# Talk:Bunnies & Burrows

There is talk on Template talk:Furry fandom discussing whether B&B is about furries. A third opinion would be nice, especially from someone who knows B&B. >Radiant< 14:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, that group scares me, so I am posting here instead of there. What they decide I will support, because it would mean further support for this article, but I do not think B&B, or specifically, Watership Down, is a Furry topic. The animals are not anthrimorphic (spelling?) but real animals. However, if they want to expand their area of focus to include items such as this, I welcome the support. Turlo Lomon 06:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "support for this article". This article is notable, sourced, and meets all the requisite policies, therefore how many people "support" it is irrelevant. >Radiant< 12:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to hear that we scare you. I suggest you come to one of our local furry conventions and see what it is like. :-) As Radiant says, it's more a question of whether or not it is in the genre. Not all furry characters are human-shaped; fursuits mostly are, but they are just one aspect of furry fandom, and limited by their wearers. However, almost all furry characters have aspects of what we would normally describe as a "human mind", and the subtitle of "roleplaying in a world of intelligent animals" seems to fit this. The important point is whether or not the characters depicted are, as Penny Arcade once put it - "people who are also animals", with an emphasis on the people part. I have not played B&B myself, but its description and the reviews linked here appear to support this definition, which is why WP:FURRY has an interest in this article. GreenReaper 16:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's just say a certain CSI episode scarred me for life. Turlo Lomon 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, Fur and Loathing. Let's also say it's . . . not entirely accurate. Remember, they sell entertainment; a sexual fetish is much more entertaining than a geeky fan community. GreenReaper 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
B&B is definitely not a RPG specially made for the furry fandom, however I think it would fit into the scope of this subculture and the wikiproject. --Yamavu 07:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Having returned to this article and read through the preview, I'm even more convinced of its relevance. Even if you view the fandom as something that only came together in the mid-1980s, this is the same concept. The characters are depicted as thinking, reasoning beings with woven backpacks who negotiate with other intelligent animals and drag their casualties away on improvised sledges. (By their teeth; but that's not the point...)
I'm not about to throw {{furry fandom}} on this article without consensus for it being here, but I do think this article should be part of that template, so I've put it back. GreenReaper (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello again, GreenReaper. Just last night I was reviewing all of your comments from your original discussion. I have no objection to that template being added to the article. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There are two reasons to tag an RPG with a subgenre Wikiproject tag, in my mind: 1) the game was created for the genre, or 2) the game as adopted by the genre.  I can see this falling under the second case, even if the first case is disputed or demonstrably untrue. Jclemens (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, but could we have some article content saying it's been adopted by furry fandom?  Otherwise the category and template at best lack context; at worst they could be considered OR.  Sorry if that sounds harsh; I actually think this could make a good paragraph in the 'Reception' section, so long as there are refs to back it up. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I can honestly say it's a hit within the fandom - newer material like Jadeclaw and World Tree is likely to be more popular. I bought a PDF copy myself, but I'm not an active gamer - it was just because I was interested in the topic. Then again, isn't that the point? [Incidentally, I just found an auction for the original which quotes Wikipedia.]
About the only clear connection apart from the topic is that GURPS edition artist Jim Groat has been a well-known member of furry fandom since its establishment circa 1985. I've had a quick check of the other contributors - Brian Campbell is a false positive, but Elizabeth McCoy may be a contributor to furry short-story anthology Best in Show. I'll ask Jim if he knows more.
The argument for B&B's inclusion rests on the fact that it concerns the roleplaying of anthropomorphic animals, a core activity of furry fandom. Its inspiration, Watership Down, is regularly cited as an early example of the genre; we've even had a few MUCKs based on it. It wouldn't be the first time an early work was grandfathered into a later classification. For example, War of the Worlds was called a scientific romance rather than science fiction - because the latter term had not been invented in 1898 - yet it clearly falls into the area now occupied by science fiction, and is referred to (and categorized as such) without the need for explicit references. GreenReaper (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of literature out there saying WotF is sci-fi; so the references are there whether we use choose to use them or not.  Is there any literature saying Bunnies & Burrows is furry?  If not, then we shouldn't treat it as such.  Even if the authors were furries in their spare time, that doesn't support the game's inclusion in that category.  We're not supposed to draw our own conclusions here; we're not a publisher of original thought.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Not that I know of, but most other games in the genre are also classified in such broad-ranging categories as "science fiction" or "fantasy". If B&B would fit into "role-playing games with a predominance of anthropomorphic animal characters" (and there are plenty of sources for this), then what's the difference between saying that and "furry role-playing games"? To me, it's a matter of deductive logic (which has an OR exception): furry fandom centers on material depicting anthropomorphic animals, particularly in a serious (non-trivial) way. Furry role-playing games are role-playing games featuring such anthropomorphic animals. B&B features such anthropomorphic animals, therefore it is a furry RPG. GreenReaper (talk) 10:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be using a different definition of anthropomorphic to the one I remember.  Anthropomorphic means 'human shaped' - the bunnies in B&B are explicitly not.  So if furry is equated with anthropomorphic, then B&B is definitely not furry.  However, if furry is equated with adoption by furry fandom, then it may be furry; but that's not something we can deduce, so we need references to show that, or the link is OR and must be removed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The definition of anthropomorphism is much wider than that:
Wikipedia: "Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, natural and supernatural phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts." (note the bunny rabbit on that page)
American Heritage® Dictionary: "Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena."
Answers.com Literary Glossary: "The presentation of animals or objects in human shape or with human characteristics. The term is derived from the Greek word for "human form". The fables of Aesop, the animated films of Walt Disney, and Richard Adams's Watership Down feature anthropomorphic characters." GreenReaper (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, fair enough.  To qualify for the OR exemption, though, you have to show that it's uncontroversial.  The fact that we're having this conversation means there's some controversy.  So I would still like to see a referenced paragraph, probably under 'Reception', stating the game's place in Furry Fandom; or for the tag and category to be removed.  Preferably the former. Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Taking a look at the history of Furry fandom, A Chronology of Furry Fandom, indicates Watership Down as an influence on furry culture (proto-furry as it were). A game based on this book would then be considered proto-furry as well. [split]

No.  Without an outside reference, that's drawing our own conclusion.  That's forbidden by WP:NOT and WP:OR.  However, if you've a reliable source to show it's considered furry, please add it. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
There is an article at WikiFur (basically a REALLY old version of this article - but its there). But more importantly of all, the RPG community does consider it a furry game here. (Mmm... now to fit this into the article). Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, fitting it into the article - with references - is what I'm asking for.  Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been a month and a half, and nothing has been added to the article which so much as mentions furry fandom, so I'm removing the navbox and category.  I'd be happy to see it added back, but only with some referenced supporting evidence. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have posted this article on a few wikiprojects requesting their comments before I submit it for general editor review. I am fairly confident that the article is now sufficiently cleaned up, and would like to start working toward making it a featured article.  Yes, I am nuts. Thank you for your input. Turlo Lomon (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of good facts here. I think the article could do with a focus on style and copy-editing- the history degenerates into a listing of information items at the end. With tighter language, it has a real chance for - at least - good article status. I've written a condensed and reworded summary for Portal:Furry; perhaps you will find it useful. GreenReaper (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried to tighten up the history section by combining some of the information that was given.  I also changed the references to appear in two-column format (in Firefox at least), but there seems to be some rendering bug in my version of the browser as I get two columns, because instead of two columns of (about) equal length, I get one long one and one that only has two refs in it.  Your mileage may vary.  I think the article looks quite good now.  Very nice work Turlo Lomon!  I think it's pretty clsoe to GA standards and you should submit it as a GA nomination.  --Craw-daddy | T | 14:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S.  It just occurred to me that the lead should probably be expanded a bit.  I'm not quite sure what would be most appropriate here, but I think the manual of style (and/or WP:LEAD) suggests that the lead should be a little longer than the couple of sentences that are there now.  I will try to give this some thought.  --Craw-daddy | T | 14:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. Should we move the publications above gameplay? Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but others should certainly chime in here with their opinion too.  --Craw-daddy | T | 09:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The list of publications is less important, as they're already detailed in prose form in the history section. Gameplay is important: it should be fairly high up, and highlights from that section should form part of the lede. GreenReaper (talk) 09:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bunnies & Burrows/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
Some of the parenthetical prose could be tightened up, e.g. "As such, the game emphasized role-playing over combat for, (as Steffan O'Sullivan described the situation), "You're playing a rabbit, after all – how much combat do you want to do?"" and "The editor of Steve Jackson Game's former Illuminati website acknowledged that Steffan received his wish, and kept the original conversion article online"--who? "Nevertheless, in spite of these first impressions, the game has generally received positive reviews"--lose either the "nevertheless" or the "in spite of"  A couple of other nits: Fictive vs. fictional, is there a difference that prompts using the less common word? "modern role-playing games today" is redundant.
A couple of those errors were ones I mistakenly introduced, and they should be taken care of now. I left the "The editor of Steve Jackson Game's..." as I figure Turlo Lomon will be in a better place to decide how to handle that. - Bilby (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be easy enough to track down who was the editor the magazine at the time, but unfortunately, those sites are blocked while I am at work. I may not be able to get to this until Friday morning. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Editor name now added with source. Turlo Lomon (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
The Watership Down reference is actually reference 2, not 3... unless 3 also covers the same material?
Reference 3 makes the same claim. I included it because, as a published book, it seemed like a slightly more reliable source, but I'm very happy to replace it with 2 if you wish. - Bilby (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we can't have multiple references attached to it? Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
A few nits.  I'm probably being a little harder on this because I already was familiar with your efforts to drive to GA, and I don't want to appear biased.  Still, I have no doubt you'll be able to improve these in short order.  ON HOLD for up to a week. Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I want you to be hard on this article, so I appreciate the time and effort you have gone through to review it. Rest assured, the team at WP:RPG will make sure all of these changes will be made in quick order. Turlo Lomon (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


### Second pass
Here's a few more things I've seen.

"Finally, it is the first role-playing game to appeal equally to women as well as men."--This and the corresponding statements from ref [2] should be attributed to O'Sullivan in the text.  It's his opinion, and may or may not be fact.
"However, the poor production values provided a barrier to the acceptance of the game: the art, illustrated by Charles Loving, was "sketchy and of poor quality", while the document as a whole gave the appearance of having been typewritten."  Break this up... it seems slightly run-on-ish, and the opening "however" doesn't seem to logically follow well from the previous sentence.
I'm going to pass it now, but please go ahead and make appropriate changes to address these concerns. Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

These should be fixed now. Thanks for your time in reviewing this. Turlo Lomon (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Just my 2cents.  Excellent work everyone I am very pleased that this article about a vital, but often overlooked, bit of RPG history has done so well. Web Warlock (talk) 11:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

This quote...

first role-playing game to have detailed martial arts rules
What is it referencing? Anyone have page number? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A friend runs a games shop in Georgia: it’s through him I learnt there’s a third edition on Kickstarter.
Can someone add something about it to this page … ?
JUST a thought … 
Cuddy2977 (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)