Talk:Fox fursona

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

Shouldn't this just be a part of the Fox article? --Xax 16:19, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

No idea. I left it alone except for linking it to Vulpines because this may have something of a different relevance. --Markus 16:40, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Why are there even articles like Vulpines here? Doesn't Wikipedia already do those articles, and do them better? Maybe animal fursona articles like this one should just be our animal articles. --The Shrike 18:59, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Personally, the idea of linking those articles to wikipedias wouldn't cover the sections that have to do with the fandom. And there are really too many articles to keep track of. It's a matter of POV and mine doesn't agree with pointing them to the main Wikipedia. Everyone's got their view of it, so this one's mine. I'd like to hear some other points on if it should or not however. --Markus 19:16, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I mean to say, I personally don't think WikiFur needs articles about real life animals, there are already places that do them better. So an article on vulpines here should be about anthro fox furries, not foxes. I think fandom-specific 'fursona' pieces like this one should be the actual entire articles. With maybe a link to a Wikipedia article about real foxes. --The Shrike 19:35, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
It just doesn't seem to feel right in that way. Linking around to the main wiki is one thing, but there could be links in our own pages that move around OUR wiki. It is true that those pages can point back to us, but it still makes me uneasy. I wrote the original articles for Canines, Felines, and Vulpines. I didn't mind the editing for accuracy, but the idea of the pages being removed because there is a deeper page on someone else's wiki is just... Somewhat depressing. However, there is no harm in making a link on the Vulpine article that points to the main wiki as a "See Also" type of link. I'm not against using references, but when it comes to outright replacing an article with a link to another wiki and thus using something that is harder to explain in terms of fursonas, that's where my comfort level shifts negatively. It would be nice though, if the information on this article was expanded and copied into the Vulpine article here as an addon, not a replacement. Prefferably with a section header. The first part being RL specie information, the rest being Furry related information. Same for the other articles for the species. But really, I'd like more imput from multiple people concerning this. --Markus 20:26, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Shrike here. As nice as it is to write about things that interest you, on a general-purpose topic like a species it is a better use of our readers' time to go read an article that's written by the entire world rather than just one or two fans. Any furry content not appropriate for Wikipedia should remain here. For such topics I would recommend a very short introduction including a link to the wikipedia article, and then the presentation of the furry-specific content, as so:
Vulpines are fluffy balls of muck that live in dens. In the furry fandom, vulpines have often been known to be edible, and . . .
Duplicating the existing articles will be futile, and frankly, if it's not exclusively a furry topic the information would go better on Wikipedia, because more people will see it. As the about page says, "we aim to cover furry topics to a greater depth than might be considered appropriate for a general-purpose encyclopaedia" - WikiFur was made for the esoteric knowledge that would not be deemed important enough for Wikipedia, not for everything. If you are interested in the topic in general, you should follow the link and go write about it at Wikipedia as well. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:42, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)
I ultimatly agree with GR on this. Leave the species writeup to those who are good at it, and we'll write what we are good at. --TheListener 20:12, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I feel there is a place for many different types of articles for a particular species. For example, here are some possibilities for foxes:

Fox (scientific) -- the real-life fuzzy critter that lives in the woods.

Fox (fursona) -- how foxes are played as one's "personal furry".

Fox (people) -- list of furries who consider the fox to be their fursona of choice. This could be separate from the Fox Fursona article, as the main article is likely to become stable over time, while lots of furs will want to add their name to the list of fox furries.

Fox (media) -- How foxes are portrayed in literature, film, etc. Could contain links to popular longstanding fox films (eg Disney's Robin Hood), plus links to modern literature created by furries (eg comic books with a fox as a main character).

Then, "Scientific", "Fursona", "People", and "Media" could be categories, with the various species in each category. For example, one could go to the "Scientific Species" page and see fox, wolf, tiger, etc.

Splitting out a single species in so many ways may seem like overkill, but let's face it -- furry is all about animals in all their various forms, so we can go into as much detail as practical.

What do you think? Should the various species be organized in this way? Of course, I could just Be Bold [1] and do it, but I'd like to have some thoughts on this.

(yes, I do organize and categorize data in my day job, and attempt to model real world situations in database structures.) -- TJCoyote

I think you're maybe overestimating the amount and quality of the writing here. I'm still not altogether clear about the site's take on NPOV and reiterating data already on Wikipedia (which would pose a problem for broader articles like this).
But if you want to throw a hand in and try to help organize the place, I don't think anyone would object, provided you've got more than a few paragraphs content for each namespaced article. --Xax 00:28, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Xax: I think you're maybe overestimating the amount and quality of the writing here.
Perhaps. Part of the reason for considering splitting things up would be to provide room for future expansion.
But my main motivation for suggesting separation is to keep factual information separate from speculation and roleplaying. There's the scientific critter under consideration, which is all factual, but the fursona part gets into speculation and people's feeling toward the critter -- hardly factual, not scientific, and not logical! But, quite relevant to furry fandom.
Of course this nonfactual information could be dropped, but keep in mind that in the main Wikipedia, there are many pages for fictional characters (pick any Star Trek character, for example), and such characters are discussed from the point of view of the universe of the story in which they reside.
The page for the actor who portrays a movie / television character is always separate, even if it's a small article.
(consider the difference between the article on John de Lancie, the actor[2] and Q, the character he portrays [3].
I'll hold off on changes; perhaps a bit more discussion would help.
-- TJCoyote

I think you people missed the fact that right now Fox redirects to Vulpines, and using such a simple name is a little formal to me. Merging with Vulpines is fine, writing up Foxes is fine (though somehow too generic and formal). But it has to be decided where things will go and it should't be seperated over too many articles if it can be helped. Using sub pages for other bits may serve better than seperate articles. Or more "sections" in the main article. --Markus 22:57, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)


If it needs to be done, it should be done carefully. We don't need to be pointing at the primary wikipedia article here, since we are not trying to be that particular information source. Although one could argue that NOT redirecting it would mean a waste of time in typing. I'd personally rather not have to wander around or see work someone made get deleted because there's a link to an article on Wikipedia that's better. But I am starting to slide off track here. These suggestions should be applied in the above order (with exception to 'people' which goes second to last, and the "examples" at the bottom.. With a See Also section) in one article on the species rather than across several pages. This could improve the quality of the page without having to make different pages. I'd suggest Vulpines Hold it, after the information is gathered and set up into the right order. There will also be pages that will have to be considered as generic, like Felines and Canines which both need to have care in describing them loosly and giving a few sub-species as example. Thoughts? --Markus 00:36, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I would advise just copying content from Wikipedia (using that {{Wikipedia|name_of_page}} tag) wherever possible. Yes, it's a little cheap, but it's much better than an article whose entire content is "I think Wikipedia has this covered" or other such cop-outs, since people don't seem to want to write what Wikipedia has already covered. --Xax 09:57, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Regarding both these two lines of conversation..[edit]

I think we should look at this article as a basis of forming a policy over how articles about species are written so this discussion is actually quite important. Firstly I don't agree with having multiple articles (Xax), I feel we'ed end up with lots of small articles when it comes to some species and you'd end up with excessive stub creation. Far better to have one article with subheadings that are true for all species articles, even if in some the content is that there is nothing. I also feel that the points about fictional information being important is correct. One possible opening summary text for articles would be:

The Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes) is a real carnivious mammal that lives in many locations over the world, both urban and country. Within the furry fandom, the fox is a very popular choice of fursona and is often characterised as an icon of furry its self....

To take this apart, you have the article name which is the common name, the latin being a link to Wikipedia. You mention that the animal is real (or mythical if you are writing about say gryphons, or alien or..), and what kind of animal (meat eatting mammal in this case). A little bit about it maybe in the real world and then within the opening summary, start to mention its place in the fandom.

A few thoughts there, what do people think? -Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 19:08, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think that whenever possible, we should make animal articles based on their common name -- fox or dingo or whatever. However, if a really good section can stand alone as its own article, and the main article is getting too long, people shouldn't be afraid to make subpages about that one topic, with an abbreviated version and link in the main article. (Example: how Esperanto is treated in the english Wikipedia.)
Additionally, as an aside, I do not think links to other wikis (with other standards, goals, etc.) should be in-line with an article's main text; rather, I think links to Wikipedia and the like should go to an 'external links' page. Almafeta 19:15, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

To merge or not[edit]

If we keep "fox" and "vulpine" as separate articles, both need to have a link to the other and an explanation in which way they are different. I don't think it's necessary, but we can, if one article becomes too long, separate the biology from the meanings of being fox/vulpine for those who play them, by creating "Fox (biology)" and so on, and making "Fox" a disambiguation page (and "Vulpine" a redirect to it). Now who will do the work to write it all together (or re-split)? - Unci 23:25, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)