Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 2

message: Does anyone else find it problematic including 'the secret of NIMH' and 'watership down' as media that are seen as furry-related? Even the 'redwall' series is debatable, because by the same logic the 'narnia' series should be here, along with 'wind in the willows' ... it has to be acknowledged that for something to be "furry" it is more than just anthropomorphic animals because none of the above examples are "furries".
: There was a link to this page in the article at one time.  It appears to have been removed.  Probably because it's an Amazon page.  It should have been replaced with a link to the official Ursa Major Awards site.  Anyway, this explains very clearly the genre in question.  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/guides/guide-display/-/1EKGG0RXMUDYH/102-2220920-5593768 Dr. Righteous 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listed examples 

message: As much as I think WikiFur is a great resource, and although I do appreciate the spirit in which it was added, I do not feel that having this header at the top of the page is appropriate. Wikipedia's content should come first - let them look in the see also for more information. :-)
----
	For more information on the furry fandom, please reference the Wikicities project WikiFur.
----
Perhaps it would work better as a little side box in the See also section, as used by the various Wikimedia Foundation projects? GreenReaper 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a box in See also instead. How does it look? GreenReaper 22:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve. -kotra 01:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiFur box 

message: This has been removed:
"The comparison of the famous sex appeal of the Star Trek character Spock is often given as an example of a non-controversial variant, since he is at least technically no more human than a typical humanoid furry character."
It is a good example of original research. This is not a documented viewpoint, and therefore is likely simply the viewpoint of one editor. Or it is one editor reflecting what they experience as a common argument--which is original research. Expounding upon what to you is common sense (but is not repeated by published sources) is not okay. I could write something relatively encyclopedic-looking about how elves are not human either, yet are sex symbols. I could tie furry fandom to Orlando Bloom. But since wikipedia isn't a lazy persons publisher, it is more appropriate to not do so and to remove original research. Lotusduck 21:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this section speculates as to the feelings someone might have to their furry avatar. It's speculative, and maybe insulting. All it does is explain what an avatar is and then over-verbosely say that they like their avatars and use their avatars to represent themselves. This section does nothing more than a "See also: Avatar (virtual reality)" added in. 
Furry fans' personal characters (sometimes referred to by furries as "fursonas" or "personal furries") are usually based on their creators' personality or even a whimsical or sexual fantasy. They may become an online handle by which the fan will present themselves to other furries. Due to the isolation of the web, when furry fans meet one another in person, they may be more familiar with one another's online personas than with their real identities.
Furry fans often have strong feelings towards their animal personas or feel that they share a spiritual bond with the animal that their fursona is based upon. These feelings usually spur them on to create or commission artwork, stories, or fursuits featuring them.
Lotusduck 04:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Likely original research 

message: The article said
:"Content created by furry fans on the World Wide Web covers a wide range of interests, including fantasy, philosophy, recipes, sex, politics, religion and lifestyle."
But I've removed "Recipes" because it seems to be nonsense and now the article says:
:"Content created by furry fans on the World Wide Web covers a wide range of interests, including fantasy, philosophy, sex, politics, religion and lifestyle."
But I'm just posting this in case anyone thinks "recipes" should be in there for some reason which I can think of because I've never come across a furry cookery site. Beno1000 22:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be entirely surprised if there were a furry cooking site out there somewhere. (With things like West Gate Of Moria Fudge out there, it's dangerous to assume the non-existence of anything.) Still, it's a bit of a non-sequitir there. Zetawoof(ζ) 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know where it comes from.  The Carspeckens, who create the popular furry comic “Faux Pas,” have another series called “Sweet Treats.”  It’s a series of cookbooks hosted by an anthro fox girl.  The word was probably included in the line to show the diversity of furry creativity. Perri Rhoades 23:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, you just beat me to it. Sweet Treats - Easy-To-Make Dessert Recipes from the Kitchen of Marsha Redfox. There is also the new Recipe Portfolio and the Cake Portfolio. GreenReaper 23:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So... I guess the question now is whether it's a notable enough interest in the fandom for inclusion there. Also, I didn't include it in the spoken article recording I made earlier either, so I guess it's too late to put into that if we do decide it should be in there. Beno1000 00:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I thought it justified the whole line, if the purpose of the line is to demonstrate the extreme range of furry creativity.  The line isn't really about how popular or prolific the types of creativity are.  It's purpose is to give the reader a sense of how far reaching the applications of the furry arts are.  As such, I think it could use a little expanding, rather than trimming.  And some citations could be thrown in to demonstrate how the furry arts are applied to these things.  Like, next to the word “recipes” there could be a link to the Sweet Treats page. Perri Rhoades 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a word which seems to be nonsense. 

message: Adding one (1) anti-fur link is not against wikipedia policy.  There are no rules against showing a different perspective (furspective? Yuk Yuk!) on a topic.
Yes, Mr. Anonymous IP, I, as a "member of the furspiracy," am going to leave this where it is for now. Other editors: discussion, please - are these lovely links (which have been removed several times now) appropriate for this article? Opinions, please, so we can have a consensus on the addition. Tony Fox 04:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The furry fandom has nothing to do with any type of real world sex.  It's a completely fantasy based fandom.  Adding lifestyle to the furry fandom page confuses the issue a little.  I could advise you to bump it into the lifestyler section.  But lifestyle is more like religion or philosophy.  It also has no direct connection to any real world sex.  If bestiality belongs anywhere, it belongs on a sexual fetish page.  There's no a way bestiality link belongs here.  Scrap it please, and scrap 4chan while you're at it.  Last I heard, 4chan had banned furry art.  It's an anime site. Perri Rhoades 06:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Members of the Furspiracy 

message: I think there ought to be a reference made to the fact that some furry fans, and (in my experience anyway) most furry lifestylers, refer to themselves as "furs", not as "lifestylers". (We're just lazy, that's all.) I'm not sure where to put it, though, as it doesn't need a whole paragraph, just a passing reference. Loganberry (Talk) 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Furs"? 

message: I've started a section of furry userboxes. It is small at the moment, but if anyone has any ideas, you can create your own userboxes by joining the WikiProject Userboxes. To see the current userboxes, see Userboxes/Books. ISD 09:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Furry Userboxes 

message: I removed the following sentence from the article:
:Despite their wild image from Vanity Fair, MTV and CSI, furry conventions aren't about kinky sex between weirdos gussied up in foxy costumes, "Fur Ball In The Works", Pittsburgh City Paper, 2/2/2006, but instead about people talking and drawing animals and comic-book characters in sketchbooks.  "Animal Passions: The furries come to town — and our correspondent tails along", Pittsburgh City Paper, 6/29/2006
It's quite POV, and I'm not sure how to rephrase it in a more neutral way. It's also somewhat redundant, Vanity Fair etc. are already mentionend a paragraph earlier, and it's already made clear by then that these media portrayals aren't that near to reality. Oh, and furry conventions aren't all about drawing animals, either. There's alot more to do. :) --Conti|✉ 12:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've readded the sentence as these are not POV statements, but in fact direct quotes from recently published articles on furry fandom. —Xydexx 13:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then they should be marked as direct quotes, as they are now. It's POV to pretend that newspaper quotes are facts. It's pretty much the opinion of the newspaper article, as "Furries are people in fursuits having sex" is the opinion of (sadly, many) other articles. I'm fine with the way it is now. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought that quote came from the fursecution vandal, not a newspaper.  What paper?  It wasn't the http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/Image:M8hc03.jpg Kimblery Hicks Free Times?  DyslexicEditor 09:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the references and stop trolling, please. The article you link to is fake. --Conti|✉ 14:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thing is I checked the references and I can't find the quote "Furries are people in fursuits having sex" so I figured it either was not actually said in a paper or was in the Kimblerly Hicks.  Was the Kimblerly Hicks fake, you're sure?  DyslexicEditor 02:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, see here for an article discussing it.  And as added corrobration, here's a link discussing the (and I quote) "sleepy burg of Richmond, Oregon". --Dajagr 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  DyslexicEditor 10:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry for calling you a troll. I did not allude to any real paper with my quote, it's just the messasge that comes across when you watch the MTV or CSI stuff. --Conti|✉ 14:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you forget how star trek and star wars fans are portrayed in the media.  They'd probably prefer to be thought of as their fandom getting them laid.  Even worse portrayal is the UFO convention people.  DyslexicEditor 22:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that "getting laid" is generally percieved as a benefit, it is not so beneficial when half of the people concerned think that you are getting laid with a) animals, or b) plushies, as with a large proportion of media portrayals. :-) GreenReaper 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed sentence