cause a lot of issues. That's gonna shortchange users who bump against the one month limit, because they now have three less days because there's not enough time for a CBA process + double CBA to go through at the back end. We do have some quality images that can get past and solve their comments in the first 24 and get a CBA slapped on in the second 24, and their CBAs can always be broken in the second half if someone has a comment or whatnot, but I have a bone to pick with the 'last comment' part, less so the posting times (because CBAing before 24 hours posted is kinda rare anyways tbh doesn't matter if we write it down).

Honestly, I'm fine with waiting at least 24 hours after the image has been posted before issuing a CBA. It kinda steadies the pace of the approval page imo, and I'm all for less chaos. I agree with spooky about the "last comment" piece. Especially if the last few comments were just about waste or something else minor. I do agree that we should take care with the quality of the images, but if an image doesn't have any major issues/comments (smooth shading on --> leg, waste above ear, etc), and it's been at least 24 hours since upload, then I would slap a CBA on it. We have a lot of images to do as it is. 01:02, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I also do not agree about the "waiting for 24 hours after a comment," just "24 hours after an upload." 01:06, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

I think the CBA timer should start by the time of the most recent upload, like if you re-up an image, than 10 hours later, it is CBAed, so it hasnt changed from that re-up. This isnt the exact thing we are talking about, but I think it is close enough. I dont like it being 24 hours before CBA, I dont think it serves a point. <font face="Tempus Sans ITC">❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 01:11, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

10 hours is too short for that, 24 hours after the re-up seems just fine since it gives users a chance to hop on and comment. 01:12, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

You mean after a reupload, Mink? Because most of us seem to be on the same page that at least waiting until the image is up for 24 hours, not 24 hours after the last comment. If we wait until 24 hours after the last comment and then CBA, people are going to get shafted out of their images, and that's not fair. Especially if the comments are, as Vec suggested, minor and relating to waste and whatnot. I personally think it's a bit weird to force an image to go 24 hours without a comment, and then an additional 24 hours for the CBA; that's 48 hours, and a lot can happen in that amount of time. ​

Yeah, I meant that waiting at least a full day (24 hours) before CBAing the image and approving it. I think that as long as the image itself was just put up and stays without a CBA for at least 24 hours then it should be fine. From what I've seen since joining that's what's been done. As Raelic said earlier if the image still has an issue after approval that's what nominating it for a tweak is for. Sorry about that, my brain keeps tryna focus on a thousand things. 01:35, February 12, 2019 (UTC)

Maby if an image is up for 48 hours, it should be CBAed? Because people don't have any problems with the image, and it shouldnt just be sitting there! what do people think about that idea? ✬ Love is Love forever! ✬ 04:03, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

Any other comments? General consensus seems to be that an image has to be posted for at least 24 hours before a CBA is put on

I still disagree that it needs to even wait that long. CBA lasts for a day anyway and if the users that come on that day see nothing wrong to break CBA then it's either fine or can simply be nominated later for a tweak. <span style="">22:49 Sun Feb 24 2019

Briarlight
This would also extend to Frog and Wildfur, if we ever get a description for him again.

So I was thinking, instead of tweaking the warrior lineart (because we all know how horrible the last one was (and yes I can say that, it was my work)).... would it perhaps be beneficial to create a special image just for these cats? While we'd only use it for Frog and Briarlight right now, we made Cats of the Park blanks for just as many cats, and discussed unknown blanks for Ravenpaw and Jake and whatnot.

I know Patch's blank is probably tweakable, but I was thinking of one that could be used cross-rank, instead of trying to tweak the blanks we have. Probably gonna get sent to the hounds, but an idea is an idea. Breezey also suggested having a blank artist vote for it as well. ​​​

I disagree. They were considered warriors (Briarlight, at least). She was underneath the "warrior" list in the allegiances and she did not really have a special rank. She had a warrior ceremony as well, there is no instance of her being anything but a warrior. 02:59, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

This is honestly a great udea and I love it. I'd be game for joining and trying this out. It'd make sense to do it especially since the discussio. With Jake and Ravenpaw. 03:00, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I also disagree. They weren't a different rank or part of a different alias; they were just unfortunate paralyzed cats, but they still retained their "rank". Briarlight has always been called a warrior, and books (if I recall correctly) don't refer her as anything different. Frog was a rogue and always referred to as such. For the "unknown/ghost" cats, that was shown in the books to be different rank other than StarClan and the DF. There's nothing, as far as I can tell, that shows they were any different than what they already were. 03:23, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I think I might be explaining this wrong, I wasn't talking about it because of their rank. I was thinking just one universal image we could use to show that these cats have this injury, since it's a major anatomical change from what we currently have. I wasn't really meaning it as a rank or anything; just something we could use to say "this cat has a broken back", kinda like how (many ages ago) some images would have the same ragged fur linearts as others. It would be a special blank just for them. I brought up the other blank because of the number of cats we'd use it for, not the purpose behind them. ​​

Sorry but at the moment I disagree. I might change my answer depending on the discussion but for now it’s a no from me. 04:33, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

Alternatively, if we don't want to make a blank just for them, perhaps we could vote on a blank artist for Briarlight and Frog for the modified blank (warrior and rogue respectively). That way, a lot like the reason we vote on blanks in the first place, we can come to a consensus and spend more time and care on the blanks instead of one user deciding it. Note that Frog's vote can obviously include his current lineart. It would also allow us to be more picky about the lineart on the blank and more bold about the modifications. Plus, it gives everyone a chance to take a stab at drawing a cat with a broken back. <span style="">9:38 Wed Feb 13 2019

^ love the idea of having a vote for the tweak artist like we do with the other blanks. It wouldn't be all that dissimilar to the approval process of the starclan kits and permaqueens (i think?), though I don't remember if they had an official vote back then or not. But regardless they had a whole approval period just focused on the lineart tweak, which I think was very beneficial, while still being technically a tweak of the original blanks for their rank.

I'm still in disagreement for them having their own blanks, but I'm all for having a forum and voting on it. ^^ 14:08, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really in support of giving them their own blanks, but I like the idea of voting on an artist for a modified blank, I think that would be beneficial. Even so, we could still open a forum up to vote on giving them all their own blank. 14:31, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with Patch^^ We should give everyone a chance to tweak the existing blank, and vote on which is best.

I think we should do a vote. My one problem is, it is not always one rank where they are hurt. What would we do about that? ✬ Love is Love forever! ✬ 05:26, February 16, 2019 (UTC)

Any other comments? If I am correct, it looks like we will be opening a forum having a tweak artist vote. 20:38, February 24, 2019 (UTC)

I believe the idea is to have a tweak artist vote for each injured cat? Or is it to just tweak one blank? <span style="">22:46 Sun Feb 24 2019

Non-Clan Leader Blanks
I was talking with a few users in Discord and they suggested I bring this up here. The non-Clan leaders are pretty much the cats that lead their little rogue/loner groups, I suggest a blank for the Non-Clan leaders. Since they technically get a rank of being leader but aren't actually Clans I think it'd be a great idea to have a blank fit for them. The leaders that would more or less count for this would be like Darktail, Harley, Jingo, etc. I don't really think BloodClan would considering they were referred as a Clan in the books. Thoughts? 09:15, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a reason to give them a different blank. There really isn't much difference from a Clan leader besides the nine lives, and even then Nightstar and Mothpelt were leader with one life. Stoneteller has a blank because that role is a medcat and leader hybrid. <span style="">9:43 Wed Feb 13 2019

i still think at the most it should be a somewhat minor tweak of the current ones if anything at all. another idea (that would be pc's jurisdiction) would be adding clan leader as the thing in the infobox, instead of just leader as it is now. 09:58, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

I don't think they'd need a different blank. It's sort of like making blanks for clan queens and non-clan queens, which would be pretty unnecessary.

Agreeing with Fox and Breezey here. Another blank is not necessary. Those cats are still technically seen as leaders, even if they don't have nine lives. 18:18, February 13, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with above. They're not all that different from clan leaders in terms of role. 14:10, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I think it's unnecessary for them to have separate blanks. In the end, they're all leaders, whether they have nine lives, or are in a Clan or not. 14:31, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not another blank but maybe a tweak to their art to show their non-clan like Da ud said earlier. 16:13, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I think we should tweak the current one to show some difference; there is a notable difference between Clan leaders and other leaders. It isn't quite just the nine lives, it's the rules they live by, their duties, how they act - all of which makes them so much different from cats like Jumper and Fog.

We could definitely tweak them.... but we also made a cotp blank for fewer cats than we have cited as non-clan leaders. So really I have no preference to how we go about this. <span style="">18:25, 02/15/2019

I agree there, that's why I brought this up. A blank was even made for the rank of mediator and CotP and I think non-clan leaders would count too. 18:52, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

I think we should have a non-clan leader blank, but I think it should just be slightly tweaked,  maby a new blank in a simalar position? <font color="#ffffff"> <font face="Tempus Sans ITC">❈ Love is Love, forever! ❈ =^.,.^= 22:18, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Elder blank tweak
the vote passed I guess ^ What's happening with this? How are we going about it?

I would suggest that the people that want to do the tweak nominate themselves and the project leads come to a consensus to decide. <span style="">4:20 Thu Feb 14 2019

I agree with what Whiskey said; could be run like a usual blank nomination, artists that wish to tweak make a mock-up of what they are proposing and we hold a vote for the artist. Also, is this going to be spaced out between warrior and kit images - because that wasn't already the plan I think that would be a good one. Leave it for a little while, and then have them be tweaked. 07:44 Thu Feb 14 2019

is it a tweak as in a redo but leave an identical pose (kinda like what was done with the to-be blanks)? 08:28, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

I believe we are just tweaking the original lineart and not redoing it, Burnt. ^^ 14:06, February 14, 2019 (UTC)

We have definitely done charart tweaks before but I'm afraid I don't remember exactly how we decided the artist. When the StarClan kits were done, I was supposed to do them originally, but for some reason Shelly did instead. I don't think we voted, it was just decided by consensus on the talk page. Does anyone remember how perma-queens were decided? <span style="">17:36 Thu Feb 14 2019

I'd be fine with a vote and would actually prefer it that way; that way everyone gets a chance to try tweaking the blank.

Yeah a vote works 02:28, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Agreed^ i think you should redo the blank but keep the pose i really like it--Willowstep21 (talk) 19:28, February 15, 2019 (UTC)

Forum:Elder Blank Tweak Artist has been made and artists can post their tweaked versions. Any other comments? 18:43, February 19, 2019 (UTC)

Alternate Charart Section
Some characters, like Tawnypelt have so many alts that the gallery looks a little clunky and disorganized. Perhaps we should have a separate gallery for the alts? This way the chararts look more organized. It might also be helpful to have all the non-alts in one section for visual purposes. Thoughts?

I like this idea! Half the time, I look at the art for a quick glance, and I think the wrong one is what the really look like! I 100% support this. Welcome, to a world  of wonder,  and beauty!  Now follow me,  into the light!  04:50, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm all for it. Especially for cats like Brackenfur and Bluestar, too. Sometimes all those alts together can be quite an eyesore. 05:00, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

absolutely since mistakes are so prominent in this stupid series 09:17, February 20, 2019 (UTC)

Would this work?

Could also just reorder the images so the same alts are together. <span style="">11:20 Wed Feb 20 2019

I think that might end up looking messy for characters with a lot of different mistakes throughout the series, and it might get trickier to organize if that is the case.

for extreme cases like Tawnypelt and stuff, sure, but not if they only have an alt or two; just in the interest of section counts it'd be good to just do it for those that need it imo

Kits or warriors first
Okay so we had two prior discussions on these redoes, we got the pretty clear results of:
 * 1) Getting the blanks approved and then not using them until announced
 * 2) Split them up into sections alphabetically (such as A-D, E-J etc) to have us only do one sector at once to save it being crazy
 * 3) Warriors and above can have three images (two of which must be OA claims if one has any, then one original; which will then revert to three original when no OA claims remain)
 * 4) We’ll start making them after kittypet and leader

We do have one other thing to bring up though - kits or warriors first? Or do A-D warriors, then A-D kits to break up the monotony? Alsooooo hey does anyone want a few days break between finishing KPs/leaders and starting whatever we pick because my hand hurts from making so many recently and I’d like to think I’m not the only one

I like the idea of doing A-D warriors, then A-D kits, or the same thing, but have kits first, then warriors. I don't care either way. I would love to have a break after we finish up KPs and leaders. My hand is ready to fall off. Could maybe take a weeks break? 04:07, February 25, 2019 (UTC)