Talk:Fur Affinity

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Fur Affinity is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the WikiFur community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.
Discussion Pages

Contents

[edit] Mascots

The Mascots section of this article has significant overlap with the articel on Fender. I think trimming the mascots section to a line that Fur Affinity has two mascots, Fender (since date) a such and such, and Rednef (since date) a such and such, would work well. Thoughts? -- Sine 19:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Move Rednef to her article, the same as Fender, move their images and information out from this article to the new/existing ones, condensed "Mascot" section to the necessary amount of data?. Sounds reasonable Spirou 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of "Fighting Amphibians" information.

Fighting Amphibian is in no way related.

I think the site should either have its own page and be linked as a disambiguation on the top of the page, or not be mentioned at all. It definitely doesn't belong on this page. Atte 00:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Fighting Amphibians has nothing to do with furries at all, there's no reason for it to be mentioned anywhere on this wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 78.86.220.39 (talkcontribs) .
I hate to correct you, but Fighting Amphibians is related to everything ever. It should be mentioned on every page.

[edit] Suggestion: provide dates

There are several places in the article where the word "current" or a similar word or phrase is used to mean "the present date". Unfortunately, someone reading the page (like me) has no way of knowing when "current" was. Too often sections of Web and Wiki pages are left unmodified for long periods of time, so that calling an event "current" can become extremely misleading when they are read months, or even years, after they were written.

A specific example is the list of current hardware. FurryWurry 21:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FA Rank Info

Should information on FA Rank be included in this article or should the subject be given its own article? Either way, what information exactly should be included? SilverserenC 04:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a separate, unaffiliated website, so it should probably get it's own article. The current external link can be converted to a See also if not explicitly mentioned in the body text. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Page created. Now to work on expanding it. Maybe I can submit it to DYK when i'm done? :D SilverserenC 05:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. If you want to check out some of the new articles and grab a few other interesting tidbits, you could update the whole set. Drop a copy of the new ones here when you're done. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 05:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I've finished with expanding the article. I'm going to go see about updating DYK now. :3 SilverserenC 07:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Pull the "statistics" until they can be cited.

Information is fact-based. Putting up information like server traffic statistics which need to be spot on for accuracy without citing anything is just plain insulting to the reader, who I hope is expecting to learn accurate and reliable information. Statistics like those are up on that article, implying that they are true, despite the [citation needed] tag.

I can make up that my blog alone accounts for 99.9999% of all traffic on Blogger, but that does not make it true. Put this into your mind as you make edits like these that are dubiously sourced.--KentuckyFriedGunman 02:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried to look for sources for such information before removing it? For the most part, this information has been on here for a while and i've seen it mentioned on FA before. Dragoneer's journals would be a good place to look for statistics on FA, as he regularly puts up information about it. Most statistics are publicly accessible as well. I do not believe such information should be removed from the article until a thorough search has been made for sources. Wikifur is not Wikipedia and does not have such a stringent view on sources. SilverserenC 02:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
So, you're citing a LiveJournal as if it were a university-based study? What's with you people? I Googled site activity for FA and the only relevant, non-blog/journal/profile-based thing that came up was its Alexa page which does not support any of the statistics I cut. Can you find anything beyond a blog post? --KentuckyFriedGunman 03:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying that we have to use references that are from a university study about statistics for FA? You're not going to find it. Nor are you going to find such a study for any article on Wikifur, barring the article on furries in general. Blogs are, with a grain of salt, a reliable source for Wikifur. A blog made by the owner of FA about Fa's statistics is a reliable source. (And I meant his journals on his FA page, not LiveJournal, though that works too.) SilverserenC 03:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Remember what I mentioned elsewhere - WikiFur is sometimes a primary source of information. The user inserting the statistics happens to be lead of the Fur Affinity ops team. I believe he would be in a position to know the site's traffic.
Now, it would be nice if a citation were present; the fact tag is there to indicate to readers the information is not based on a cited source, and to encourage anyone who can to provide one. But our basis is truth, not verifiability - and so unless you have a particular reason to believe that they are not true, why remove them? (To me, the figures do not seem unrealistic given FA's size and growth over the time period.) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit] FurAffinity and Furrocity joining forces

There's an announcement about it on FAF, but I'm confused, honestly, about what's going on. Equivamptalk 12:44, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Given FurAffinity's delays in making plans come to fruition, it would probably be wise to wait it out to see what actually results from this announcement. It could peter out to nothing as some other revamp efforts have before. I wouldn't, for instance, suggest any article merge's until there's more to report. BlueOtter 15:18, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
I wrote a summary at Flayrah. It looks like Gavin and his moderators don't have enough to do at Furocity so they're joining FA's staff, with Gavin moving to the position of "co-owner" (gonna be fun to see how that works out, or whether Gavin threw in any other "resources" with that). No immediate changes to the site planned, other than perhaps stricter enforcement of existing photography policies. The term "merger" was a poor choice. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:45, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

[edit] content available to registered users only

Now some pages by specific users at Fur Affinity say "has elected to make their content available to registered users only." (example: username Reaver2kl4u) Anyone have reference on when this feature was added? Maybe a ref in FA forum? --EarthFurst 04:40, 13 September 2012 (EDT)

Personal tools