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

Due to 3 different instances of vandalism in a 10 minute span, I've protected this page for the time being. --Dmuth 15:32, 13 Jan 2006 (UTC)

It's nice that people want to make a Wikipedia article about WikiFur, but if you do try to do that, please avoid just copying WikiFur:About, which is partly promotional and almost entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Thanks! :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 19:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Date formats

Wouldn't year, month, day be more logical? --Unci 10:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wookieepedia dialogue

Can it be removed, please? After all, you have the link to the Wookieepedia page with it. As a Wookieepedia bureaucrat and participant of that quote, I feel somewhat uneasy about it. I think it provokes unnecessary violence and misunderstanding, giving the impression that our wiki is prejudiced against furries. - Sikon (LucidFox) (SW) (uncyc) 20:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoa there... provokes *violence*? How so, exactly? --Douglas Muth 21:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikifur domain

Planning on getting a domain name instead of just a subdomain? Like —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

Actually, yes. We currently have :-) --Douglas Muth 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
What Giza said. It is not used for the primary domain name because Wikia only permits this to be done for those sites which are willing to transfer ownership of the domain to them, and I do not believe this to be in the best interests of the WikiFur community (they're our host, not our owner). WikiFur's domain registration is paid through 2010, as noted in the ledger. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 10,000th article

Does anyone know what the 10,000th article on WikiFur was? ISD 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

From what I can work out (current count is 10,007 - taking the last 7 articles away from Special:NewPages) it's LavaFox. -- Alexander Greytc 17:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Except that it's now 10,010, which would make it animation. Maybe. The article count itself is debatable, since it only counts "good" articles. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audience and impact section

The section gives an impression of being outdated as it stands right now. The part starting with "as of September 2006" is citing numbers in present tense, which seems a bit odd two years later. Could also probably do with mentioning the international portal and/or other language versions in the other paragraph. --quoting_mungo 07:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese version done

I already done the portuguese verson for this article and the pt:WikiFur tag can be added into this article. But this article is very important so I preffer to leave a message here to notice before :) Article: --Tanukigokuhi 03:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You should be bold! If you have a good change, add it. Although, in this case, we have a bot that does language links. ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 03:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion Signatures

What is with having to type all that signature crud every time you post in your discussion pages? Bleh, too much work. --BradRepko, lazy bastard

If you need to sign your name, just type ~~~~. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Really? Like this? Oh shiznits, that does work. Awesome. BradRepko 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

One wonders whether WikiFur—the alleged encyclopedia about Furry fandom that is supposedly guided by members of the community—will actually mention the fact that they still have no dispute resolution process, and how requesting assistance from Admins to resolve such disputes is ignored? Not even the mysterious CodyDenton, who has had such a big hand in shaping WikiFur policy, has been able to answer that one. Troubling also is the lack of any oversight to remove negligent Admins who are unfit for duty, or the glacial pace it takes to get patent lunacy removed. I mean, are the Admins so afraid of getting involved in discussions about articles that they're only option is to lock down discussions they don't like? Seriously? Not that I'm particularly eager to get into a six month argument to nowhere with the powers that be... I learned the hard way just how difficult it is to get some simple Vandalism rolled back. But man, it sounds like there's some real serious problems going on with the governance of WikiFur these days. —Xydexx 05:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As there's been no reasons given to exclude it and no apparent policy changes to address it, I've restored the information on WikiFur's controversial lack of consensus process and the credibility issues resulting from it. —Xydexx 17:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It is interesting to note, however, that the powers that be don't want anyone to know about their poor handling of the situation and ongoing resistance to implementing a dispute resolution process, preferring instead to write it off as "POV" and "nonconstructive" criticism.
Of course, if these same Admins had been this diligent in fulfilling their duties in the first place we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?
Waiting to hear with bated breath from any Admin who has the courage to take responsibility instead of stonewalling, which seems to be standard operating procedure when faced with valid criticism. —Xydexx 06:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
At the rate things are going, we may very well be able to add suppression of criticism of WikiFur to the growing laundry list of controversies surrounding WikiFur's mismanagement. —Xydexx 19:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, Xydexx, since you're championing the cause, you could draft a proposed dispute resolution process and put it up with the {{proposed}} policy template? --GingerM (Leave me a message) 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I have already suggested the one used by Wikipedia would be adequate, but this presupposes that WikiFur Admins would actually do something to assist users—as current policy suggests—rather than standing idly by and letting things degrade into an endless edit war, as past performance has dictated. OTOH, GreenReaper himself says WikiFur isn't run by policy, but by good deeds. ("Good deeds" apparently do not include rolling back vandalism or correcting inaccurate information on controversial topics.) So I'm not sure how proposing a policy would be treated any differently than the empty words so many other WikiFur policies are. —Xydexx 16:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ISSN

"WikiFur has been assigned ISSN 2164-0521 by the Library of Congress." As I am not 100% aware of what an issn really does to an publication, no more than a citation serial, what does that entail for Wikifur?. - Spirou 12:45, 29 September 2011 (EDT)

Not that much. Its most important use is to uniquely identify a "continuing resource" - which now includes "integrating resources" (like wikis that continually integrate updates), as well as more conventional "serials" (like Time, or Flayrah). It is usually used for citation or ordering/cataloging purposes, but also means we get an automatic entry in WorldCat (which is a little bare right now; I have a contact who may be able to update our record with more information). It has marginal benefit as an indication of notability, as they are easily obtained; however, the lack of an ISSN is often a sign of non-notability to others. --GreenReaper(talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (EDT)
Had an inkling on aiding on the "reference" angle, thanks for the expanded version =) - Spirou
Personal tools