Talk:WikiFur Furry Central
I have protected WikiFur Central, as it is clear that otherwise it's going to continue to get vandalised. You can still edit each section on this page, and I encourage you to do so (assuming you don't intend to vandalise it! :-). However, you must learn how to use templates, first. This will require reading through the help and the guide linked from there. Consider this a small competence test before you can edit the first thing people see when they surf here! If you still can't figure it out and want something changed, let me know on user talk or externally, and I can see what I can do.
If you have an idea for a better layout of this page (one which cannot be easily changed through the templates), please construct it somewhere first, and then let myself or another administrator know. I'm sorry for the lack of flexibility here, but sometimes protection is a necessary evil.
- 1 Moving to WikiFur Furry Central
- 2 Gotcha!
- 3 Help us improve
- 4 New layout?
- 5 Article of the ____
- 6 Protected talk page
- 7 Caching
- 8 Alphabetically by *first* name rather than last?
- 9 Site display problems
- 10 Featured article length
- 11 It's all broken!
- 12 21st Century Fox was already featured.
- 13 Laaaaag
- 14 Megaplex variety show
- 15 "Upcoming events" and nationalities
- 16 I have to refresh every page...
- 17 Well that ain't right...
- 18 Time for a new set of featured stuff?
- 19 Template changed, main page didn't?
- 20 UK Furry Convention Flags
- 21 Come out loud and proud
- 22 Wikifur needs full-time editors
- 23 Wikifur needs to allow the full synopsis of books to be written
Moving to WikiFur Furry Central
I've moved the main page because it turns out that not actually having "Furry" in the name of the main page is a signifcant downer in terms of search optimization strategies. Hopefully this should bring us a little more traffic. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 01:15, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I logged on this morning and thought I was going to have to hunt down and revert a bunch of edits, before I remembered what day it was. Good one! --mwalimu 18:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Help us improve
I vote that the "Help us improve" bar be moved to the top of the right column; otherwise, I think it's not as easily seen when sandwiched between two larger articles. Spaz Kitty 22:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- You're right - it's not as easily seen that way. However, I tried that to start with, and I thought that it spoiled the look somewhat when it is was put there, because the Did you know? section gets shifted down one (the uneven headers look bad).
- It does give me an idea, though. Originally, we had a "wanted pages" section below the new bar, and above. It got removed because stuff was staying on there too long and it was a pain to update. Still, it was in a good place for attention.
- How about we put all of the furpile articles into an expanded "To be improved" category (maybe just by asking people to write a very short stub of them and putting it in stubs), and then use the DynamicPageList extension (already installed) and a modified list style to display it in a similar way to the other lists? That way there's more chance that people will have something that they can improve on a given day, and articles get more than one chance at improvement. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- We might even be able to swing DynamicPageList2, which would remove the need for many of the hacks, allow us to include more categories and allow a better ordering for this particular use. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I considered suggesting that the wanted bar be replaced, heh. And with my OCD tendencies, I'd certainly offer to take updating the wanted bar as one of my "jobs". Spaz Kitty 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Ideally, this would be something that was self-maintaining (like the newbar should be). If that doesn't work out then yes, someone updating it would work as well. I want to try and let people spend as much time on writing articles as possible, if possible. *grin* --GreenReaper(talk) 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a terribly big fan of the new layout...but I'm going to assume it's still under construction, seeing as how there are 3 columns on the left and only 1 on the right -- which I have now fixed. Spaz Kitty 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would rather have three on the left and both upcoming events and something else that works well in a small width on the right.
- The 3-1 column right now makes the page lopsided and too long, in my opinion (unless future featured articles/DYK? are going to have less content). I also don't like the shortened bars - with long titles like "Help us improve" and "New categories", you can really only see 2-4 items at the most. But if that's the only way to prevent problems on other browsers, I can deal. ;)
- Also, should the "Admins - Help" part at the top be centered on the second line, or else the text made smaller so it all fits on one line? Spaz Kitty 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I put a link to Community Central in the main header, and since the new/newcat bars are featured in full there, perhaps they should be removed from the front page? Spaz Kitty 00:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, GR. Spaz Kitty 08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I would still like to get the new pages on there somehow. Do users click them, though? I would have thought so, but I don't know for sure . . . --GreenReaper(talk) 08:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Personally, I think it mostly served the purpose of showing "Hey, WikiFur's updating new articles all the time" rather than inducing people to click on them (unless they saw something they related to). Plus, most new pages are tagged as stubs, so they'll get picked up on the Furpile bar as well. I think it looks fine without the newbars on the main page. Spaz Kitty 09:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Article of the ____
Perhaps we should just have "Featured article" and "Featured comic", rather than specifying a time period? Spaz Kitty 05:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, so long as we don't update them regularly. -- DeVandalizer 05:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Protected talk page
Is there a reason this talk page is locked to "users with sysop privileges" only? -- Sine 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect it was to deal with a past spam or vandal problem. I've lowered it to "registered user" level. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Is anyone else finding the recent (July 31) vandalism on the front page coming up instead of the latest (reverted) version? I suspect I'm hitting a caching mechanism somewhere between here and Wikia, Inc. but I wanted to see if anyone else was experiencing this problem. Simba B 21:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Alphabetically by *first* name rather than last?
People should only be listed according to their first name if they have no given surname. Basic encylopedia rules. And yet I see Fox McCloud under F, Bucky O'Hare under B, and so on and so forth. Any particular reason for this? - Kooshmeister
- That's their rules. That's not our rules. :-)
- Many people in the fandom are known under one name, or worse, might have a two-word name but only be commonly known under the firest, so people looking for the first name might not see them. There are few cases where people are better known by their second names - in the cases you gave, people know both their first and second names - so why order by them? --GreenReaper(talk) 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
- Um, so, in other words, you're doing it for the benefit of people who don't know how to properly navigate an encyclopedia? - Kooshmeister
- Eh, my apologies if that sounded harsh. This is just a serious pet peeve of mine. - Kooshmeister
- We're doing it for the benefit of users generally. As I see it, the main reason for sorting people by their last names in regular encyclopedias is that people are generally better-known by their last name, or their last name is important because grouping people by family is important (really two sides of the same coin - in both cases, the objective is easier searching or browsing by last name).
- The furry fandom is a community where people tend to be better known to one another by their first names than their last (e.g. Deyna T. Otter, Flinthoof Ponypal, Kaijima A. Frostfang - and we also have a large proportion of people with just one name, or with an InterCapped name like my own). Our articles about people tend to be about these people (as opposed to "external" people, like Star Trek). A sign of this is that we tend to refer to people by their first names throughout articles, even if they are "real" people (e.g. Mark Merlino, Rod O'Riley). The number of people with the same last name is very small, and those that are related to one another will usually link to each other (and since wiki is not paper, you don't have to turn lots of pages to get there). Therefore, it seems better to consistently sort by their well-known first name rather than by a last name which they may or may not have, and which people may or may not know.
- All other categories are sorted in this manner, so that means we have a self-consistent categorization system. It also happens to make the lives of editors easier, as they don't have to add reordering tags to 1500+ pages about people (and you know people would forget, or not know how to do it, resulting in pages that are ordered incorrectly).
- The main place in which it seems sensible to reorder is when part of their "name" is an honorific, like Uncle Kage - people would probably expect to find him sorted under Kage rather than Uncle, especially since his "real" nickname is Kagemushi Goro. There are cases (usually with nicknames) in which this might not be the case, like Doctor Fennopolis or Lord Foxhole. Again, the ultimate criteria to make it easier to find people, which is the same reason we have the article name be the most common name (especially if people forget to add redirects from alternate names, as often happens).
- Regarding your specific point: A lot of people don't know how to "properly" navigate an encyclopedia. Why should we make their lives harder for the sake of a convention that doesn't apply to our group? Being able to tweak the rules to suit our community is one of the benefits of having a separate wiki in the first place, after all. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 09:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Site display problems
It would appear that the new featured wikis strip on the right side of the page is messing up the layout. It's making the navigation strip appear a lot lower than the WikiFur logo, leaving about 400 pixels of space between them. This doesn't happen on all entries, just in some.
http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/4934/wikifurb0rkenaf4.png (No ads, all blocked due to Adblock)
At first, I thought it was due to Adblock, but it seems to happen when it's deactivated as well.
http://img445.imageshack.us/img445/6786/wikifurb0rken2gd9.png (Adblock disabled)
Any clue if that can be fixed?--Kitsune Sniper 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- We're discussing the problem on the #wikia IRC channel right now. --GreenReaper(talk) 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Featured article length
I think the featured article and comic as displayed on WikiFur Furry Central should be shorter. On the displays I use (reasonaly large, with a browser window taking up a good portion of the screen) the featured comic is "below the fold" and easy to miss without scrolling. -- Sine 21:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Just raise your resolution. It's never been too far down for me. --Akir 23:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Some users are, alas, unable to do that. The situation is improving, but 800x600 users still make up 6.4% of our user base, and 47.4% use 1024x786. We need to consider how the site will look to them. The most obvious improvement would be to remove the "WikiFur Furry Central" at the top, or shift the content up to cover it, as Wikipedia does. I will investigate that possibility. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
It's all broken!
The featured article, featured comic and featured image sections are all not appearing correctly. --Tori Belliachi 00:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
21st Century Fox was already featured.
Other than that, I before saw the page featuring FA's article. So, any idea what's going on with the main page? --Shadow Fox
- It was set back to this time last year because there were no conclusive decisions on front page content. If you are interested in what happens on the main page, I suggest contributing to WikiFur:Featured article candidates, WikiFur:Comic of the Week and WikiFur:Featured picture candidates. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me, or has all of WikiFur been unreasonably slow lately? I've noticed very slow load times for a few days now. Immelmann 18:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
- There have been recent performance problems, some due to the move to Version 1.12alpha, and some not. Wikia is working on improving this situation, but I'm afraid that due to the holidays it will probably not be completely solved until January. Should give you plenty of time to write some original content, though. ;-) --GreenReaper(talk) 18:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Megaplex variety show
Megaplex has had a variety show since at least 2004 (MP3). The featured article seems to suggest otherwise. The whole ending part of the featured article text seems to have been added on (it is not from the original article) and I question its accuracy. Wag! 13:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
"Upcoming events" and nationalities
Approaching this issue with due apprehension, since it frequently causes huge arguments on Wikipedia... how come, in the "Upcoming events" section, RBW and ConFuzzled are given British flags, but ScotiaCon is given a Scottish one? For consistency's sake, either they should all be given UK flags (which would be my preference) or RBW and ConFuzzled should have English flags. Given that the UK includes Scotland, it's inconsistent to have it as it is at the moment. Loganberry (Talk) 20:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, that's what you get with devolution! ;-)
- My reasoning was that Scotiacon is designed only to attract furs from Scotland, while RBW and ConFuzzled are intended to draw people from the whole of the UK (it wouldn't be RBW with just white and red . . .). However, if you feel the Scottish flag is inappropriate, feel free to change it. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I have to refresh every page...
Why is it that I have to refresh every page or else it looks like it did the last time I visited it? Sometimes it says I'm not logged in when I really am. Is there a fix for this?... Mrperson777 11:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Not at the moment, no. Wikifur has had a caching issue for a while that's being worked on, but no fix has been implemented as of yet. SilverserenC 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Well that ain't right...
Dunno if this is a browser issue or not, but the front page seems to be lacking in pictures. (They're showing up as broken links) Dreaming 23:57, 1 January 2012 (EST)
Time for a new set of featured stuff?
The featured article and featured comic haven't changed for at least as long as I've had an account here, and I've had an account here for a while. Time for a change, maybe? fluffy 00:52, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
Template changed, main page didn't?
I edited the Upcoming Events template and the update shows on the template page, but not on the main page. I feel like I had this problem with MediaWiki once before and the resolution was that the main page must be edited to re-pull the template pages. Or does it do that automatically on some kind of schedule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timoran (talk • contribs) .
- This can happen if the page is cached. Add ?action=purge to the URL and load the resulting page. --GreenReaper(talk) 14:23, 8 August 2014 (EDT)
UK Furry Convention Flags
Relating to what was said about Scotiacon having a Scottish flag while the other UK furry conventions have a UK flag, speaking as a Scottish fur myself I feel that for consistency's sake all the UK fur cons should have the same flag as each other. I think it is inappropriate for Scotiacon to have the Scottish flag instead of the UK flag when many of the convention's attendees come from other parts of the UK as well. Would it be possible to change the flag next to Scotiacon to a UK flag like it is with ConFuzzled and Just Fur The Weekend? - FreyFox.
- Sure, I've made this change, per this and the prior discussion. We can keep that flag around in case it's needed later. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:04, 24 October 2016 (EDT)
Come out loud and proud
- Who's 'we'? This is a furry wiki, not a therian wiki. That's why articles about people get included in Category:Wolf characters, not Category:Wolves. --GreenReaper(talk) 00:59, 3 November 2016 (EDT)
Wikifur needs full-time editors
I have been on here for several years, and the quality of the content on WikiFur is STILL the same way it was 5 years ago. There are stub articles about people, books, and characters that literally haven't been improved on for quite some time. What would solve this problem is by hiring full-time contributors that are willing to seek out information and add, edit, or clean up articles related to that information.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs) .
- WikiFur is a community-driven project by and for furries. We create and enforce policy by community consensus. It's a passion project, and hiring an influx of Ivory Tower outsiders would muddy that. The best way to help fix up stubs is to expand them yourself if you know more, or find someone who does know more. (Typically stubs are created because it contains the sum of all the person who created it knows!)
- Besides, many of us are supporting the site out of our own pockets. In the past we've had paid incentives for editors, but where would we get the resources to hire multiple full time employees, with all that requires? (US-specific link). --Equivamp - talk 10:21, 6 June 2017 (EDT)
- WikiFur derives far more from volunteer effort than it could get through paid effort - and as Equivamp notes, mixing the two can be problematic, to say the least. Say there were 625 edits - roughly what we had in the last 30 days - and each took an average of ten minutes. One estimate for this level of activity - roughly four months of full-time work - is $9,000/year at minimum wage - but doubling that might be more realistic (it is a skilled role, and there are additional costs to employment over salary). Now, let's not forget the cost of paying the technicians - Timduru and myself - $9k each might get a month from us both at contract rates, if you're lucky. Now we're talking close to $40k, to reproduce what we have; only it doesn't - we benefit from the perspective and experiences of the entire community. Best to keep money out of it. The closest to this happening in real life is Nuka (and others) from the Anthropomorphic Research Project getting a grant to study furries and make a website for it, providing technical information about the fandom which would be hard to obtain otherwise (which may then be summarized here and in news articles). Other than that, if you think topics are under-served, be bold and make coverage happen! Just remember, you're writing for the benefit of the community, not the subject of the article - so try to temper your enthusiasm with objectivity. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:37, 14 April 2018 (EDT)
Wikifur needs to allow the full synopsis of books to be written
Whenever I go on articles about books related to the furry fandom, I see... a plot summary. Nothing else. Why WikiFur seems to be discouraging or even prohibiting the publication of story information beyond the plot summary is beyond me. Whenever I actually tried to add in information about Eric M. Deal's "A Fox Tail", the synopsis section was removed, and that happened every time I tried to add it back in. As a wiki, isn't it the responsibility of WikiFur to actually document these books, instead of just worrying about potential readers being spoiled? Even books documented on Wikipedia and Wikia wikis have complete synopsis information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realandyisepic (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 June 2017 (EDT).
- To me, it looks like you were only adding empty synopsis sections, which were removed for being blank rather than because it was a synopsis section. --V. CA (talk) 11:13, 7 June 2017 (EDT)
• I was actually leaving them blank on purpose in the hopes that someone who has actually read the book would fill in the information. Even though those sections were not filled, they should still remain in the article to reduce the amount of time editing. FURTHER INFO: I'm trying to say that there should be sections in the articles on books that should be required, no matter if there is information or not.
- You might want to try actually discussing the edits with which you take issue on the talk page of the person making them. We do have a template available for similar situations of sections you feel should be added but don't know enough about to start. It's not really fair for that editor to assume their motivations for removing the sections, though.
- Also, the Watercooler might be a better place for these discussions in the future. --Equivamp - talk 11:52, 7 June 2017 (EDT)