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


Image has been replaced. I took my sweet time, a'ight. :< --Kitetsu 07:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • blink* I remember seeing an article about the stereotypes portrayed by the fox in both folklore and furry fandom. Does anyone have any ideas about articles like that? I'd like to add some of that info to this... --Gavinfox 18:09, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
That would be the Fox_fursona article. There used to be a link to it from the Fox / Vulpine page, but after multiple edits it sems to have went missing. If you check out the Talk:Fox_fursona page, you'll see that there was a rather extensive discussion about how to incorporate information such as what is found on the Fox_fursona page into a larger Fox page. Mostly, whether there should be a lot of smaller pages, or fewer larger pages. The concensus seems to be toward fewer, larger pages, so feel free to grab whatever information you need from the other page, link to it, or whatever. Fox_fursona is currently tagged for merging, so if you can do anything to help resolve the tagging so it will get back to a normal state (or removed entirely for a complete merge), I'm sure that will be appreciated. --TJCoyote 17:29, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Stereotypes of foxes in furry fandom is certainly relevant information which would be good to include in the article. See for instance vixen. --mwalimu 22:51, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

K.M. Hirosaki recently made several updates to the article, most of which were good, but I question the removal of the following statements:

  • Under fennec: "They have a lot of cuteness that make them irresistable to many furry fans."
  • Under kit fox: "They too have a "cuteness" factor to them, though not as much as the fennec."
  • Under grey fox: "Some furries choose the grey fox over the red fox because they find the colouration attractive, or because it is a comfortable alternative to the red fox's ubiquitous form."

I think he removed them as not fitting with the more scientific tone of the rest of the article, which I can kind of see. However, in my opinion, discussion of why particular species of fox appeal to furry fans is relevant and should be allowed to remain in the article. If they seem out of place where they were originally, we could create a different section of the article. Thoughts? -- mwalimu 18:11, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the notion that including furry fan aspects is relevant to an article on foxes; like you say, though, I think that the comments in question were just out of place where they were. A new section of the article for including this type of information and commentary would be fine, though. - K.M. Hirosaki 06:40, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Took me a while to get around to it, but the section has been added. --mwalimu 13:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Just by coincidence, I managed to check this page today, and lo and behold!
One thing I might want to bring up: are you really sure that fennec foxes are the second most popular fox species among Furries? I know I've seen far more gray foxes and arctic foxes than I have fennecs; granted, I know that fennecs seem to be getting more popular in recent years, but I don't know if I'd put them in the #2 slot so readily.
Just something to consider... -- K.M. Hirosaki 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It was a general impression on my part. Perhaps the question does merit further investigation... --mwalimu 06:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The commonness of the name[edit]

Someone should add a comment about how many furs call themselves "Fox" as their names in the community (a ridiculous number, I have found).

Feel free to edit the article to add that information yourself. That's the nature of wikis! --mwalimu 18:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

A typical fennec fursona portrait. -> What is so typical in that picture (except the uglyness)? I propose to change it for something more "Typical". Anybody ? --Ozone Griffox 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the artist of that peice was generous enough to license the picture under a license usable for Wikifur. We can't just take any picture and copy it. If you could find a better picture that would be free to use for Wikifur, then add it. --Rat 02:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree - licensed or not, I've seen a lot of better fox artwork out there. (And this particular picture is used in another article as well, so it wouldn't be orphaned if it were replaced here.) This article used to have a photograph of a red fox too, which I'm guessing had to be removed for copyright reasons. That too (a good photograph, not necessarily the same one) would be nice to put back in the article. --mwalimu 03:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of non foxes and the "Vulpini tribe"[edit]

I don't think it necessary or appropriate to include animals that are not actual foxes. I'm also having issues with terminology here. Referring to a Vulpini tribe to describe a subsection of the Canidae family? Vulpes is the genus and vulpine is the word to describe members of the genus. That is if I recall my macrobiology unit on classification correctly. I don't remember anything about tribes. If we're going to do this, lets do it right.--Kendricks Redtail 09:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that the science of taxonomy has finer degrees of classification than the kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genus/species most of us learn in science class. Lioncrusher lists 14 genuses (gena?) in family canidae, but these are commonly subdivided into specific subfamilies, 2 in the case of canidae (the number varies for other families). Taxonomists may even recognize two or three intermediate levels of classification between family and genus for some families. The term 'tribe' is perhaps somewhat inexact (I've also seen it used to subdivide families within an order); 'subfamily' might be more concise here and we can change the article if you think it would be an improvement. It doesn't help that in general, taxonomy is an inexact science in a constant state of flux, especially when it comes to some of these intermediate divisions.
Getting back to your original suggestion, I would strongly oppose limiting the article to genus vulpes. For one thing, gray foxes and Arctic foxes (and possibly fennecs) are not members of this genus and would therefore be excluded. As the article suggests, there are two subfamilies within canidae and I believe at a minimum it should cover the vulpine subfamily. At present it also includes species that are foxes in name despite being in the canine subfamily. In fact, this is one of those areas of inexactitude - some genuses, such as pseudalopex, don't clearly fall in one subfamily or the other and may be classified under either depending on what source you check.
At any rate, a case could perhaps be made for removing the canine subfamily species and the non-canine animals. My opinion is that if people call some animal a fox, it deserves be mentioned here, but I'd be interested in hearing how others feel on this point. --mwalimu 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Wikipedia clearly states that the species of fox include:
  • Alopex (Arctic Fox, sometimes included with the "true" foxes in genus Vulpes)
  • Cerdocyon (Crab-eating Fox)
  • Chrysocyon (Maned Wolf in English, "Big Fox" in Guarani and "Reddish Fox" in Spanish)
  • Dusicyon (Falkland Island Fox)
  • Fennecus (Fennec, or Desert Fox)
  • Lycalopex (Hoary Fox)
  • Otocyon (Bat-eared Fox)
  • Pseudalopex (four South American species, including the Culpeo)
  • Urocyon (Gray Fox, Island Fox and Cozumel Fox)
  • Vulpes (the ten or so species of "true" foxes, including the Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes)
Mentioning any other species, such as the red panda do not belong. They aren't foxes. Also referring to the Canini tribe, isn't that just the Canidae family what they define?--Kendricks Redtail 17:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're agreeing with your own earlier post. The list you just posted includes several other genuses besides vulpes. Are you advocating keeping all those you just listed in the article?
It is worth noting that Wikipedia does not agree with other sources (such as Lioncrusher) on which genuses are canini (dog/wolf) tribe and which are vulpini (fox) tribe. I won't speculate on which is correct, as it is not unusual in the field of taxonomy to have differences like this between different sources (besides, there are better sources available than either of these two).
Removing the information for species that are not foxes by any reasonable definition is reasonable, provided the information is moved to or is already covered in other articles. There are already articles on red pandas and Ethiopian wolves but not one on flying foxes. --mwalimu 20:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

wood fox[edit]

Anon contributor added "wood fox" as alt name for crab-eating fox. I hope to visit a library this week to confirm this alternate name. --EarthFurst 06:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another possible image[edit]

File:EmoChewFox.jpg -- Sine 18:19, 12 August 2013 (EDT)