Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

Queen Blanks
These have been bothering me for quite some time, and I would like to suggest a redo of them. While they accurately represent the belly of a pregnant cat, the rest of the anatomy on these has several faults, mainly on the front legs, chest, neck, and head. The back legs are also slightly off. Something more like this or this would better represent a pregnant cat. 04:49, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Ugh yes, they've been bothering me for ages. x.x I dunno whether a simple tweak or redo would be better, but I think they should definitely be fixed.

Sure, why not? The anatomy is definitely off. A tweak would be preferable in my opinion, as it would save time, but if it cannot be salvaged then I guess a total redo would be in order. 05:43, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

I demand that all queen images be replaced with this. 05:46, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

omg yes

The queen blanks have been irking me for ages...from the off-ness (what is good wording) of the shoulder and chest areas to the long-hair's underbite, they need to be fixed. 06:26 Tue Apr 9

I suggested a tweak of the queen blanks a long time ago and it was shot down, I don't know why you guys are changing your minds now. If we're tweaking blanks, then why don't you tweak the warrior and deputy blanks as well? A tail is an extension of the spine and don't shoot straight out of their bums like an arrow, and the longhaired tails on those look odd. You can't do one thing on one blanks and not another 06:34, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Likely when you first proposed it there were different people in the project, Ivy. It's nothing against you that it's being proposed again now. And I believe we should take the blanks one step at a time...unless a forum should be made with all the blanks on it and we could just have people go through and comment on all of them with their critiques for, say, two weeks? Then artists could be found and the images tweaked from there. I suppose we might as well go all out while we're at it.

Anyway, back to the queen blanks, I don't think that it's worth it to tweak them, and would probably save time by redoing them because of how many queen images there are in the first place. Unless the person that did the image had the file, tweaking all those patterns to fit into the new lineart would be difficult and time consuming. But I supposed we could always vote on it and the artist like we always do. 13:55, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

I have no issues with the queen blanks being redone. They're off on so many levels, and a butt to shade. ._. Shelly's idea is amazing let's go with that.

I have nothing against redoing the queen blanks; though I'm no anatomy expert either. Agrees with Cloudeh ^^ They are a butt to shade... >.<  02:48, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for redoing the blanks if they're off. 23:15, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

I have nothing against redoing them, if they're off then they should be fixed. 22:28, 04/14/2013

Agreed with what everyone else said;if they need fixing, go redo them. Bb un   legs  22:30, April 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced, but as per the norm, the majority is against me. Do whatever you want, but please still make sure that the artist is up for vote and we have an option for no change, because I really don't see what's wrong with them. 16:52, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Of course, Ivy. If we did it any other way, it wouldn't be fair to you, and possibly others, who do not want to see anything happen to the blanks. It's the only right way to do it, and the voting will go like the rogue, loner, and /adult/ StarClan blanks. It's really the only way to ensure that everyone gets their say.

I'm agreeing with Ivy here, they have a few issues, yes, but I don't see what's so bad about them that they *need* to be redone. 17:27, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well, Icy, we can always do what we did with the rogue blanks, and have a section for someone to tweak the blank, and see how people vote. It doesn't need to be redone if that's what the people vote on.

Since there have been no objections to editing the blanks at all, may I go ahead and set up a vote? The option is always there to just tweak or leave the blanks, like always. x3 20:44, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

Strike that. Yes there have been. Sorry. ^^; But still, shall we set up the forum? 20:54, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

I say a tweak/redo, whatever it may be, would be a great idea, considering the current anatomy of the blank. I've noticed the discussion hasn't been touched on since the 17th so I figured I'd comment heheh. 21:21, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

So what's going on with this? I hate to ask again, but shall we set up a forum for an artist vote, or do we want to first vote on whether we want to do anything with the blanks in the first place? 04:27, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Set up a forum vote, with an option to leave the blanks as they are. If enough agree to leave the queen blanks as they are, then so be it, and stay they will. It's how we've done it in the past, I believe.

I'm all for setting it up as long as there's an option to leave them unchanged :)  01:41, April 30, 2013 (UTC)

Forum is here. 20:43, May 6, 2013 (UTC)

*cough*kinda shoulda been announced in the news*cough* Whad'you guys think of extending the date till voting and putting it in the news so people'll have a little more chance to see it? I know I certainly had no clue it was up yet. And I know it was the same with at least a couple others. Would be nice if we could extend it a bit.

Fine by me. We're in no hurry - I just didn't want it to keep sitting there. Another week won't hurt anybody. 05:09, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

It's the 20th! Please vote for the artist! 20:16 Mon May 20 2013

Tweak Nomination Voting - Warriors?
Hi, all! Because it seems as though the discussion was archived without a conclusion despite a relatively clear consensus, I'm bringing it up again. I propose that warriors should be able to vote on tweaks and the number of votes needing to pass should be raised to five. 21:09, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, please. I agree with this, and always have. A good portion of the warriors are skilled and knowledgeable enough to be able to vote properly on nominations, and with raising the vote requirement to five instead of three, things could be a little better. If this does go into effect, those currently on the page would not be affected by this change, however. That's not fair. I actually closed the nominations because of the massive amount of things on that page...so perhaps we can open that up again after everything's settled?

I agree with this, not because I'm a warrior, but because it might speed things up a bit and benefit the project. Right now only about five of the SWs consistently vote on the nominations, and with some active warriors thrown in it would make nominations sit on the page for smaller amounts of time than they currently are. x3 22:07, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Duck. Like, we've got tons more warriors, and they have experience. They've the judgement to tell if an image is fine or not. It'd speed thing up ''a lot. '' Ca  na  di  a~  Sirius is hiding... 22:42, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

Ya definitely. It'll hopefully speed up the nominations too xD 23:30, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I agree also, ya'll took the words right out of my mouth. 23:51, April 23, 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. Besides, those guys are also the ones tweaking the images along with SW's. They should have a say in what they have the ability to tweak. 00:11, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I think, Leggy. I definitely agree~  00:46, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree 01:15, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what all the others have said. After all, it would make since for the people who also tweak with the seniors to have the ability to vote. Bb un   legs  01:39, April 27, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this idea, but if I remember correctly, last time this was discussed it went all the way to a vote...only for it to be suddenly decided that there needed to be more qualifications for a warrior to vote - the main one being that they'd done at least a tweak or two. I feel it should be asked if we'd still want any qualifications other than being a warrior, just so we don't go so far and change our minds again. 04:24, April 28, 2013 (UTC)

Do you think that the warrior should have some sort of experience in tweaking before they can vote? That way, they should have some knowledge of what will happen to this image with the tweak, and perhaps understand what else needs to happen to the image. So, like a requirement of two tweaks and one redo, or something of that manner? I am with this idea; however I think adding some requirements to it will give me a little more of the peace of mind I have with SW's voting. 17:48, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Restated what was above, sorry. 17:51, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

I think raising the voting to five would be enough to check each others' opinions, plus keeping track of all the warriors who have done tweaks and redos seems something of a nuisance. 17:56, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 'teldy on the requirements, imo it would be an unneeded nuisance, besides that, in order to become a warrior you need three originals, so I think that that's requirement enough. 23:01, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well I personally would like new warriors to go through one tweak before being able to vote. Most new warriors are very unfamiliar with tweaking and what's entailed in it when they are made a warrior. I don't think they'd need to do anything more than one, but making sure they have a little experience on tweaking would be good. Easier to judge what can be done as a tweak, what needs to be a redo, and all that.

And how are you going to figure that out and keep track of all the warriors voting? Also, it really depends on what tweak they do. You can't tell what needs to be a tweak and what should be a redo by just gray scaling, or even shading due to the other elements of the image. Plus, I stick with my thoughts that requiring five votes for a nomination to pass is plenty enough to keep in check the warriors. 19:29, May 11, 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you have a point. I do think it'd be good for them to have experience before being able to vote, but I guess it would be too much trouble if you had to keep track of what kind of tweak they did. I still think it really wouldn't be that hard at all to keep track of who's finished one tweak, but you have a point in how it really depends what kind of tweak they're doing whether it helps give them experience to know what to vote on or not. *shrugs*

Limit on claiming tweaks
Hi all~ I don't mean to point at a few users, because I've seen this since I've been on the wiki, but I propose that we have a limit on claiming tweak nominations, some users have gone through and claimed four and over tweaks, that other users should have an equal opportunity to claim. I propose that we have, let's say, a three claim limit, unless you're the OA, of course. x3 03:12, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's already supposed to be that a user can't have more than one image reserved for approval and two for tweak/redo. Claiming a tweak is really just reserving an image and I believe two or three is what the unwritten rule for claiming images has always been - unless it's in a set or you're the OA of all of them. Shall we just go to adding it into the guidelines, then? 06:00, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. If you're the OA, then you're allowed to claim the image so it's easier to tweak, and if they're in a set- so everything matches, ect, things like that. I see no problems with adding it to the guidelines.

Blank Time Limit
So I don't believe we ever completely came to a conclusion on this before, and since the queen blanks may be putting up soon, I figure this would be a good time. Do you guys think there should be a time limit on how long blanks can be up, and if so, how long do you think would be good? I believe we were debating between anywhere from 2 months to 6. And while on this topic, what should be done if we decide on giving them a time limit and they get declined? Should another vote be held, should there be rules requiring an edit of the blank already up or keeping the same pose, and how will we regulate how much they can change it after taking over? Thoughts guys? Let's try and get something worked out for this before the queen blanks are posted.

I think four months is ample enough time to have for the blanks. It's a good, even, in between number. I also think that if they do get declined, it should be discussed whether or not to keep the same blank. Since we did vote on a specific blank, it's unfair to the original artist of the blanks to see their image go to waste like that. If they do, a revote is the only /fair/ way. That way someone else doesn't come in and totally change everything, thus changing the blanks that were voted on.

Sandstorm Alt. W?
In Cats of the Clans, Sandstorm is shown without stripes on her page, as well as she looks closer to ginger than pale ginger. Would she get an alt for that? 19:33, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Alt for Tawnypelt
I was just looking at Thistle's question on an alt for Sandstorm, and I checked my kindle Cats of the Clans to have a look, when I accidently pressed on a part that took me to Tawnypelt; and she is shown with a white muzzle, chest, paws and a part of her tail, and her page states that she does not have any white on her fur. Does this warrant an alt? 20:39, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

No, that's just a type of tortie. Torties can have white markings and still be called so and not a calico, I think. Bb un   legs  20:41, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

Join Request
Hi. not very familiar here, but may i join anyways? Is there some sort of experience i need to be here?

I apologize, i didnt realize i needed a signature lol! Kelpsey (talk) 20:25, May 20, 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a new heading so it's more visible. Of course you can join, experience or no. Make sure you read our guidelines, and, if you need them, check out the mentor program and apprentice tutorials. 17:15 Wed May 22 2013

Art Theft
Websites with stolen art: here, and here. 00:06, May 22, 2013 (UTC)