Forum talk:Popping (Under revision)

Discussion Pages

• Archive 1 (August 2009 - October 2009)

Older conversations have been archived. Please view the links on the right review old threads.

Request For Review

Popping article is (once again) ready for review. GrayscaleRain has a verbose rewrite here. In the interest of not wasting everyone’s time with this further, I request that this issue be resolved no later than 11:59 pm EDT on October 16, 2009. —Xydexx 00:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You may make the request to another mod that is more knowledgeable with the subject for proper approval and opening of the article in question. The action of unprotecting said article may be accomplished by other Sysops than the original one - Spirou 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Already put it up as the Inflation page. (Didn't feel like waiting.) So all we have to do is wipe this, redirect, and there we go! Once the proper redirects are in place (Popping, Bursting, Expansion, ect.) then that'll be that. n.n I just need someone to approve this I guess. o.o Otherwise I would have wiped the pages myself. --GrayscaleRain 05:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The current forum article is a decent description of popping within roleplaying (Balloonie, Rubberfur) context. I think GrayscaleRain did a good job and the article reflects a fairly balanced point of view.

However, the "Popping and Inflatophilia" section was removed without any explanation, which I have restored. Although poppers are persistent in their urge to remove the section (and they stop at nothing to achieve this), there were no valid arguments presented for the removal and since inflatophilia is still part of WikiFur, this aspect of popping should also be represented. (It is also very telling that when an attempt is carried out to remove the section, it is either done without justification or explanation or ends up in a debate cycle.)

While I agree with merging the Popping and Bursting articles, I object to merge it with the Inflation article as it would mean the complete disappearance of the Popping article. Regardless, in my opinion the relation between popping and inflatophilia should also be represented wherever bursting is discussed.

If there are problems or questions regarding the questioned section's content, it can be debated if there is a will to reach consensus.--Wolfkid23 05:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I did not include Popping and Inflatophilia as was because I do not consider Inflation and Inflatophilia as the same thing. The Popping article is redundant, as I realized after I wrote it, and not necessary, as the information can be freely included on the Inflation and Inflatophilia pages. n.n

If you want to place a subset on the Inflatophilia page, then I think that would be a good idea. As far as Inflation goes, I freely admit I'm a "Boomfag", as a friend of mine jokingly calls it. :3 (Bursting though, not Popping, which I think is silly, but hey! That's the fun part, is being silly, innit?) But I assure you wasn't trying to misrepresent any ideas.

The main thing for me is that Inflatophilia is just something I'm not really concerned with, which is why I didn't edit that article, since Popping was mentioned in passing on it. If you'd like to add the Popping subsection on that page, then go ahead, since that's where I think it would fit in best (since I've already done my best to relate it to the roleplaying aspect and such). Or I can add it if you'd like me to try and write as neutral a section for you as I can, if you don't think people will be happy with it as it is currently. (No offense to you personally, but your section does seem to take a bit of a negative tone, since it doesn't acknowledge anything positive about the idea, other than some people seem to get pleasure from it. Not saying it's a bad paragraph, it just seems to take a negative tone, which is perfectly understandable if you don't like the idea. We're only human, after all. That and I'm not actually affiliated with any inflation or inflatophile groups so I have no idea what those communities are like, yanno?)

It seems like the only issue is if we should have three articles (Inflation, Inflatophilia, and Rupturing (Popping/Bursting)) or two (Inflation and Inflatophilia). Honestly, it doesn't matter to me, as long as everyone's comfortable with the result. I'll do my best to assist in a neutral coherence between the pages regardless. n.n So what say we then?--GrayscaleRain 07:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm glad you liked my article! n.n --GrayscaleRain 07:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)]

The section on Popping and Inflatophilia should not be included as it has nothing to do with furry fandom, and there has never been any evidence to back up the claims made in the section aside from failed trolling attempts on other non-furry forums. It would be nice if the Admins took a more active role in preventing Sneaky Vandalism on WikiFur, but ya can't have everything. —Xydexx 14:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Here! It's done! XD Now will you two stop persisting this silliness? :P --GrayscaleRain 17:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of the admins who has not really had time to properly follow and deal with this popping and inflatophilia issue, and for that I will apologize if it helps matters any. The more the disputing parties get into details about what happened when and where and on what website, the more difficult it becomes for one of us to come up to speed on all that's gone down in this discussion so far.

One observation I would like to make, however, is that the amount of coverage and the level of detail on popping and so forth that's already present in Inflation and Inflatophilia is already a good deal more than what is typical of similar types of articles. As a general rule we like to give enough information for someone not familiar with the subject to get an overview, and those wanting more information can visit the websites or join the communities in question. It's usually something we don't monitor that closely, and if people interested in a particular subject want to go into more detail in the articles about their favorite topics, that's okay to a point. But when things start to get contentious and controversial then we need to get involved. We probably should have sooner in this instance but I for one wasn't quite sure how to handle it and the same may have been true of the other admins who took some notice. Sometimes this is a learning experience for us too and we're not sure of the best way to handle situations. I think in this case, applying a "level of coverage" guideline would be appropriate.

The above viewpoints are strictly my own. Other admins may have differing viewpoints, and if so they are welcome encouraged to reply. --mwalimu 18:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to be as fair and representative as possible. I originally came into this to level out the dispute about which articles should be merged where, since I like inflation and have a good deal of experience with that sort of RPing then I decided to update the rather sparce article on it after it had been voiced that the Popping, Bursting articles should be merged with Balloonies and such. The Balloonie article was quite extensive, so I updated the Inflation article with the knowledge I have. Then I came to found out that the issue was actually with Popping as it refers to Inflatables. Since this is NOT my area of expertise, I really didn't care one way or another. X3 But! I decided to go ahead and fix it so that everyone should be happy.

Honestly, I'm really at a loss of what to do. No one seems to know what the RIGHT course of action is and I'd like some definitive say on this so I know what to do with it. n.n I like it as it is currently, but I'm not the boss, so there you go! n.n --GrayscaleRain 18:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the issue has never been with Popping, it's with importing (dubious at best) arguments from other forums which have nothing to do with furry fandom or anthropomorphic animals. This isn't Inflatopedia, but apparently GreenReaper thinks the topic is "interesting" enough to be included here—even if the supposed "controversy" is manufactured and lacking any actual evidence—so there you have it. I'd say the right course of action would have been to Speedily Delete the Vandalism when it was first pointed out back in April, but I'm not an Admin. Hopefully one of them will be on the ball enough to finally resolve this issue, but I'm not optimistic. —Xydexx 19:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Section Removal

For the record, I've once again removed the dubious, poorly-referenced, and inaccurate section on Popping and Inflatophilia. The section is based on a failed trolling attempt on another non-furry forum, and as Spirou has stated that WikiFur isn't a home for hoax articles about non-existent groups, such nonsense conspiracy theories should be deleted with prejudice. —Xydexx 14:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)