From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Why was that section removed with out discussion on the talk page? I think that the history of the word is relivant to the person's name? The other option would be to make a disambig page for this page...? -WhiteFire 02:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- We're not a dictionary. Disambiguation would not be needed for a non-furry definition. Spaz Kitty 02:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- No connection was made between the name and the word. You could have suggested that maybe he derived his name from the term, but you didn't go at it that way. Echoing Spaz's comment, the word has no furry relevance whatsoever, so it really doesn't belong here.--Kendricks Redtail 02:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I was leaving that implied that this was the case based of how old the definition of the word was (basicly pre-internet) and the uniqueness of the spelling. -WhiteFire 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think I'll leave that sort of addition to someone more experienced in the desired look and feel of WikiFur. -WhiteFire 14:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Just to add to these comments, but to give a little more context: one of the things that we have to watch out for on WikiFur is scope creep. We have a hard enough time keeping up with things furry-related without introducing topics and information from outside the fandom. Unfortunately, this leads to having to make some hard and fast decisions about what stays and what goes. I would hope that those decisions always make sense, and that other editors can see why they are made, but alas, sometimes it's not so clear.----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 12:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- *shrug* Ok. -WhiteFire 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)