The term is part of the Plushie fandom lexicon, and mentioned enough (Written/verbally) to warrant an entry Spirou 13:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- However, I feel that the entry is so brief as to warrant a merger and redirect to the main Plushie article. -- Siege(talk) 14:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- When did short or dry become a deciding factor for deletion/merging?. It's not like they are pushing other terms out of the Wikifur? /=p Spirou 14:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- So it's short, it's not like we are getting paid to fills pages all the way to the bottom ^-^ Spirou 14:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I base my decision on whether or not an article should be considered for deletion by how prevalent the article's content is already online (see Talk:Anfael). With Gundie, I could only find one site, a glossary of plush terms that had nothing more than what was already provided (http://www.coyotes.org/fangwolf/plushlex.txt). If this is deemed too important of an article to be deleted, as with any "non-Googleable" article, then it should be merged. By itself, I don't think it warrants an article all by itself. (See below for furspeech articles). Spaz Kitty 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Question on the recent/deletion merging of terms
In the last 24 hours there seems that several terms normally used in fandom have been deleted or merged. Furplay (A common furry word used in posts and verbally) has been deleted, while other furspeech terms have been merged, becoming mere footnotes instead of reference material to the wikifur encyclopedia.
Others, like Re-whelped and Gundie, have been set to SpD, or in transit to be merged, due the unknown existence of the words. Just because a person has heard of it, or can google it, doesn't mean the term is not valid. That's what the wikifur is for, consolidating terminology that some people are not aware of. Because the word is obscure doesn't its suspect.
Some of them seem a little dry (i.e. "Nofur",) in that case they should be "Stubbed", to provide people the chance to enhance these entries, and add more to this reference library. Not all of them can be epic novels in length =)
And before somebody points it out, yes, several of the entries affected were initially by yours truly, and, no, the real reason is that I been watching the fandom since 1992, and slowly setting aside terminology that defines it,... Over the years, it grew into a 10 meg text file, and Wikifur provided a perfect forum to archive this material.
Relating such terms as "Pursona," "Fursonal" or other seemingly minor entries to a dismissive example for another page seems to cheapen the purpose of the site.
I have only transfered about 3% of the accumulated data in my text file, and this recent move seems to have invalidated a good 25% of the information still to be entered. In short, dry, small, or non-googable shouldn't be a criteria for deletion, dismissal or merging Spirou 14:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Going back a few pages, there was a discussion about the "length" of these entries,... In short, there was talk to merge them with the Furspeech entry, but that would have made it a extremely long entry, and not practical,... I don't think the present solution of being mere "examples of," and stripping their entries meaning is a good solution either Spirou 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Since it seems to be final, could I have a copy of the deleted entries (Including text)?. I will add them to user page for additional reference. Thanks =) Spirou 18:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Several of the stand-alone furspeech terms had been candidates for merging for a while (in the case of Nofur and Somefur, since November of last year). I personally (fursonally? sorry XD) think that creating articles for every last word that can be morphed somehow into furspeech is overkill - thus, why I instead only merged a few main examples into the Furspeech article. A subarticle /could/ be created on Furspeech that includes a list of several more, perhaps the most popular ones after the ones already mentioned, so that if anyone does search for these words, they'd find the furspeech page instead.
- As for a list of words not already on the furspeech article, do you have private emails set up? It'd be less spammy than posting it all on a talk page somewhere. Spaz Kitty 20:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- "A subarticle /could/ be created on Furspeech that includes a list of several more, perhaps the most popular ones after the ones already mentioned, so that if anyone does search for these words, they'd find the furspeech page instead." That's actually an excellent idea for a workaround, the entries are small enough to fit on it. Yes, I agree on your point about overkill,... I have seen hundreds of variations with fur, yiff, etc,... but it was the more popular, or known ones i entered initially. I bow down to your suggestion =) Oh, my mail is active, by the by Spirou 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
New email added and verified. let's see what happens. Spirou 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- It worked. =3 Sent. Spaz Kitty 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Siege replies to the merger question: I don't see that a term can't have a redirect left behind; nor should it necessarily be merged with the Furspeech article if it relates to some other context - such as "Gundie" being a British English term for plush toy, which explains why the word was adopted by Goths (which originated with the London Punk scene) and Gothfurs; the term appears to have no further context. In this case (as opposed to a term like "fursonal", which has no outside context at all) it would best be merged with Plush toy and not Furspeech. And in any case, the question is not so much length, but the amount that could be said, as well as duplication of effort. We already have an article on stuffed animals, why have stubs which just add more names for them? --Siege(talk) 03:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)