Talk:Inflation

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

[edit] Inappropriate for WikiFur

Huge clinical article is the end result of war of attrition with the Admins. Whether WikiFur should be an encyclopedia for the inflatophile community is up to the users (well, not really... but it's the thought that counts). —Xydexx 13:47, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

Oppose. The article is still quite relevant, as WikiFur has articles for several different fetishes, none of which are specific to the furry fandom. I do agree that the article could use work though, at the moment it is quite long and too detailed in some areas. Is the talk of "existentialism" or the difference between bursting and popping really relevant or useful? -- Alexander Greytc 13:56, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
There are already articles for inflatophilia and balloonies which cover the fandom-related aspects fetish adequately, so why is another necessary? My position is that the article has a lot of extraneous and unnecessary information. Are you running an encyclopedia about Furry fandom or inflatophilia? —Xydexx 14:41, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Balloonies aren't necessarily the same as inflatable furs in general (I'm into inflation, but aren't a balloonie). As for the inflatiophilia article, thanks for pointing it out, we outta merge that and this article together. -- Alexander Greytc 14:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I'm thinking there should be a merge here; there seems to be a significant overlap and no clear direction on where the content should go. I'm not decided on where we should merge from and too though. --Rat 14:55, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
FA has 20,000 hits for "inflation", and it is a topic which has a clear following within the fandom. However, the article is too narrowly focused on air-based inflation. Semen and liquid forms of food are also popular (potential linking with lipophilia?). I suspect the language could be tightened, too. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Oh, okay.
So since FA has 3,000 hits for "Minecraft", it also has a clear following and deserves its own article on WikiFur as well. Gotcha. —Xydexx 14:41, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
PS: FA only has 313 for "wikifur", but I think at this point the "If It Has A Lot Of Hits On FurAffinity It Belongs On WikiFur" argument has been pretty much shot full of holes. (Ooh, popping!) —Xydexx 16:16, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
It may well do, we also cover topics that have a large furry usage (Twitter, Facebook, et al.) There are plenty of furry Minecraftians out there; F-list has a Minecraft server, the Pressurised Squeaky Inflationists have a Minecraft server, and I have a Minecraft server (although you're on it, so I guess you know about that one!) -- Alexander Greytc 14:47, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Keep in mind I'm not arguing against covering topics that have a large Furry usage and the fandom's relation to them, but the fact that having a large Furry usage doesn't warrant covering every bit of minutia on a topic. Having an article on Minecraft to point out fandom-related activity, for example, doesn't mean we therefore need articles on pickaxes and iron ore and mine carts because Furry fandom is about Minecraft. That's the difference between running a wiki about Furry fandom and running a wiki about "things Furry fans find interesting." —Xydexx 16:57, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
WikiFur explicitly serves both audiences: "if it's related in any way to furry community or culture, chances are it's worth mentioning on WikiFur". Once we can justify some coverage, there's little cost in allowing editors to cover it comprehensively if they choose to - they volunteer their time of their own free will, and we aren't going to run out of server resources. Our main concern is whether someone else - usually Wikipedia - is doing it better, in which case we should point to them to better serve our readers. If there was an active inflation wiki, we might merge the article there and merely cover the furry-specific aspects . . . but there isn't, so we haven't. There's an argument for excluding topics which nobody else cares about, but that's not the case here; the article has been viewed over 7,000 times in the past year. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:56, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Again: The issue isn't with covering topics that have a large Furry usage and the fandom's relation to them. WikiFur has a history of including things totally unrelated to the fandom that nobody cares about. The fact that there isn't an active inflation wiki is a pretty weak excuse for allowing WikiFur to become one by default. There's no wiki for the Lifecycle of Highway Signage either; that doesn't mean WikiFur should try to be one "just because nobody else is doing it."—Xydexx 19:30, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
But since, in your words, "WikiFur explicitly includes 'things furry fans find interesting'", there'd be nothing with creating such an article, because if at least one person cares about it you can't claim nobody cares about it, and by your own admittance it isn't wasting any resources. Neato. -=) —Xydexx 19:40, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Nobody? I think inflation is relevant, judging by the evidence available, as does Alexander Grey. Yes, how many people must be interested is always going to be a judgment call; I know one fur expressed interest in the Lifecycle of Highway Signage when you talked about it on your LiveJournal. Fortunately the creation of your own wiki projects is permitted under current policy: "...we do encourage use of WikiFur by furries for collaborative wiki projects, though preferably they would be related to the furry fandom in some way. You should create such projects in subpages of your User: namespace." I would note that someone has already started a Highway Signs wiki which you might consider appropriating instead. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Again, since you apparently didn't read it the first time: The issue isn't with covering topics that have a large Furry usage and the fandom's relation to them.Xydexx 20:36, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I read it. But covering topics which a relatively small number of furry fans are interested in isn't an issue either, as long as our editors feel it has not reached the point of irrelevance, and is not covered elsewhere. Limited use of WikiFur's resources for non-furry wiki projects by furries within their user space is also not an issue. The issue is that you do not think this is how WikiFur should be. This is not something that I can fix. Now, there is nothing wrong with the idea of a strictly furry-based encyclopedia, run in a more authoritative manner. It is just not what we are trying to do. I suggest you do what the founders of Citizendium, Scholarpedia and Conservapedia did, and create your own project, which you can run in the manner of your choosing. Should you wish to use them, our article dumps are freely available under CC-BY-SA. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:16, 24 May 2011 (EDT)--GreenReaper(talk) 21:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm already familiar with your "love it or leave it" policy, thanks. —Xydexx 21:36, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
There's a big difference between 20,000 and 3,000, Xydexx. Though I think this should be merged with, say, Balloonie, or vice versa. Equivamp 14:49, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Oh, and I forgot to mention, FurNation has a Minecraft server. Equivamp 14:50, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Oh, okay.
I notice FA has 75,000 hits for "water", making it more than three times as popular as "inflation." The fact that WikiFur does not yet have an article on this life-giving substance (yet!) is just an oversight I'm sure. -=) —Xydexx 14:53, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Well, there is something (I believe it is a fetish, I'm not sure) called watersports, so maybe we should have one. Equivamp 14:58, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Well, "watersports" only has 3,000 hits on FA, and you seemed to suggest above that wasn't enough to warrant an article about a topic. Please correct me if I'm mistaken... —Xydexx 15:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I didn't say I wanted a page on that created, and I'm not going to search for something which I believe is a fetish simply to prove a point. Equivamp 15:09, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Hey, no problem. OTOH, "photoshop" (70,000 hits), "school" (68,000 hits), and "balls" (34,000 hits) are all topics which ought to have articles according to GreenReaper's standard of inclusion. -=) —Xydexx 15:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
And "paper" (63,000 hits)! WHY IS THERE NO ARTICLE ABOUT PAPER ON WIKIFUR? —Xydexx 15:14, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
So since FA's users talk about anything (107,793 hits) and everything (69,955 hits), I guess whether it's popular in the fandom is irrelevant to whether it should have a WikiFur article. Perhaps I've finally found a home for my much-anticipated article on the Lifecycle of Highway Signage. Huzzah! —Xydexx 15:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
The search results on FA for "inflation" tend to return works related to the topic of inflation. Those for paper tend not to. Those for water appear to be related to inflation (perhaps it should redirect here . . .). We do not aim to duplicate Wikipedia, which adequately covers water, watersports, paper, school and Minecraft - unless there are furry-specific aspects, in which case those should be covered on WikiFur (this would be appropriate for Minecraft; readers might be interested in furry-specific servers). For "inflation" - as covered here - Wikipedia merely gives a one-line definition of "The act of inflating an inflatable". --GreenReaper(talk) 17:01, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I think paper is very important; just ask any artist who uses it instead of digital media. We can discuss the nuances of different paper weights and colors, how paper is made, how much fits into a nornhole, and so on. —Xydexx 17:45, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
BTW, it's kinda funny to watch you claim that hits for a particular search term on FA prove there are "furry-specific aspects", and then out of the other side of your mouth claim other search terms with more results don't.
Hey, there there 84,173 results for cock, and the results are undeniably furry-specific.
Someone should write an article about that. —Xydexx 20:15, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Would be fine, but note that Wikipedia has one already. Furry specifics could be covered, otherwise it would be better to improve Wikipedia's article (which already has extensive coverage of animal penis). --GreenReaper(talk) 20:28, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
I betcha they don't mention anything about norn cock. —Xydexx 20:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Probably not; that topic would be most appropriate for the Creatures Wiki (but read kiss-pop to understand why it might not apply). --GreenReaper(talk) 20:55, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Ew. Norn cooties. —Xydexx 21:36, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Merge with inflatophilia, not delete. (I recommend "Inflation" title since it isn't always sexual.) I see a lot of inflation furry art without trying to find is specifically. It's a notable trend that is connected to fatfurs and transformation. I also support that balloonies seem to be notable on their own. EvilCat 16:33, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Support for merge. -- Alexander Greytc 16:58, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Personal discussion moved to user talk. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools