Talk:Furry lifestyler

message: Removed the following para:
The 3rd case, especially, is often supported by those believing it with anecdotes, strong "hunches" and other "soft" evidence. Since nobody has tried to perform a scientific study, and likely even have concieved of how to conduct one, someone with a furry lifestyle might easily be dismissed as having psychological faults. On the other hand, it's hard for anyone not to admit that the world doesn't exactly correspond with scientific thought, and strange people and strange events seem to pop up all the time. It is up to the reader to decide personally the truth of these claims.
The article was interesting until this bit which didn't really add anything and seemed to wander off on a gentle rant... - darkov
"...some negative images associated with it and particular people who claim to be lifestylers" - perhaps a good idea to explain a little? Loganberry 13:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of doing that, I've simply taken out the first paragraph, which didn't really belong up there, and incorporated its important parts into the article later on. Loganberry 00:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: On wikifur I saw they have furry lifestyler and they compared it to trekkie lifestyler (maybe something else I read).  Also responding to Tony Fox, I mentioned that sex stuff was mentioned here and the sex stuff seemed a lifestyler thing to me rather than simple fandom.  I'll draw a neutral comparisson.  A fan of a science fiction show vs. a fan that has a fetish for the alien women on the show (provided the alien women look radically different and not are just something trivial like ears or nose.)  DyslexicEditor 21:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think someone did, but it wasn't deleted . . . GreenReaper 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think the important bits have been moved. I'll take a look at what's been included in the Furry fandom article, see if anything's missing, then change this to a redirect tonight. Tony Fox (speak) 20:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked, and it looks like the important bits have been merged appropriately. I'm going to redirect. If anyone has suggestions for additions, remember that the history remains in place, and you can go to the redirect page by using the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_lifestyler?redirect=no and going from there. (Probably relatively common knowledge, but I figured I'd make it easy.) Tony Fox (speak) 04:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chitchat about merger 

message: The article as it stands after being recreated from the redirect has little to stand alone from the Furry fandom article; what's here could easily be included there, and pretty much is, from what I can see. Is there enough about the lifestyler concept to stand alone in terms of references? Personally I doubt there is, and don't think it would stand another AFD. I'd be interested in further discussion; my view is that this should be redirected as before. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorporating previous versions of this article, plus citations from aforementioned books and (possibly, don't know if their license would still allow it) information incorporated from Wikifur, would make this a properly-cited article of about 20k-30k or so.  Almafeta (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiFur's licence is under cc-by-sa-3.0 exclusively (ie not GFDL as well). Does that help? Loganberry (Talk) 20:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiFur is also available under the GFDL except for versions that are brought in from a third-party CC-BY-SA-only source. That does not mean you have to use it, of course, but for Wikipedia it would probably be a good idea. The GFDL requires you either to provide a history or to cite the last five substantive authors; CC-BY-SA requires you to link the article. GreenReaper (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the authoritative correction! It's a real shame that (even though largely for unavoidable historical reasons) so many free resources don't simply have one licence for everything, no exceptions. It really would make transfers massively easier if you didn't have to keep looking up whether stuff under licence A could be included in an article under licence B, or vice versa, or both, or neither! Loganberry (Talk) 14:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in most cases people just want CC-BY-SA, so that is what we advertise. The cost of providing GFDL too is relatively low, and mostly paid already (writing WikiFur:Copyrights). But this is getting off-topic. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 13:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

text: FYI, Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA now. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. Zetawoof(ζ) 15:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very much aware of the licensing change. :-) Wikipedia now allows the import of CC-BY-SA-only material; however as the GFDL is still offered where possible it is still preferable to import under both CC-BY-SA and GFDL. GreenReaper (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recreation vs. redirect