Talk:Furry/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Due to the length of the talk page (97 kilobytes), the oldest discussions were moved to Talk:Furry/Archive 1. Almafeta 08:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furry article becomes redirect

Furry will now be redirecting to the furry fandom article, as I think there's been adequate time for carry-over by those who want to carry pieces of this article there--please direct future edits there and not to the furry page. -- Krishva 07:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

This will be restored in about five minutes. Almafeta 21:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, there has been a general consensus here that the furry article does not, in essence, stand on its own--it's a fandom specific word, the article is essentially about furry fandom. If you have something to say about furry fandom, please put it on the furry fandom article. If you had oppositions to this being merged as other people agreed was appropriate, you should have spoken up earlier. This will be a redirect again. If you have changes please put them in furry fandom, not furry. Thanks. -- Krishva 03:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

There is a consensus of one, that I can see. "Furry" exists as a seperate entity from "furry fandom," and the content that explicitly deals with the furry fandom as it exists today is now in the furry fandom article. Information about the archtype and the modern usage of the word is now in the furry article. So, please stop blanking the page. Almafeta 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see the "Merge with furry fandom" section of discussion on this page. A number of people--all active contributors in this page's history--have agreed that furry and furry fandom should be merged (which is what we have been attempting to do). If you have notes on usage of the word, put it in furry fandom. It does not stand alone--in this article it is even admitted that no one except furries uses this word to refer to an anthropomorphic animal. This topic is not important enough to be separated into two separate articles; notes on the word's usage could easily be provided in a paragraph-long section in furry fandom. The "History" section of this article is summed up in the "History and Inspiration" section of furry fandom. The existence of a separate article is unnecessary. --Krishva 03:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I must concur with Krishva that the merging of these two articles has already been debated to a point where doing such a thing doesn't prevent any information about furries from reaching the internet at large and may in fact be helpful - no harm is done by the redirect, and the furry fandom article already contains a lot of information in this article, and it must also be admitted that a lot of the people maintaining these two pages (furry and furry fandom) have no axe to grind. Furry fandom has the additional benefits of being an article that can combine background of furries and sociological studies of the fandom itself. If, at some point, the furry fandom article becomes too large and unweildly, or if the term 'furry' enters common everyday language, then the furry article may deserve to be resurrected.

Otherwise, if you have an extrordinarily compelling reason for keeping the articles seperate, that directly refutes the reasons in the "merge" section, please enlighten us. -- Stiv 03:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can see where you said that "furry" and "furry fandom" should be the same thing, because in your opinion, only people in the furry fandom use the word. You don't seem to be awared that the term "furry" is entering the mainstream, being used by people who neither identify as furries, nor partake in any part of the furry fandom, to describe a type of art, story, and character. And it is these people who will want to know what the term means, where it came from, and how it is used, without any of the controversy and POV content that a vandal put in some weeks ago which we just finally managed to get moved out of the article.

It is not an opinion; it's a fact. Unless directly referring to the furry subculture itself (amply if not adequately described in the furry fandom article), the word 'furry' is never used. Provide spesific counterexamples, with ample context. -- Stiv 04:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of earlier discussion, Krishva, I can also see links where you talk about the article not being hateful enough, and of where you like to do things like this simply to get attention. Hmm. Almafeta 04:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Those links are from a Google archive older than the internet itself, and were used by Xydexx in an attempt to create controversy and discredit Krishva from fixing factual errors and inappropriate material in the article. Her many edits to the article should speak for her interest in providing a factual and comprehensive article, including usage of lots of neutral language. Please do not waste your time resurrecting another talk page fight and edit furry fandom. -- Stiv 04:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Furry page continously being resurrected when it doesn't provide any information that is different than the furry fandom article? In fact, there is less information! If you wish to add information, please add edits to the Furry Fandom page, not continuing to reopen this page. -- Grumpyhan 04:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because they are different subjects; just being related does not mean merging makes sense. Yes, I agree some content in furry fandom needs to be removed from that page, as it has more to do with the meaning of furry than to do with the fandom. Almafeta 04:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that some stuff from this article should've been at Furry fandom, I don't see a point in redirecting the complete article there. "Furry" is another thing as its fandom, furry can and should be defined (and I agree that it is a term mostly, but not solely, used inside the furry fandom), and the fandom around it can be described. It is not exactly the same thing, and IMHO there shouldn't be a redirect. If there is a real consensus to redirect (I don't see one yet), we should at least make Furry the main article. (We have Goth, but not Goth subculture.) --Conti|✉ 15:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The point is that there only needs to be one article on Goths on wikipedia, and it is the Goth article. There only needs to be one article on furries. It's been determined it should be furry fandom by the people who most frequently edit this article and, presumably, have no vested interest in either promoting or degrading furries/the furry fandom. -- Stiv 02:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Assuming there will be consensus for only one article, that article should be Furry then, that's what I wanted to say. It is simply the most common name for the whole thing. And what do you mean with "people who most frequently edit this article"? I can only interpret that as "we have more to say than you", which sounds quite unfriendly. --Conti|✉ 11:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't just throw my support behind merging the two articles without giving thought to this problem, so I thought I'd explain some of my reasoning to see if you agree. See, whatever's left of the furry article, minus all the fandom stuff, could easily become a wikctionary definition, but I don't think it makes sense to leave it in wikipedia. I'm not sure what kind of information people wanted to leave in the furry article. Now, I know that within furry fandom that a "furry" is an anthropomorphic animal, but that hardly allows the word to have its own wikipedia entry. Unless, of course, you plant to make a page on anthropomorphic animals as created by furry fans, and describe them and such. There are already wiki pages that describe anthropomorphism and genres with anthropomorphized animals, so for the sake of clarity, we have to make a distinction between what a regular anthropomorphic animal is and what a furry is. Then and only then will it be worth it to create a new article under the title furry.

As for choosing furry fandom as the target for the redirect, that was because most of the information on the furry page was directly about the furry fandom. So unless we refer to the furry fans themselves as furries, then furry fandom seems like the most logical place to redirect to.

I hope this helped to clarify some of my own intentions. --Prangton 18:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just so I understand, if Furry was re-written to discuss entirely anthropomorphic artwork, and not discuss those behind it at all, this would be an acceptable answer? Basically have furry==Style and f-Fandom==People?

If so, I could attempt to re-write this page to take that into account.. I'd prefer it to the one-page solution, even if this page were the one page. My reasoning is because the two ideas are seperate.. Even if you argue that Furry artwork is primarily called that by furry fans (of which I disagree, but..) then it's still fair to differentiate the art from people who are fan(atical) about it. It's like redirecting the page on erotica to masturbation.. While they may have something in common, they aren't directly the same thing.

I'd support breaking them up that way, if it were acceptable to others, or, if not, having a small section on fandom at the bottom of Furry. I mean.. Look at Google.. 13,500 for "Furry Fandom", versus 80,500 for "furry art". It's clearly more about art than lifestyle.

I'm not going to argue my point of view any further, really, I've said my piece. But I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to get at, which is that this redirect is to make the information all available in one place, for ease of access. In other words, if people want to find out what this whole furry fandom thing is, they can find out about furry art, furry conventions, fursuits, etc. rather than having to crawl across a sprawling collection of furry-related stubs, which mostly hold the same information anyway. It's not to get rid of information on furries, it's to make it easier to find, and easier to organize.

But I'm perfectly willing to negotiate. I'll ask again, because this is my main point of contention: what would you put on the Furry page, if the fandom-related information is going on furry fandom? I'm asking for actual, encyclopedic stuff, not theories, not glossy generalizations. You don't need to research anything, just give me a summary. My problem with the idea of keeping the Furry page is that I really don't see what can be done with it that can't be done with the furry fandom page. What I was hoping would happen is that if the furry fandom page grew enough, we could then split it into several sections. And sign up already! --Prangton 20:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You pretty much said a good reason why Furry should exist: to clarify and discuss the differences between "furry", "funny animal", "anthropomorph", etc.. And yes, furry fans call themselves indeed "furries", that's another thing this article could describe. A furry is not only the genre (at least for those inside the fandom), but also a person associating him/herself with it. I do think we need to clarify when "furry" is used for things like comic series, and when it should not be used, although this is a pretty disputed issue. So this would make alot of things to write about IMHO. Stuff about furry fandom should be at Furry fandom, but there should be a Furry, either about the things I just mentioned or about its fandom. --Conti|✉ 18:55, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I honestly see no reason when the 'furry fandom' article can't talk about this since this is where the confusion comes in in the first place. When you talk about a 'furry' being something a person describes themselves as that sure sounds like it belongs in furry fandom to me - because now we're talking about a group of people who describe themselves, i.e. a subculture. I don't see any reason for there to be a furry article right now, although I'm definately not against there being one when it's useful or relevant. For the time being furries are (a vast majority of the time) the strict providence of people in the furry fandom or making fun of it or what have you. I see nothing wrong with a redirect and maybe a "What is a furry?" subheading in the furry fandom article. It's not something that takes a lot of explination, since most people are familiar with talking animals and funny animals which furry fandom clearly derives a lot of inspiration from. -- Stiv 02:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't necesarily make more things to write about, but it would cause a lot of rollback wars. I mean it's not like the furry article hasn't already seen its fair share of those. First of all, saying when something is furry or not is entirely a matter of opinion. If you read the talk page, you'll see a great example of this. I personally believe that something can't be described as furry unless it is created from within the furry fandom, but that's only my POV. And like I was saying earlier, the point of this article is not to present points of view. Opinions just don't make encyclopedic knowledge.

While I agree that yes, an article about furries as defined by the furry fandom might be interesting, I don't know if it would be fesable just because of the differences in opinions. This is great material for a personal site, but on Wikipedia I think it's just asking for trouble. Heck, there's a good chance that the furry article will go right back to the way it was before we presented the redirect, full of fandom-related info and a real glossed-over view of furries as created by the furry fandom. Furry fans have a lot riding on the definition of furry, since they use that word to pretty much describe them.

This article is like a postmodernist's nightmare. Jeez. --Prangton 19:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also note the number of pages that link to [furry], not [furry fandom]. In addition, many of the pages which link to 'furry' use it as an adjective to describe a character or setting, which the Furry page describes; pages that link to the Furry Fandom are referring to furry afficionados. Additionally, the number of pages that link to furry is significantly greater than the number that link to furry fandom. This continued blanking of the article goes against accepted Wikipedia usage. Almafeta 03:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you positively insist upon keeping the furry article please merge the furry fandom article into it instead. The work has already been done to merge furry into furry fandom and with good reasons, amply explored above. Furthermore we are not commiting any violence against the page by turning it into a redirect which is quite distinct from blanking it. Please choose your words with care. -- Stiv 03:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I can somewhat understand why people may think that Furry and Furry Fandom could be merged, they are still two entirely different things, one being a style of art (multi-modal), and one being a group of people who are interested in a style of art, role-playing, creative pursuits, and so forth. Yes, there can be a lot of information that is essentially the same in both articles, but only if they're poorly managed. Furry, the art style, has a lot of information that could never apply to the fandom - such as history when this style began and how it's changed - to acceptance in mainstream society, and it's ties with Disney and the cartoon genre, shaman spiritualism and iconography, ancient Egyptian spiritualism (Anubis), and popular media (where anthro/furry characters are showing up, such as Everquest's Vah Shir race to Hollywood films). The fandom aspect has very little do with any of this, and could instead cover everything from cons, to fursuiting, slang, MUCKs, etc.

Furry and the fandom that follows it is about as different as Star Trek is to Trekkies. You wouldn't merge those, now, would you? Arcuras 07:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

This brings up an interesting point. Given how many different definitions of "furry" there are (and the debate over which one is correct), having one article to contain them all seems ridiculous. Maybe "furry" should become a disambiguation page at some point in the future when it's merited. For now, however, there is a "furry art" section in furry fandom because, believe it or not, "furry art" is created by and for the furry fandom. Likewise for spiritualism, etc.

Your Trekkies/Star Trek analogy is bad. Trekkies are a fandom (essentially) and a term to describe it. Star Trek is what the fandom is based on. Furry is a fandom. It is based on anthropomorphic animals. We are not merging the articles for 'furry fandom' and 'anthropmorphic animal' - the term which most people would use to describe what furries call a 'furry'. See above for my comment about the term 'furry' relating spesifically to the fandom itself and nowhere outside of it. -- Stiv 07:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still maintain that Furry is more a style/genre.. It's like saying that Anime is created for Anime-fans. Sure.. You need to have an audience. But the anime page isn't about Anime conventions, Cosplay, and other such things. It's about the type of animation called Anime. A disambiguation page, pointing to Furry fandom and Furry art would also be an fine answer.

I'm not sure what else you'd want to call the type of art where anthropomorphic characters are drawn. You suggest Talking Animals, or Funny Animals, but those are industry terms, not things anyones uses.

I know Google results don't mean much, but I'm not sure how else you describe the style..

"Furry art" 80,500 results

"Funny Animals art" 109

"anthropomorphic animal art" 140

"cartoon animal art" 64

"talking animal art" 0

And just for fun..

"Furry Fandom" 13,500

If you are hell-bent on discussing furry art outside of the furry fandom page by all means go ahead and create a furry art page. I will tell you that it will however be judged on its merits as a standalone article as immediately as possible, so it's probably not in your best interest do to such a thing. You consider furry a style/genre, but at the same time make the argument above about trekkies/star trek, etc. Like many people you seem confused about what the term 'furry' actually means, what the subculture encapsulates, etc. The furry fandom article is a catch-all for these things and that's why we've been using it. I don't believe furry art merits its own article right now (see the talk page for furry fandom - currently there's a discussion about this at the bottom) and should be incorporated into the furry fandom article. It is not hard to link to subheadings of an article, if this is a concern. The point is that there is, at this point, no reason for either a furry or furry art page until the furry fandom page is comprehensive, comprehensible, and up to wikipedia standards. Consolidation of topics should be a major goal of any good encylopedia and wikipedia is no different. I don't see why this is so hard to understand. -- Stiv 08:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am fairly uninterested in continuing this conversation until the asked-for moderation arrives. You weren't named in it, but your concerns mirror some of those already presented. Additionally I think my previous response should be understandable enough for the reasons for the merge. -- Stiv 08:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Terribly sorry to be a wet blanket here, but you ARE aware that furry has been used by the Bent (gay, queer, whatever) community for decades to refer to hairy and/or animalistic homosexuals, correct? This meaning easily predates the Furry fandom and its permutations. I am adding this definition and a link to appropriate article to the main page. Unsinkable 03:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've heard this too, but not even Bear community#Terminology lists that word, so I guess it is not that much used. "Bear" seems to be the dominant word to describe such a thing. --Conti|✉ 11:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Try a Google search. "furry" yields 2.7M hits for a baseline. Roughly half of those also mention gay ("+furry +gay"). Last, "+furry +gay +men" yields 519,000+ results, roughly a fifth of the baseline. I would suggest that, as the entire Bear article approaches the subject as if North Americans invented hairy men, there might be a systemic colonial bias, but I will take that issue up on that forum. As for this disambiguation, I think that the Google hits suggest that a Bear redirect is still valid here. Unsinkable 00:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I think that the google search doesn't mean much here (searching for "gay furry" gives me tons of sites about furries, and almost none about bears), I don't object to the mention of it on this page. I just wanted to note that it's not a really wide used term compared to "bear", and that the mainstream will more likely associate the word with furries. --Conti|✉ 12:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Scottrossi's deletion without discussion was inappropriate, so I reverted it. If he has a valid reason for his revert, he needs to state it here. Yes, there is a discussion in progress on Bear talk, and one of the issues it to make sure that people understand the dual use of the term betwixts furry (gay) and furry (anthropomorphism). If the ONLY meaning for furry was furry fandom, there would be no rationale for a disambiguation page. Google the following string +furry +gay +men [1] to get an idea of the prevalence of this term. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

I'm fine with having that definition on the disambig page, so long as it's at the bottom of the list. Not for any vindictive reasons, but we have to organize the items by order of popularity. Considering that you're the first person to come up and talk about it, I get the impression that at least on Wikipedia it's not searched for with that in mind very often. Also, Google is not a very reliable source of common usage, especially in this case where we have a word with many meanings. There are LOTS of gay men who are furries, but not in the bear sense, which skews the results. But doing that google search, it's pretty obvious that the term you're talking about is used often enough to merit a place on the disambig page. --Prangton 28 June 2005 19:15 (UTC)

I personally can agree with in principle that there should be no revert without discussion, however to contribute in the discussion, I agree also that Google would give uneven results and should not be trusted. I recommend removing the term until at least multiple sources can be cited here on Talk for giving the definition. --Nidonocu 29 June 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Mediation Request

As the redirect/restoration edit war has been getting out of hand I have requested for Mediation. The major points of debate of the Furry / Furry fandom articles are in the Merge Fandom into fandom article and the Furry article becomes redirect sections. -- Grumpyhan 04:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about a compromise position? Keep the Furry page as written, carry over material from the Furry Fandom page, and then make Furry Fandom redirect to furry?

The one page can start by explaining the term, as used to refer to animals, and go into a ===furry fandom=== section later on.

Wouldn't that stop the edit wars?

68.163.234.98

That was how the situation started--the active editors had a discussion above about how the furry article was all furry fandom material should be merged in the furry fandom article. The word rather only applies to furry fandom anyway, and is frequently used as an abbreviation for it. A short note on word usage and inspiration is all that is necessary to merge this material into furry fandom, where it is probably is better suited. Simple definitions like this belong in Wiktionary anyway. --Krishva 06:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Right.. So wouldn't editing THIS page, and making it about an adj, furry, as in "Furry Art" be appropriate? I see your point WRT wikitonary, but I think a page could be made, which talks about furry artwork, rather than the furry "lifestyle" or whatever. It just seems like most people who are talking about Furry foo aren't referring to the entire convention and fursuit thing. I see your point, and I'm trying to agree with you, just finding it hard.

Furry art is already discussed as a part of the fandom, that's the thing. Furry art is undeniably a part of the fandom. Not all furries are into fursuits and conventions, but they're not part of a different furry fandom just because of that. --Krishva 06:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous, are you the third party mediator? Please stop adding more fuel to the argument. (that means your google stats too. You aren't helping anything) -- Grumpyhan 07:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"The word rather only applies to furry fandom anyway" -- That's patently false, Krishva, as I'm sure you're aware. Almafeta 17:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To anonymous contributor, what would you say about furry art? If there's enough to write about, we can make the furry page a disambiguation page and point to any future furry art article, as well as the one on the furry fandom. I still think we can fit all this information under the furry fandom header, and just create a redirect to that. Oh yeah, and you should really sign up already.

To Almafeta, I think what Krishva is trying to get at is that the word furry used to describe anthropomorphic animals is something that is exclusive to the furry fandom. In other words, people who aren't furries don't use the word "furry" to describe things like the characters in Animal Farm and Maus. People who aren't furries themselves may use the word furry to describe characters created by members of the furry fandom, but it still has ties to the fandom. I hope I've made things more clear. Thanks. --Prangton 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Almafeta, when a mediation request is applied it means you should wait and let the situation be resolved. Please stop reviving the page. -- Grumpyhan 03:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Krishva

Krishva has been maintaining a campaign of deleting the content of the Furry page and replacing it with a redirect to furry fandom. However, some things should be noted regarding her edit of this page:

1. It has been shown to her that treating the two pages flies directly against currently accepted Wikipedia usage, and yet she continues to merge them.
2. She continues to maintain that the word 'furry' solely applies to a person that is a member of the furry fandom, even when the text of the furry page shows that it isn't.
3. Krishva is established as wanting to 'make fun of and mess with furries.'. First, there was Xydexx's note about her previous behavior from long before Wikipedia. Then, there is her current behavior; see her contributions page and note the common thread among all her submissions to VfD. As Wikipedia:Assume good faith directs us to not ignore bad faith, we must take her behavior past and present into account.
4. There is an odd solidarity among User:Krishva, Grumpyhan, and Stiv in their opinions, votes on VfD, and writing style.
5. Traditionally, when comitting a major rewrite of an article (as is being done in Star Trek), a notice is added to the very top of the front page in order to invite comment. Instead, she buried her desire inside a talk page that was 75 kilobytes large and growing fast. That is Vogon bureaucracy at its best; when looking for notices about major rewrites or for vandalism in progress, the monitors of this page look for edits to the main page, not the talk page, which usually deal with edits to one section or to the veracity of a reference.
6. When her points are addressed, she continues to blank the page as if nothing had happened.

These edits need to be stopped, and the pages returned to as they were before she came along. Almafeta 09:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Almafeta, if you want any resolution to this dispute please do not resort to petty personal attacks and wild accusations, I suggest you go to the Mediation page and agree to have a mediator to aid in this situation. Not only is your dragging out the history of User:Krishva tasteless when the other party is requesting for help, your constant ignoring of explanations given (especially on the reasoning behind the redirect which is NOT blanking) is not appreciated. -- Grumpyhan 12:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I second that, mediation is a good idea at this point IMHO, so, everyone involved, go to Requests for mediation and state whether you agree to mediation or not. There is no point in reverting this page to whatever version you prefer, you won't win that way. --Conti|✉ 13:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

There has been discussion recently about what to do with the furry page that would result in a compromise. You have not been participating in this discussion and your continued vendetta against User:Krishva along with your stubborn and reprehensible behavior is not going to help your case any. I find it particularly disgusting that you feel a need to imply that User:Grumpyhan and myself are sockpuppets of hers when, in actuality, we're her accqauintences. Please refrain from making yourself look like a jackass and agree to mediation. -- Stiv 05:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have not "blanked" (more accurately, redirected) this page more than twice, after there had been considerable group discussion and a general consensus among active editors about the issue on the (admittedly long) Talk page. If you had this article and discussion on your watch, you should have seen activity happening and looked into it. It's not my fault you weren't paying attention when everyone else was debating this issue.

Referencing text that you wrote (as the furry article last stood) is honestly not helping your point, either. If you can get me a reputable (non-furry) source who calls anthropomorphic animals furries or refers to this usage of the word as mainstream or official, please direct me to it. As someone who keeps her nose in the comics/animation industries and the furry fandom both, I am quite convinced of my current perspective regarding this (that furry is only used by outsiders to furry fandom in order to refer to furry fans or characters/works created by furry fans). However, if you can prove me wrong, I will gladly acquiesce.

I don't really appreciate your wild accusations. You may notice that while many of my VfDs are furry-related, they are all also non-notable. That this is an unfortunate trend among furry-related articles, which tend to be about obscure furry artists or places in comics most people have never heard of, is not exactly my fault, either. I just came across them in my treks from the furry and furry fandom pages, and if they were undoubtedly superfluous, I voted them for deletion (as I would for any unnecessary article on a non-notable subject).

I apologize for the long response, but in the face of inappropriate personal attacks, I feel I should make a defense. I definitely agree with User:ContiE and User:Grumpyhan--moderation is necessary here. --Krishva 05:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Propositions for keeping the furry article

Since there has been recent debate about the possibility of keeping the furry article, I am interested in hearing ideas. I do believe the optimal soultion for the time being is to keep the redirect to furry fandom, given the lack of distinct information on the furry and furry fandom pages in their incarnations prior to the merge. Solutions should be posed that do not either:

• Mirror information already in the furry fandom article
• Do not cover topics that could be easily delt with in a subsection of the furry fandom article.

Reasons for keeping the merge/redirect at present have been amply presented by myself, Grumpyhan, Krishva, and Prangton above. Please keep these in mind when responding, and try to directly address our criticisms with evidence. -- Stiv 19:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evidence that isn't as nebulous as Google search results, please. :) --Prangton 19:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why specific evidence would really be necessary, though. Furries and furry fandom are two distinct things; a furry is an anthropomorphic animal of some particular type, and furry fandom is a group of people who are fans of furries. The fact that "furry" is also used as a synonym for "furry fan" doesn't change the fact that there's also a distinct meaning attached to the word; this article can simply mention the usage and link to furry fandom in the intro paragraph. Bryan 23:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue in question--why some among us believe the redirect should stand--is because use of the word "furry" to refer to an anthropomorphic animal does not seem to be common outside of furry fandom. (However, use of the word "furry" to refer to a furry fan is indeed common usage, popularized by appearances of furries in television programs recently.) -- Krishva 02:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

But there are tons of articles on Wikipedia with titles that are technical terms not in common use outside of a narrow community, I don't see why "furry" would be different. Bryan 07:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same thing. Should "furry" be touted as the appropriate word for cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny or for ancient dieties like Anubis? Unfortunately, that is what will probably end up happening. Furry fans aren't an authority in the areas of cartoon animation or ancient religions, and authorities in these fields don't use the word "furry" to describe these kinds of character. The appropriate words in the fields are funny animal and anthropomorphic deity (or god), respectively (though jackal-headed Anubis is no more anthropomorphic than Set, Isis, Osiris, or any other human-looking deity).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most technical terms on Wikipedia are probably restricted to terms used by experts in a particular field. Furries aren't a group of experts--they're a group of fans who have a certain slang. A page on furry slang in general may be appropriate, if enough content can be drummed up for it, but in general I feel that furry fandom slang should be restricted to the page discussing furry fandom. --Krishva 08:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Bugs Bunny should not be called furry, but I don't see why that means that there should be no Furry article. We have tons of articles about words that are only used in specialized groups, and if "Furry" should not be an article because it is just for a minority group, pretty much every article in Category:Furry has to be deleted as well (Chakat, Fursuit, FurAffinity, Yiff, etc.). So where is the problem with stating that furry is an anthropormorphized animal in a certain fandom? We can write stuff about that, and it can be NPOV. We can state different views and say that Bugs Bunny is not considered furry outside the furry fandom, and we can give examples of "real" furry characters.

And by the way, if you enter define:Furry in google, the first entry you get is a non-furry source telling you it is "An anthropomorphic animal, such as Mickey Mouse.". I don't really agree with that, but this shows that there are some sources outside the fandom that adopt the term "furry". --Conti|✉ 13:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, from the way Almafeta wrote his sample article (and has been speaking to me around Wikipedia), I had gotten the impression that he felt a "furry" article should claim that all works containing animal-headed people or speaking animals are "furry" works. I can reluctantly accept an article describing furries as anthropomorphic animals created by furry fans, though I am not entirely sure why it has to be separate from furry fandom, which discusses "fursonas" and furry art already. That's my main reason for wanting the articles merged. There are a lot of redundant furry-related articles already--the Category:Furry listing is a mess.

While fursuiting is a phenomenon of its own and "chakat" is an original word for an original creation substantial enough for its own article (though I am not sure of its notability), furry is a word with a fairly simple definition. It's a few lines, tops. Discussion of anthropomorphic animals occurs in other articles, such as anthropomorphism, talking animal, and funny animal. Discussion on what exactly makes a character "furry" beyond that is bound to lead to massive battles and NPOV disputes. My usual method is to assume a character is not a furry unless either the author/artist says otherwise, or the author/artist is a member of furry fandom. Others have different views on the matter. If we put everybody's opinion in a Furry article, it'd be a mile long and no more informative than saying, "No one can quite agree what a furry is."

One solution I can approve of is using the space as a sort of disambiguation article. Something like:

Furry can be any of the following:

• An adjective describing any creature covered with fur
• A member of furry fandom
• An adjective used to describe anthropomorphic animal-related art, writing, characters, or other creations by members of the furry fandom (i.e. "furry art" or a "furry character")
• Any anthropomorphic animal character, such as a talking animal or a funny animal (This usage is furry fandom slang and not generally used in the mainstream public or comic/animation industries)

Something like this is short and sweet, and hopefully easy for everybody to agree upon. I'm impressed that you found a source that doesn't appear to be a furry that supports the "all talking animals are furry" idea, and as you can see, I am willing to give space to that opinion as long as it's preceded by a cautionary that it's not common usage amongst most people. --Krishva 04:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with this as well, but I'd change the disclaimer on the last point to say:

• Any anthropomorphic animal character, such as a talking animal or a funny animal (This meaning originated within the furry fandom when it was first created, and though it has not caught on with themainstream public or the comic/animation industries, many furry fans employ it in this manner.)

It sounds a bit less negative and offers a bit more information on the term. --Prangton 06:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that there are people who think every anthropomorphic animal can be called a furry, and of course there were and will be disputes about these things, but that's not a reason at all not to create an article. Discussion on anthropomorhpic animals does indeed occur on other articles, but they are all not quite the same as the definition of furry. There can be anthropomorphic plants or gods or things for example. A funny animal might be bugs bunny, a cartoon like talking animal, but nothing "serious". A talking animal is a term rather used in folklore and mythology. So there are things that can and should be called "furry", the problem is to find out what can be called what. Zig Zag is obviously furry. But what about Inherit the Earth? A computer adventure about a world of anthropomorphic animals. I know that many people who call themselves furry worked on it, and the creators did know about the fandom while they worked on it, so IMHO it could be described as a "furry game". Others say that everything with anthropomorphic animals in it which is not for kids is furry. I'm not saying it is the truth, but exactly these things could stand in Furry. IMHO it's much more than a simple definition, it should be the discussion about the definition, what the extreme pro and con sides say and what is generally accepted (or not), etc. --Conti|✉ 18:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Not as a refutation but more for your edification, just because it's called funny animal does not necessarily entail humour. Maus is considered a funny animal comic, if that's any indication of how the term is misleading. So serious stuff can fall under the funny animal category.

If we made a checklist of things that something has to be in order to be considered furry, as well as a list of things we can agree on as being furry (Zig Zag is certainly one of those things) then maybe that might be some content we can work with. --Prangton 20:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I guess the fact the word furry isn't used very much outside furry fandom could be put in a lead section to make things clear. But could someone outline what would go in an article about furries? If it's got enough meat to it I think it could be a subarticle to which the furry fandom article could have a link and a summary. How much can one write about antropomorphic animals? - Mgm|^(talk) 20:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Note, Stiv, that it will be hard to re-write the article without information mirrored in the furry fandom article for two reasons: One, much content that doesn't belong in furry fandom has been moved there; and two, they are related, although distinct, articles, and some content necessarially must be in both to make them both legible, encyclopedic articles.

Additionally, since the word 'furry' can mean other things (the character archetype (which would definately be the most 'encyclopedic' article), the style of art, a member of the furry fandom, and someone who identifies as a lifestyler), I think the onus is on you/Grumpyhan/Krishva to explain why furry fandom shouldn't be a sub-article of a broader furry article. (Compare: Esperanto grammar as a subarticle of Esperanto). Almafeta 22:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something like this, perhaps? Almafeta 23:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The style of art is developed and used within the furry fandom, where it belongs as a subheading (unless there's enough information for its own article, again). This was discussed in a discussion thread which you rudely moved to the archive page (although it had only been recently resurrected). A term for a member of the fandom would, again, likely best be placed as a subheading of the main article, for coherenecy reasons. Furry Lifestyler already has an article, I think, although I'm not sure where - and if it doesn't, again, that's a subject best explored under the umbrella of the furry fandom article. You yourself admit that it's hard to write an article without duplicating information, so why write one? What reasons do you have for moving information from furry fandom back to a furry article? Don't just make claims, give evidence and good reasons for them - this is a problem you've been having throughout the dispute, and if you would actually provide us with the information we're requesting, this could easily be resolved. I think furry would serve well as a disambuguation page, mentioned in Prangton's response below.

As for furry fandom not being a subheading of furry, again, if you want to move the entire furry fandom article to furry and rewrite it accordingly, be my guest. The point is that there is not enough information to warrant two articles, and this has always been the main point. Again, if you can provide evidence to the contrary that's why this section exists. I honestly don't even see why we're having this ridiculous dispute other than that you seem to insist furries deserve two articles with exactly the same information in them, or one with a few sentences and the other with a generous weath of information. -- Stiv 04:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almafeta, my logic here is that the term is used predominantly by furries to refer to an anthropomorphic animal character. Most people outside the fandom use it only to refer to a member of the fandom (or, at most, an animal character created by a member or members of the fandom). It's not a widespread or mainstream term as far as the usage you are insistant upon implementing here--that any anthropomorphic animal is a furry. Therefore, the usage you are trying to implement applies only to a small percentage of people who will view this article (the majority are not furries and will be more interested in the sociological phenomenon that is furry fandom, not what furry fans call a humanoid or talking animal).

While it is important to represent the point of view of furries on this matter (basic furry terminology and vocabulary is arguably important when discussing furry fans), it is also important to recognize furry fandom as a minority, the views of whom should not be touted as universal truth, especially in an encyclopedia. --Krishva 01:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I've read through what you wrote and left comments about what I feel is inappropriate or inaccurate for the article. I am still not sure what you are trying to get at with the "furry archetype" section. Isn't this stuff already in anthropomorphism? As for the latter part of the question, even though I wasn't specifically addressed, I'll respond to it, since I agree with the people you named. Now listen carefully this time. Several of us have explained this quite a few times, but I'll try to make things clear. You'll have to forgive my peeved tone, but I'm starting to get a little frustrated because you aren't even pretending to entertain our views and give them the benefit of the doubt. Please do, our views are pretty much as worthwhile as yours.

• Okay, first off: without the furry fandom, the word furry would mean nothing more than its usual definition: covered in fur.
• It was the furry fandom at its inception that introduced the word furry to describe anthropomorphic animals. In other words, the furry fandom is responsible for the word's meaning.
• Just because furry fandom has two words in it does not mean it is subordinate to something with one word like furry... if that's even an issue.
• Furry as a noun describes a furry fan, which should be in the furry fandom article. I mean, this is just common sense.
• Furry as an adjective depends on the furry fandom in order to work, since the definition is used by:
  • Furry fans to describe anthropomorphic animals
  • Non-furry fans and furry fans alike to describe the creations of the furry fandom
  • Non-furry fans and furry fans alike as a shorthand to describe members of the furry fandom
  • In addition to this, we've asked more than once for examples of non-furry fans using the word furry to describe something that was not created for or by members of the furry fandom, but you haven't ponied up this information, if you'll forgive the pun.
• If you remove the information that is already covered in the furry fandom article, the anthropomorphism article, and several other articles that already exist and are doing their job perfectly well, you aren't left with much information for a page seperate to furry fandom to make sense.
• The furry page can be a disambiguation page, but it doesn't need that much content. It can link to furry fandom, anthropomorphism, funny animal, talking animal, and maybe even mammal since they are covered in fur as per the traditional description. It would be harder to do this with the furry fandom article.

Does this explain things properly for you? I hope it does, because I don't feel like repeating all of this another 10 times. --Prangton 01:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you can't use Google for some reason, here's what about 5 minutes of searching found: [2] (furry is used to describe a character's anthropomorphicness), [3] (in this case, the titular furry character wasn't created by a furry and isn't homid at all), [4] (here 'furry' is used to describe an Inherit The Earth comic created by the same person who created the game of the same name, although neither she nor Wyrmkeep Entertainment is a furry), [5] (another use of "furry" by a non-furry to describe a character and a art genre, again for Inherit The Earth), [6] (although it's a site run by furs, the front page talks about the movie Kaze: Ghost Warrior, which was created by Timothy Albee, someone who is not a furry).

If the word 'furry' was only used by non-furs to describe furs, or things made by furs, then yes, your assertions would be correct. But it's not. Take a look at the Internet culture; through it, 'furry' is being applied to any character which is an anthropomorphic animal or zoomorphic human, whether or not the creator is a member of the 'furry fandom'. This term is gradually gaining currency even in the internet-illiterate part of our culture, as it's introduced as a 'side article' in such shows as CSI and ER, and such magazines as Vanity Fair.

As to being a subset of 'anthropomorphism,' anthropomorphism covers one possible meaning of furry (anthropomorphic animals, such as legends), but not other meanings (zoomorphic humans, such as 'catgirls'; characters in stories in which humans are reincarnated animals or otherwise have animalistic psyches with human forms; or members of the furry fandom). In addition, a character can be anthropomorphic without being furry; although we would all agree that he's anthropomorhic, I'm pretty sure nobody would claim The Brave Little Toaster is furry.

In addition, redirecting furry to furry fandom, especially as it's currently written, gives any media with the furry adjective in it a pejorative connotation, as I'm quite sure Krishva and company are aware. Almafeta 21:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked over some of these--the one about "The Furry Lady" is a clear case of misinterpretation, as I am fairly sure the use of "furry" in this case means "covered in fur." The two sources on the "Inherit the Earth" game seem kind of off to me--I didn't have time to browse the blog, but the web comic site appears to allow anyone to post up a web comic they like. Any sources with furries using the word "furry" to indicate mainstream works does not provide evidence to your point--the furry fandom article does already say that some furries call any anthropomorphic animal a furry.

The word "furry" is most certainly being introduced in mainstream media--ER, CSI, Vanity Fair--but it tends to refer to things involving furry fans. I am not entirely aware how redirecting to furry fandom could provide a negative connotation as it stands. I think the article's fairly NPOV (even the sex section), aside from the recent vandalism, which was promptly removed--but if you think any of the content is untrue, you ought to fix it. If you just think association with furry fandom paints things labelled as "furry" in a negative light, well, I suppose that's a bias speaking on your part. --Krishva 02:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't we already had some progress that we can write something in Furry? I disagree with Almafeta that "'furry' is being applied to any character which is an anthropomorphic animal or zoomorphic human, whether or not the creator is a member of the 'furry fandom'", but I don't really think that this is actually the point of the whole discussion. Assuming he's right, than we can write that in Furry, assuming he's wrong, we also can write that. And assuming there's some dispute over whether he's right or wrong, we can write that and say which group says what. I simply don't see what this has to do with making furry a redirect to Furry fandom. By the way, have a look at Kemono, it's pretty much the same thing for a japanese audience. Using the logic applied here, that should be redirected to Talking animal (or maybe Kemono fandom?), because it's the same, sort of. Especially the list should be really disputed, none of these things (Dragon Ball, Final Fantasy) actually call themselves kemono. So I propose to restore the furry article without the history section, as the section is already in the furry fandom article. And we can add a note that the word is mostly used inside the furry fandom, and everyone should be happy (I hope). --Conti|✉ 12:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about kemono itself so I can't much comment on whether your analogy is accurate or not. I am just arguing against Almafeta because his comment was that "furry" is a mainstream word used in reference to animal characters, when it isn't. I do agree that something can be written in furry, but I would honestly prefer it be a disambiguation (see above, in this section of the Talk page); that way, all definitions are covered and we do not get ourselves into a big circular argument again.

Part of my worry with restoring the furry article to its old self is it will result in a constant cycle of people arguing and moving things back and forth between furry and furry fandom, leaving the articles in a constant state of disarray and questionable accuracy. This whole situation is ridiculous enough as it is without setting the stage for it to happen easily again. --Krishva 05:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that the content for the furry page already exists, except it's located in funny animal and talking animal and anthropomorphism. This is why a disambiguation page would be ideal. People looking for furry who want to know about anthropomorphic animals can visit the articles that are directly related to that. If they're looking for furry because they want to find out about the furry fandom, they can visit that article. Because the word furry has two meanings, and the information on both meanings already exists, why not make furry a disambiguation page? --Prangton 05:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be willing to support a disambiguation page to pages about the different meanings. If we can't have content here, then at least we could have a page that lists its meanings and links to related articles, as opposed to a page that redirects to one possible meaning. We'd have to be patient as Krishva and her friends/alts kept adding "this meaning is used exclusively in the furry fandom" to every line save one, however. Almafeta 22:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Krishva has explained that she meant that the word "furry" is used in that context exclusively in RELATION to the furry fandom, not exclusively BY it. This is something I agree with. Here is what she said, earlier on in the talk page:

Almafeta, my logic here is that the term is used predominantly by furries to refer to an anthropomorphic animal character. Most people outside the fandom use it only to refer to a member of the fandom (or, at most, an animal character created by a member or members of the fandom). It's not a widespread or mainstream term as far as the usage you are insistant upon implementing here--that any anthropomorphic animal is a furry.

In other words, not many people (read: none that I can think of) outside the furry fandom refer to anthropomorphic animals as "furries". That's the reason we want to specify that the term as a noun is used in reference to the furry fandom pretty much exclusively, either their creations or the people themselves. Especially since the word furry has other connotations, and even more so if all you've seen about furry fans are the shows about them on television, or if you've stumbled across a furry porn archive on the internet, I personally don't think they should be related. Not on grounds of trying to make the furry fandom look good, since that's kinda an exercize in futility, but rather because it'd be making a vague association like with The Hulk and broccoli, just because they're both green. I mean, how much does Animal Farm have to do with the furry fandom? So just lay off the attacks on Krishva, and maybe she'll act a bit more warmly on your behalf. I agree with her points, I think you should actually listen to them. Thanks.--Prangton 02:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gay lifestylers

This is not a term used in any sort of common parlance. A quick Google search came up with 11 hits for "gay lifestyler" and over 1,450 for "furry lifestyler." I'm changing the text. Dave 18:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)