Talk:Softpaw Magazine

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


what is your circulation number —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadowfur (talkcontribs) .

I don't believe Softpaw has an ISSN; it is only distributed through direct dealers and online through its website. Could be wrong, though; Softpaw has some forums where you could ask for a more authoritative answer. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

another question[edit]

is there anyway you could find out?  :)if not thats fine.

I suggest you ask Jery Softpaw, by mailing jery )at( If you find out, let us know! --GreenReaper(talk) 13:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Revise[edit]

This article reads like a product catalog. Please remove the full colour glossy covers each decorated with a large logo advertising the product's website. Also, listing the contents of each issue is unnecessary. An article about a magazine should provide a general overview of the magazine and mention any significant articles the publication may be noted for, citing external references for each notable article.

Also, I am deleting the portion of GreenReaper's comment where the email address is provided.

-Tek Skiltaire 23:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why remove information? We're not Wikipedia - we're a primary and secondary source as well as a tertiary source. We cover anything relevant to our topic, not merely those things which others consider notable. We'd love to have more information on other series as well, but so far people have only written summaries for most of them (The American Journal of Anthropomorphics has a bit more; single works like Best in Show tend to have more complete descriptions).
That said, I encourage you to rework any text which you feel presents information in an unduly promotional tone. If you wish to upload cover images that do not include the website, that is also your call. The logos are part of the cover, though (as they are part of Furrlough, FANG, Gallery, Critters, etc.) --GreenReaper(talk) 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


I just happen to have the magazine covers with the logos removed, but I´m not sure if I shall swap them with the current covers display. Also I'm not sure if I may do so, because the copyright rule. Shall I ask the the owners of the cover designs for permission to upload?

--David W. Rabin 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Lonely wolf, and dreamer of a unified furry comunity

I've replaced the promotional images with proper shots of the covers, like those we have for other magazines. I've also written a history section summarizing past events, and made a few other alterations to the text. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, i did it for the lulz

Those 2[edit]

Their policy and their ideals are just plain frigtening Theirs values, and theirs goals and the reason why they decide to publish this monstruosity is so vain, scary and so selfish For money, they draw those things simply for money Im astonished by all the things people are able to do for 2 or 3 greens bills I hope i will never turn out like you Jerry or especially Kiffin

Magazine cover pictures[edit]

Do we really need them? It seems highly unprofessional to have such sexually-charged images degrading what is supposed to be a neutral page, and, quite frankly, it's revolting to look at. --KaliPaige 17:25, 14 August 2011 (EDT)

WikiFur is not censored for the protection of minors. Trust me, I've tried to get much more sexually explicit images removed to no avail. Equivamptalk 17:28, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Even if we ignore the high levels of rampant sexuality of the pictures, let us look at another circumstance. There's FIVE pictures. Five. Do we really need images of EVERY issue of Softpaw that was ever made? I daresay the logo alone is more than enough to get the point across. I am not suggesting a full-blown censorship. By all means, the subject matter is pretty much uncensorable. Full blown pornography, whether or not any "organs" are shown, is not professional by any standards. --KaliPaige 17:31, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't view it as "full blown pornography". Equivamptalk 17:45, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
Full blown or not, the fact still remains that the artwork is undoubtedly highly sexual in nature, clothed or unclothed. --KaliPaige 18:22, 14 August 2011 (EDT)