Warriors Wiki talk:Charart

=For Approval= Take it to the approval page

=Tweaked= Take it to the tweak page

=Discussion=

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Sound good? 21:04 Sat Jul 13 2013

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

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

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

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

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

Is this ready for a vote yet then? It's been a while :/ sorry for being a butt. 05:20 Tue Sep 3

Okay, no. Wait. I, or somebody else, will put up the vote when they have time as it takes a bit to set one up. I, for one, have had a busy weekend. The vote will be put up when it is put up and until then you can just sit tight and realize we've had the current system for nearly two years and a few more days won't hurt it. 12:27 Tue Sep 3 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Berrynose has a short tail, yet he isn't named for it. He has it because it's a major feature. Cinderpelt has a twisted foot, yet she isn't named for it. But just because something isn't a major feature, why shouldn't we include it? 15:57, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, if it's a real pattern, then I agree that it should be represented on chararts o3o 19:17, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Agreeing with Beebs. Also, idk if this would work for a smoky; make a light coloured texture area on the neck, ears, and belly. Then put the main pelt colour over a it and lower the opacity on one or both layers? 18:26, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Even though Im excluding myself and being a sort of hypocrite, but I think only warriors and above should be able to make these smoky cats, considering the difficulty level this seems to have. <span style="">05:17 Tue Sep 3

No. We're not restricting the project anymore than it already has been. If it's a new image, then any and all users, regardless of ranking in the project, may create a smoke cat. That's if we agree on making them. Tweaking and redoing is one thing, but to restrict users from making brand new images?????? I mean, for now, some of these will be tweaked or redone images, but those are not what I'm talking about. Why would we just add more restrictions to what PCA already has? I thought we were trying to kill the elite crap x.x

No I mean, wouldn't it be considered a redo? I am. That's why I'm putting out my opinion. .-. <span style="">15:34 Sat Sep 7

At first, yes. But, if we get a character that's described with it in DotC that didn't have a description or if it's a new character, then no. We're not restricting the project.

Ohohoh, of course we'd let anyone do the original art. Lol sorry I didn't mean to restrict the project, I meant the smokies should count as redoes! Sorry! <span style="">02:48 Sun Sep 8

Leafstar
Ok, sorry to bother you, XD. But, in the Manga of SkyClan's Destiny, Leafstar is shown as a ginger and white tabby (I'm pretty sure it's ginger). Does this warrant an alt? And, if so, I'd like to do it. <span style="">01:46 Thu Aug 29

Actually, we don't know if she's ginger and white or not, as it's in grayscale o3o 01:49, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Well, it does show white, and tabby lines, I definitely know that. But, it's true, I don't know if it's ginger. <span style="">01:50 Thu Aug 29

Join Request
I was wondering if I could join the Charart thing? I think I've got all my basics down! :D Shiningpelt (talk) 03:20, September 1, 2013 (UTC)Shiningpelt

Added a new heading. ^^ Of course you can join. Make sure to check over the guidelines and here are the apprentice tutorials and the mentor program if you need them. <span style="">4:40 Sun Sep 1 2013

Join Request
Hey. I would like to join this project, if it helps. As you might see, I already make epic chararts (look in the photo section) and I would love to collaborate and make new friends here! ^^ (I also viewed the apprentice tutorials, but I can't seem to find the guidelines) Brightpool (talk) 17:31, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Apprentice Tutorials
Umm so I was gonna help out this user (not pointing out names) and I wanted to check out the apprentice tutorials again so I can explain things better when I noticed a lot of the tutorials are quite out of date.. Don't you think we should look through and recheck and make sure the tutorials aren't misleading/outdated? <span style="">03:52 Tue Sep 3

I think we should. Hopefully, we'll have newly approved queen line art soon, and the tutorials would be great to show the shading placement/eye coloring for it. There's even an tutorial video using the old rogue line art - I wouldn't find that very useful as a noob :3  .:* ❧Silver❧ *:.   <sup style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color: #0090c7">Leaf-Fall is here~

Tawnypelt
Recently, Vicky stated that she should be pale ginger. I'm thinking of drawing her alt queen image with this knowledge, but I'm not sure if the new queen blanks are usable in PCA yet. Can someone help?

.:* Cherryblossom *:.  <sup style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color: #f7ac0c">Leaf-Fall is coming...

Queen images cannot be made until the blank is approved, sorry. 16:24, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! .:* Cherryblossom *:.  <sup style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color: #f7ac0c">Leaf-Fall is coming...

Tawnyspots
In his description he is said to have "ragged fur", but his charart does not show this (as Raggedstar's does). Shouldn't this be fixed?

It's already been nominated on the nominations page 14:23, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to join PCA.
'Ello PCA people, I was wondering if I could join the project? I've been colouring the PCA blanks for about three years now, just for photoshop practice, and I feel like I'm good enough to request membership :3 Emberpoppy (talk) 23:18, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

Tawnypelt's Alts
So recently Cloud, Sorrel and BB have made three different Tawnypelt Alts all with the same description. Shouldn't we just keep it at one design? Or can you have different designs as long as they stick to the alt description? .:* ❧Silver❧ *:.  <sup style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color: #0090c7">Improving chararts woot

This has been brought up before. They do not need to match. Alt matching is artist's choice. And they're not the same alt. The ones Cloudy and Beebs made are the tawny; mine is the pale ginger. 11:26, September 8, 2013 (UTC)

Join
Hi! I am Stormfur2002 but you can call me Stormfur or Storm. I don't know much about charart-making, but Amber came round my house the other day, and showed me how to make a solid cat. I hope you'll accept me. 10:34, September 8, 2013 (UTC)