Category talk:Critics

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

So what is "against"? Are you anti-furry if you disagree with individual furry fans, or particular groups, or furries in general - and criticise them about a specific "failing", or just general dislike? I also note that this category has been extended to groups. Is a community anti-furry if a few, some, or all of its members are? (see Talk:Chat on the Internet)

Put simply, what is necessary to achieve this categorization? --GreenReaper(talk) 03:27, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I would say that a group is anti-furry if it or its members are "well known" to hold antipathy toward furries, or have taken direct action against furries in some way. But that's a rather vague rule. If some group singles out only babyfurs, for example, does that make the group anti-furry or just anti-infantilism? On the other hand, a group which strikes at a broad set of types may earn the title: being against everything (or a majority of things) suggests that the real goal is attempting to enforce some perceived "normality" (meaning "just like us"), rather than simply standing against one particular thing. -- Siege 11:49, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Individuals and groups[edit]

I'm for separate categories for individuals and groups. What about keeping this Category:Anti-furries for individual people, as I think may have been intended (to judge by the category description) and adding a subcategory Category:Anti-furry groups? -- Sine 05:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should make a new catagory for dead or inactive (ran off ^_^) anti-furry groups --Krazykatboy 01:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Appropriatness of topic name[edit]

I do not think that "Anti-furry" means "critical of furries". It means "against furries". If we want to have a category of people and groups who are critical (whether constructive or otherwise), we should have a category called "Critics". "Anti-furry" is just a prejorative classification which adds intent into it, and which is quite reasonably going to lead to people shouting "fursecution". Let people decide the intent from the article and references. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think that makes sense. I originally changed the description due to the discussion on Talk:Encyclopædia Dramatica wherein it was pointed out that there is a difference between "critical of furry" and "anti-furry".
I second the idea of critics. There are people who were or are critical of furry who aren't anti-furry themselves. Now, how anyone would go about splitting this hair beyond self-identification as such is a different topic. 733 20:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Any suggestions for a new category name? --Douglas Muth 23:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
'Furry fandom critics'? (Slightly ambiguous).
'Critics of the furry fandom'? (Removes that hint of ambiguity, but it's long to the point of being obnoxious).
Regardless of the choice of name change, the Anti-Furries category should stay and become a subcategory (or maybe a category in its own right). While there are those who criticise elements of the furry fandom but have nothing against it 'on principle', there are also those who are utterly opposed to it in any form. Keeping NPOV in correct categorisation will almost certainly be a trial; it's rare that a party on either side of the debate take an objective view of the more controversial critics. -- 07:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
How about Critical sites? A lot of those sites are run by furries and have a high percentage of furry members. Just because they criticize or laugh at aspects of the fandom they don't care for, should that mean they are labelled as "anti-furry" and dumped in the same category as people who aren't furries and who genuinely dislike the fandom as a whole ? Of course there is a school of thought in the fandom that thinks any critic is some kind of closet anti-furry or troll so I dunno. Salmanazar 15:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't we add Facepunch to this list? Considering the trolling that goes on when furry is involved, I thought I should ask if it should be added or not.-- 16:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename and other suggestions[edit]

I suggest renaming to Category:Critical websites or Critical groups, and having the category be for websites/groups rather than individual people. I lean towards being in both this category and Category:Ideological groups being redundant, in that Ideological groups is a broader category. -- Sine 15:16, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

Nudging for discussion. Meanwhile, I've put the two redlinks on Template:Critic sites to the To add section of Category:Websites. -- Sine 16:53, 20 October 2011 (EDT)


Category:Critics (sites) and Category: Critics (people)? - Spirou 02:26, 29 May 2012 (EDT)

I can't see using disambiguations in categories unless absolutely necessary. How about keeping people in Category:Critics (if we continue to categorise articles about people in that way) and having Category:Critic websites. Not that we usually categorise websites by topic, hmm. -- Sine 01:32, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
I agree with this solution unless someone has a better idea, though I think it'd more properly be called Category:Critical websites. (Would our readers can understand what sense we mean it in?) --GreenReaper(talk) 01:54, 30 May 2012 (EDT)
There is some ambiguity to that. Do we need a category at all? The template of critic websites is getting consistently updated I believe, and I'd prefer to not categorise websites by topic or slant since that isn't generally our practice. -- Sine 12:51, 30 May 2012 (EDT)