This HTML5 document contains 4 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Warriors Wiki talk:Charart/Archive 46

rdfs:comment

So I know we've decided that unspecified tabbies get chararts, and that they should be brown, but what about unspecified mottled cats? Would they get chararts, and if so, would they be brown too? ♥ Paleclaw May StarClan be with you ♥ 10:51, June 8, 2011 (UTC) I assume so. It seems like any Unspecified tabby/mottled cat would be brown. If a tabby's description was "A tabby tom" and gets an unspecified tabby charart, then "A mottled tom" should get one too. 21:43, June 8, 2011 (UTC) I agree. 10:22, June 9, 2011 (UTC)

dcterms:subject

n5:

n6:abstract

So I know we've decided that unspecified tabbies get chararts, and that they should be brown, but what about unspecified mottled cats? Would they get chararts, and if so, would they be brown too? ♥ Paleclaw May StarClan be with you ♥ 10:51, June 8, 2011 (UTC) I assume so. It seems like any Unspecified tabby/mottled cat would be brown. If a tabby's description was "A tabby tom" and gets an unspecified tabby charart, then "A mottled tom" should get one too. 21:43, June 8, 2011 (UTC) I agree. 10:22, June 9, 2011 (UTC) I agree as well. They're both saying a pelt pattern of a cat, but not the specific color. If an unspecified tabby would be just brown then an unspecified mottle should be too. 20:38, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Alright. ^^ But what about alts? I don't think that's been decided on for tabbies since I don't see a final decision above. Would it be the same as whatever they decide on that? ♥ Paleclaw May StarClan be with you ♥ 07:57, June 10, 2011 (UTC) I would think so. They are basically saying the same thing, except for being different pelt patterns. 20:13, June 10, 2011 (UTC)