Talk:Furry fandom/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Toonmorphic

Anyone have any reference for the "toonmorphic" comment in the article? I Googled on the term and got exactly one hit—this article. --Dajagr 01:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The term is apparently only used by one person. Removed. GreenReaper 04:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, which means that there's only one person who knows what in the tapdancing hell that word is supposed to mean. Good call. --Luigifan 11:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. June 20, 1996. How did they dredge up that word...? -kotra 00:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no freakin' clue... --Luigifan 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Art sites

I suggest mentioning some of the sites that are - for the fandom - notable somewhere in the article. Lunus 19:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean, sites like Fan Art Central? --Luigifan 11:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, I don't know that particular site. But yeah, Furaffinity, VCL, stuff like that. Lunus 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, like that, but sites that are, not sites that aren't. :-) GreenReaper 16:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, which ones are the sex symbols?

Could anybody provide a list of which kinds of anthropomorphic animals are most commonly used as sex symbols? --Luigifan 11:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Zig Zag is the most obvious, so that will give you a start. ISD 11:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he meant species, not individual characters. Foxes come to mind as one of the most popular. Bunnies are probably near the top of the list too. Beyond that, just about any species that's popular in general among furry fans is popular as a sex symbol - felines, mice, squirrels, skunks and otters come to mind. --Mwalimu59 13:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's kinda like saying "what kinds of women are most commonly used as sex symbols?" - Californian movie actresses? Given the fandom, just about anything can be a sex symbol, and often is. I wouldn't disagree with the above, but there are artists who can make just about anything look sexy if they put their minds to it. GreenReaper 16:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did mean "which species are used as sex symbols." Also, my inquiry was directed to which species are most commonly used as sex symbols. --Luigifan 17:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with being curious, but let's not get too far off-topic here, 'kay? This is a page for discussing work on the Furry fandom article, not a discussion forum about furry fandom. (If you're asking the question for something you plan to include in the article, a little more context might not hurt!) --Dajagr 18:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised to find that Wikipedia does not have an article on fertility symbols or sexual symbolism. Might have to add that to the Requested articles page.

Anyway, going from recollection, rabbits are an age-old fertility symbol. For obvious reasons. Horses have been fertility symbols in some cultures, representing strength and virility. There are many, many more, but a Google search on those topics should help. This isn't limited to the fandom, but the fandom tends to draw from those old symbols when interpreting characters.

... although I'm not sure where foxes come off as subby gay sex fiends in ancient lore. ;) -- Kesh 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Cats and Foxes are a good place to start. Bluefire princess 11:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Public opinion

It's said on the page that the general public are opening up. I'm not quite sure about that. Are those who like this sort of thing considered losers? Do the stereotypes still prevail? The last section is a good closing for the article, but sometimes it feels like people still think it's all about sex and suits. All SMiles 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that section is more focussed on media coverage than public opinion - they're not the same thing, though when done well it can come close. I'd suggest you visit WikiFur's timeline of media coverage and judge for yourself. Frankly I think the best (read: most accurate) coverage in recent months has been from Scarlet, with Utter Furversion!, in part because at least they made it clear that they were trying to focus on the erotic side of things. I suspect we'll see another burst of publicity in a few months when Anthrocon comes around, and I expect it to be fairly neutral/positive. It's one thing to point and laugh at a few freaks in costume at a Holiday Inn, but quite another when they're filling the David L. Lawrence Convention Center.

It's hard to know what the general public actually thinks about furries, but most probably don't have they faintest idea the fandom exists. Online, there is an (accurate) perception that furries are often sensitive to criticism, and so they are often made a target by those who do know better, but are looking to get a few cheap kicks. Such people will say it's "all about sex and suits" because it makes a great forum topic. Unfortunately that's often the first introduction to the topic for the other members of the forum, and so they take it at face value.

The UC Davis survey gives a good idea of the stereotypes that are actually true within the fandom, at least demographically. Many of them could apply to any fan activity, though. Furries tend to get picked on because they're the young one - and, as noted above, are somewhat sensitive about it. GreenReaper 23:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of that beforehand, and apparently, there hasn't been a lot of progress in the last few years apart from AC 2006. Yeah, the US newspapers are being fair, but, for recent examples, The Sun, something called f news, and, to sort of a lesser extent, TV3 in New Zealand, aren't. I don't like to think of this art as porn, but it's the interest I have in the space that porn takes up in most minds. I don't like porn. I don't see a lot of porn. I don't like to think of the fandom as just an orgy. But what do I know? I'm not an active participant. I've been viewing the art for five years, and saw some of the good and the bad about this fandom. Anyway, I hear I'm not supposed to be using this as a forum, but I have to get this off my chest somehow.

Anyway, thanks, good points.

All SMiles 23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

furries are considered to be sad and pathetic losers by other people, both on and offline. this article fails to provide a npov, probably due to the fact that it was written by furries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.25.164 (talk)

Babyfur

Somebody should add info about babyfur to this. I have neither the time, nor the experence to do so. BOB10011001 07:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There's plenty at WikiFur, but I'm not sure of anything there that would be considered a reliable source. GreenReaper 08:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, "babyfur" is simply a sub-genre of Infantilism or Age play. Given the sheer vastness of sexual interests available to humanity, I don't see a point in adding each furry-related one to the article. I have, for instance, seen "latex furs," "macrofurs" and "transfurs" used as terms within the community, but they're really just furry sub-genres of latex/rubber play, macro/size play and transgender play (respectively).

In short, babyfurs aren't really a notable genre of their own outside the fandom, and I'd be surprised to find any verifiable info published about them. -- Kesh 16:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

featured candidate?

I remember this article years ago and it was unsourced and full of POV pushing. I later looked a year maybe ago and it was back and forth POV edit warring. Now it's high quality beyond most articles on Wikipedia. I think it's quality is good enough to be featured. What do people here think? SakotGrimshine 07:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I think it should be put forward. Do you think that the continued vandalism would be a problem though? ISD 07:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the vandalism is a problem as it's not part of the normal article. Someone can semi-protect it if they want. I'm sure articles about people like George W. Bush get more vandalism. SakotGrimshine 07:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can nominate it, but I doubt it'll get very far; I can't put my finger on it, but something just isn't right about this one. \: Blast ^{[improve me]} 13.06.07 1110 (UTC)

Needs "moar" pictures. The trouble is finding ones that belong here rather than fursuit or furry convention (which might also scrape into good article territory). I'll see if I can drum up some later. GreenReaper 16:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes! That's it; and you even got the spelling right. ;) Blast ^{[improve me]} 15.06.07 0305 (UTC)

The issue is, most images of furry fandom work will be derivative works, and so require free-license releases for use. I suspect I can manage that though. One request pending, will look for other possibilities. GreenReaper 07:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think it's up to that standard I would suggest peer review first; if you do that please mention it here so that people can take action on the responses. GreenReaper 16:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is up to featured quality yet. There are still "citation needed" tags and redlinked articles in here. A peer review might be helpful, as GreenReaper pointed out. -- Kesh 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism 2

I realize that the edits to this page are controlled by furries, but couldn't they at least allow a criticism section?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.228.61 (talk • contribs) 07:02, June 15, 2007

They're not "controlled by furries," but no one has of yet been able to provide critical articles that satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. Wikipedia deals in facts, not opinions. Besides, an article doesn't need a separate criticism section to be neutral. -- Kesh 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The biggest issue I have with such sections on any article is that they're almost immediately recognizable as "some editor thought this fact was bad". For example, the statement "Furries make Jesus cry" is not necessarily good or bad. It just is (presuming it is adequately referenced, of course). But put it into a section marked "criticism", and it becomes tainted with the opinion of the editor. A real-life example of what might be put in is "furries are often accused of being sexually promiscuous within the group of furries" [1]. GreenReaper 08:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

To further back GR up, note Wikipedia:Criticism and Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Article structure. Blast ^{[improve me]} 18.06.07 0255 (UTC)

Plenty of controversial topics on Wikipedia have criticism sections. Why not this one? Funkynusayri 22:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because, Funkynusayri, those articles are not in line with the policy. If you see such an article, please fold the information into the article where appropriate, unless it is absolutely vital for some reason that the criticism section be left intact. Blast ^{[improve me]} 19.06.07 1930 (UTC)

Is furry fandom a controversial topic? (I'm not trying to mock or be facetious, but it is a reasonable question.) --Mwalimu59 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons cited above, which I will reiterate here: a criticism section is not necessary for NPOV; a criticism section can itself indicate a biased POV, and the attempted criticism sections to date have so far been composed almost entirely of unverifiable claims and original research. --Dajagr 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mwalimu, this very talk-page would confirm that it is a controversial topic. And Dajagr, why not create a sober critisism section yourselves (I assume the main editors of this page are furry fans) to shut potential vandalisers up? Funkynusayri 22:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Because repeating a baseless accusation on the talk page a bunch of times doesn't change the fact that the accusation is baseless. Considering the page already includes negative publicity furry fandom has received, people are just trying to manufacture controversy where none exists. —Xydexx 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You haven't spent a lot of time on the internet, have you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.31.233 (talk)

He has. --Mwalimu59 16:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism 3

Whoa, what happened to the criticism and media coverage? By all means, submit this for arbitration if a few editors are making it biased. This article completely omits negative press coverage. Zeality 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The "media coverage" section is a joke, highly apologetic, and if a criticism page is too inappropriate, at least let a non Furry rewrite the media coverage section. Funkynusayri 21:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What specifically do you think is so inaccurate about the current media coverage section? If you believe it is unbalanced, please feel free to suggest changes that would make it more balanced. --Mwalimu59 21:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Furry fandom#Media coverage clearly discusses the negative press, so I'm not sure what you mean. -- Kesh 03:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what happens sometimes is that people have a preconceived notion of what furry fandom is like based on the media portrayals and the stereotypes, and they believe their impression is basically accurate. Then they read the Wikipedia article, and when it doesn't bear out the view of furry fandom they were expecting, they assume the article must be biased. --Mwalimu59 15:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added a citation-needed template after the statement of the recent media trend, since I can see how that could be taken as bias (and in fact I do consider it biased), but perhaps it should be taken out altogether, since its verifiability is suspect in my opinion. Blast ^{[improve me]} 20.06.07 1615 (UTC)

The identification of a trend is original research unless that identification has been made by a reliable source. GreenReaper 21:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mwalimu59, the exact argument you've put forward was mentioned previously [2], and is in fact almost evidence in itself of an editorial bias regarding this article. I'd go on, but I'd just be repeating the same thing NeoFreak and I (I'm 85.210.50.158) said back then. Unfortunately nothing seems to have changed, and I still think this article warrants a POV tag until it's no longer dominated by editors who - possibly even unbeknownst to themselves - have a vested interest in keeping the article free of any information which might be considered to cast a negative light on the fandom. The fact the talk page is inundated with regular complaints of impartiality would seem to me to be evidence that there's a grain of truth to it, even if a proportion of the complaints are unfounded. --81.178.233.111 02:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You've still not actually provided examples of POV wording in the article, nor reliable sources of criticism. If you'd do so, it would give your accusations more weight. Right now, it sounds more like you have your own POV you want to insert into the article, but I'm attempting to WP:AGF. Do you have specific issues with the article, or sources of criticism that should be included? -- Kesh 02:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Been over all this in the original discussion linked to. Like I said, I'd just be repeating myself. --81.178.233.111 20:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No good answers were given there, either, just a "feeling of general unease", and a concern about tone without any specifics. If you expect us to do something about it, you have to tell us what is wrong, or fix it yourself. GreenReaper 22:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, what I'm suggesting is done to fix it is that other editors' concerns aren't just dismissed as baseless and that people lose the notion that they have to use this article to "set straight" the media potrayal.

Just from scrolling down the last half-dozen edits I was able to find an example [3] of the kind of subtle POV-pushing that goes on at this article, albeit a very minor incident in itself, it's taking place constantly, with the the self-proclaimed furry editors often labelling these editors trolls and thus preventing the article from becoming more neutral. I do think however, that many of these editors may genuinely be oblivious to these POV elements, even though it would seem to be obvious to others (again, going by the amount of complaints of bias this page generates).

In that particular case 147.126.31.168 would seem to be correct, and Mwalimu59 should have to find a reference that justifies use of the word "many" in this context, rather than just one or even several reported incidents. Or perhaps it would be better to be more exact and state something along the lines of "there have been several incidents of" with appropriate references. --81.178.233.111 07:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Thank you for pointing that one out. I agree that the "many" bit was too vague and reverted Mwalimu59's edit until more sources can be found to expand that statement. Note that we are not "dismiss(ing) as baseless" other editor's changes unless they are trolling (such as the "furfags" edit). Again, you seem to be putting too much emphasis on furry editors. Mistakes will happen, but discussing specific problems here can lead to improving the article. The vague claims of bias that flood this page don't actually help anything, and are reminiscent of the general "furries are weird" comments strewn over the Internet. I'm only interested in a neutral, well-verified article here, so if you (or any other editor) notes specific issues with NPOV in the article, please point them out on the Talk page and we can discuss them. -- Kesh 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Some further reflection here on the issues of criticism and bias in the article... As a mental exercise, I'm trying to think outside the box here and think about other similar kinds of fandom - anime, SCA, Trekkies, Sci-Fi, Star Wars, to name a few. I've never been involved in any of these fandoms so I can't speak from personal experience, but then maybe that just means I have an outsider's view of these fandoms. When I think about these fandoms, what they're about, what I might expect a Wikipedia article about them to cover, it is not obvious to me why there would need to be a criticism section in those articles. Likewise, on the bias issue, it is not obvious what would constitute biased coverage of these fandoms. Again, this is based on my limited knowledge as a non-participant in them.

We've challenged the critics here to point out examples of bias in the article on furry fandom, or of what might belong in a criticism section that isn't better covered elsewhere in the article. Maybe it would clear things up if we took a little different approach here. What types of things would constitute bias in a fandom article? What would belong in a criticism section? I'm only asking for hypothetical examples here from fandom-type articles, not actual ones from the furry fandom article. Maybe once we have a better idea what kinds of things we should be addressing in other similar kinds of articles, it will enable us to better address any actual perceived shortcomings in this article specifically. --Mwalimu59 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a NPOV template on the top of the article because it is excessively biased in favor of furries. Most people, thankfully, do not share this positive view of furrydom, and this should be reflected in the article. I understand wiki is pro-fur, given there is a whole project dedicated to furry articles (...) however the majority of people think the furry fandom is perverse. why was my tag removed? "Furry fandom is a fandom distinguished by its enjoyment of anthropomorphic, often humanoid, animal characters." distinguished? such language connotes an overly pro-furry POV, which is not encouraged at Wikipedia. The template should remain. (68.195.25.164 02:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC))

To prevent edit wars over POV tags, a comment was added to the top of the article asking editors to bring up their concerns on the talk page first. I believe this was agreed on by all active editors at the time. Since then, some editors have added tags to make specific, constructive comments, and those have been left in there. The use of the word "distinguished" is in the sense of "set apart from other such things" as defined at wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn -- but if you think it's confusing, edit it to some other wording. --Rat at WikiFur 03:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, "distinguished" in that usage indicates "defined as," or something similar, which doesn't seem POV to me. Got any suggestions as to what to add, that is properly and reliably sourced to make the article more neutral in your viewpoint? Tony Fox (arf!) 03:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Above I offered the challenge to point out hypothetical examples of what types of things might make an article on any fandom biased, especially if it is as you put it, "excessively biased", or what types of criticism are generally considered appropriate for a fandom-type article. I'd be curious to see your response. --Mwalimu59 03:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Furry

Blast-san has proposed the creation of a WikiProject (guide) to better organize the maintenance of furry-related articles on Wikipedia. GreenReaper 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Long over due. NeoFreak 21:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Let's go for it. ISD 09:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• WikiProject Furry is underway! ISD 16:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yay! Or something. Let's get to work. Bengaley 17:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Editors should be advised that shortly after approval, WikiProject Furry was for some reason altered in both project name and scope to cover anthropomorphism in general. Those who wish to see this WikiProject restored to its original name and purpose of covering furry fandom should join the discussion already in progress. -Ochlophobia

*gasp!* Haha, on a more serious note interested editors should come on over and sign up now. Alot of decisions are being made now that will effect the wikiproject for some time. The more editors we get on board at the start the less work that will have to done later. So come on down! NeoFreak 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseless Accusations of Bias

Hey, anyone else getting tired of the baseless accusations of bias that folks keep spamming all over the talk page? Can we maybe archive some of it so we can focus on article improvement? —Xydexx 00:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We're going to need to archive this page at some point anyway—it's getting rather lengthy in the dental area—but I don't think it should be to obfuscate potentially valid concerns (and I'm saying this both as a furry and a dedicated Wikipedia editor). Blast ^{[improve me]} 21.06.07 0045 (UTC)

Done. -- Kesh

Agreed, and if these are valid concerns, the folks who claim this article is POV need to back up their claims with some facts instead of just making vague accusations and trying to create controversy where there is none. —Xydexx 00:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

True. Otherwise, no matter how thoroughly the article has been scrutinized to make it as NPOV as possible, as long as a few folks wanna complain here that it's POV the tag will be stuck there indefinitely. That does not, to me, sound like a viable long-term solution. --Mwalimu59 01:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I've removed the POV tag, and inserted a comment to future editors to discuss it here before adding the tag back in. -- Kesh 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Obesity in the fandom

Obvious trolling, let's move on. -- Kesh 19:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lets face it, furries are generally far, far fatter than real people. Perhaps some data should be put in, letting the public know that hanging out with 200+ kilo flabtards in rubber suits isn't a fun way to spend an evening? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.99.59 (talk) Find some verifiable sources that say so, and we'll mention it. Octane [improve me] 03.07.07 0256 (UTC) Ok, now uploading every photo taken at every furrycon ever in the history of civilization. Please wait.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.99.59 (talk) 03:06, July 3, 2007 Since when do furries wear rubber suits? Usually people stereotype furries as fursuit-wearers... rubber is a new one to me. And "real people" was funny to me. But no. Photos, by themselves, aren't verifiable sources. If there was a study about obesity in the furry fandom, that could be a verifiable source. Otherwise, I don't think anyone will take you seriously. Wikipedia is about facts, not personal observations. Also, I would hazard that furries are comparable in overweightness to other geeky fandoms like comics, sci-fi, anime, etc. -kotra 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

High Quality Pictures - criteria for usage?

What exactly are we looking for in pictures for use for this page? Down here in Southern California, there are quite a few people with professional photography skills and equipment, and I'm certain that I can convince at least one of them to create and release a few pictures into Wikipedia Commons for usage.

So, um, what are we looking for, exactly? Bengaley 15:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Profile shots of folks in fursuits? Or at a convention (in addition to the one already there)? If we can get some artists to release their work under a compatible license, that would be a great addition as well. Octane ^{[improve me]} 07.07.07 0235 (UTC)

Well, profile pictures of groups of fursuiters I can do - but the next con I'm attending is in January, so I can't help there... Has anyone asked Nauv for his 'Furry Fandom' picture?

I is a doofus and forgot to sign the above. Bengaley 14:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more pictures of fursuiters. There's one already, and fursuiters aren't representative of the furry fandom anyway. Most furries aren't fursuiters (the UC Davis study says only 18% own fursuits, and I think even that's kind of high). -kotra 04:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

What about high quality images of furry characters? Will they do? ISD 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the issue, is that from my (admittedly small) understanding of Wikipedia, is that the images would have to be released for public use, being put into the public commons... I don't forsee many artists doing so, and I can't blame them. Bengaley 20:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, in the anthropomorphism article, there is an image of Peter Rabbit which is free use. Some images become free use after a certain time, so older images will be easier to use than recent ones. It is of course perfectly reasonable for someone here on Wikipedia to draw a furry character of their own and post an image of it under-free use. ISD 07:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about older images. Some people (well, me at least) consider anthropomorphic animal art before 1980-ish to not be furry, because the word furry (except to mean covered in fur) and the furry fandom didn't exist before then. To me, furry art is the sort of thing you find on VCL or Yerf or places like that. -kotra 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we could get public domain artwork. If someone posted an art request on VCL or something, making it clear that it would be in the public domain or a Creative Commons license (probably more likely, because then they could specify non-commercial use only or require attribution to them), I bet there would still be some takers. They wouldn't have to make any new artwork for it, it could be old artwork, just released into the public domain (or Creative Commons). That is, if there aren't any furry artists here on Wikipedia willing to donate some of their artwork. -kotra 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll put a call out on FA. Kinda hard to do so on VCL - and I've, um, apparently the distinction of the only person kicked off for not having good enough art. Needless to say, I don't like the place =PBengaley 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There may be suitable art available already. WikiFur classifies images by license. Usable art may also already be on WikiMedia Commons already. For photographs, I have a large number of personal image released under free licenses. --Rat at WikiFur 02:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I managed to get permission from Wicked Sairah for Image:GR FC2007 Wicked Creatures Furry Sculptures.jpg. We'll need more than that to show the full range of furry fandom, but eh, it's a start. :-) GreenReaper 00:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Added a few more. Ideally we would have more on the art side of things than the costuming. Feel free to replace the ones that are here with more appropriate ones if you can get permission to use them. GreenReaper 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Furcadia

I thought about, for the erotic section, that maybe we should include like a screen shot of one of the furcadia erotic rooms. Crazy, sad stuff... but relevant never the less. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.46.60.64 (talk • contribs).

That seems like it would be more relevant for Furcadia than for here. Given the user-created content, you'd probably need permission from the people who created the room - assuming they didn't use someone else's content without permission. GreenReaper 14:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, since it would be a screenshot of a copyrighted game, it would also not qualify as fair use because it wouldn't be illustrating the game (instead, it would be illustrating eroticism in the furry fandom), besides free alternatives being available. -kotra 00:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Justification for the article title

I think we need some explaination of why Furries redirects to here. "Furry fandom" is not a really common term; people are going to assume an editorial bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Claytonian (talk • contribs).

As it says in the lede, "members of this subculture are sometimes known as furry fans, furries, or simply furs." The redirect is there because it is the common usage of the term, and because people coming here are likely to get a good understanding of what a furry fan is by reading this article. As far as I know, encyclopedias tend to use the more "official" definition, even if a slang term is in common usage. GreenReaper 00:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Entourage

I hate to have to confirm it, but furry fans were indeed "represented" in Entourage. The ending actually makes Fur and Loathing's portrayal of a furpile look tasteful by comparison. Now, whether or not any of the sources listed there counts as reliable source, I'm not sure . . . GreenReaper 17:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

How were "furry fans" represented? By the studies quoted in Wikipedia's article on furry fandom, only 15-20% of the population has a "fursuit". It can be extrapolated that only a minority of that percentage have sex in them - probably a small minority. Only 20% of the fandom in surveys are female. So, when you're looking at a sample population such as AC, which entails approximately 3000 people, the percentage of Entourage's accurate representation, if one wants to be overly generous, is only 2%, or 60 people (3000 * .2 = 600 * .2 = 120 * .5 [generous estimate] = 60). That hardly seems representative of "furry fans" in general. In reality, it's probably representative of less than 2% of all "furry fans".

That's why I put "represented" in scare quotes. :-) Unfortunately this 2% (probably closer to 0.2%) is then extrapolated to cover the whole term "furry" by those watching the show - after all, they have no reason to think any more of it, and most won't bother to look. Those that do tend to end up here, which works out better. GreenReaper 17:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)