Talk:Krystal

Krystal 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.

Excerpt

Outside of video games, she is a fairly popular and common character in much erotic furry art.

Well, I could probably come up with several dozen images to cite this statement, but doesn't it seem a little... unnecessary... [?] (It also seems rather obvious, given that she's a female protagonist of an extremely popular game series) 24.32.208.58 08:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a reference work, that might be read by someone outside the fandom, sometimes needs to state the obvious. Citing specific examples, if the text explains their relevance, would certainly make it a more useful reference work. --Rat 13:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the question to ask there is whether, within the furry fandom, she is a more popular subject of erotic art than the average female video game character. Personally, I think this search suggests "yes", although I would note that there is a large amount of non-pornographic art of Krystal out there as well. Something that communicates this seems appropriate as it would not be immediately obvious. --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a reference work, that might be read by someone outside the fandom, sometimes needs to state the obvious. I see your point here, but it's more a question of relevance.

I think the question to ask there is whether, within the furry fandom, she is a more popular subject of erotic art than the average female video game character. If the answer is yes, and I agree with you that it probably is, the sentence still seems kind of subjective. Is the PG:NC-17 ratio of Krystal art produced around 5:1, 4:1, or 2:1 and therefore very different from fan art about Amy Rose or Cream (and what about depictions that would fall between those extremes?). How do we gauge popularity? I know that the first hits for 'Krystal furry' on google are pornographic, but the same is true if you just search 'furries'. It just seems too subjective.

As a side note, how would the sentence be citied if it is included? 24.32.208.58 22:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

might be read by someone outside the fandom As a someone outside the fandom myself*, I think that the articles need to be careful not to feed into the stereotype that there is a hidden sexual element to everything furry. (Not that this article in particular does that, but take a look at Rogue). At the same time, though, I don't want to promote any kind of whitewashing or censorship. 24.32.208.58 22:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

*as of now

As someone inside the fandom, there often is. In this case, it's hardly hidden. :-) Citations can be done with reference tags; do something like <ref>[http://link.to/page Link title]</ref> --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

there often is. I'll take your word for that. By how would the sentence be citied if it is included, what I meant to ask is: what website(s) would be considered a good citation (or good citations) for the sentence? Typing in <ref>[http://images.google.com/images?q=krystal+furry&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi A Google Image Search locates pornographic art in its inital results]</ref> alongside doesn't really seem right since the same thing is true if you just search 'furries'. Boingo 04:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that just means that pornographic art is popular in relation to furries as well, which is hardly untrue (although the exact proportion is a matter of constant debate). Personally, I'm fine with WikiFur saying something if it's true, even if there is not a specific reference that can be given for it. We allow what Wikipedia calls original research. It only really needs references if the statement is challenged. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the statement. Boingo 06:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I have recently learned that there is a 'encyclopediadramatica' page on the spoogy Krystal art phenom. Would this qualify as a source? Boingo 01:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking we do not use ED as a source, just as Wikipedia does not use us as a source. However, the sources ED uses (if any) may deserve further inspection. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ages

So what are they, and are there any references? --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)