WikiFur:Featured article candidates/Archive

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

Purry Furries[edit]

I believe that this article is of FA status and that is of interest, seeing as it is an live-action film (all be it pornographic). ISD 18:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - This is not a well-written or particularly insightful article, and the subject matter's appropriateness for Wikifur (since it's a mainstream porn film with minimal relevance to the fandom) is highly questionable. There are plenty of other excellent articles on this site; this isn't one of them. --Natasha Softpaw 05:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Moved to WikiFur:Featured article candidates/Archive. Article was only created earlier today; such a nomination is premature. -- Sine 07:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Sono Eliane Anderson-Kei[edit]

A very well-written, detailed and complete article along the lines of earlier featured article Banrai--Kendricks Redtail 09:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Weak Oppose Articles about people can be problematic because they can request exclusion, or they don't like the attention. But that alone shouldn't stop us from featuring if it really is a compelling article. Mostly, it's lacking in references(I know there's some inline links and some has a self-evident source, but there's a complete lack of references for the rest.) --Rat 23:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


A very complete article about a popular furry comic that features nice imagery and a cast list! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ariana Windstorm (talkcontribs) 02:07, 13 June 2007.

It is indeed. But . . . hmm. It's been a featured comic, too. Should we have it as a featured article as well? (I guess technically there's no reason not to, it just seems odd) --GreenReaper(talk) 02:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I asked Samii Tiger what she thought about this. She disagreed, saying it's already seen facetime on the frontpage, so it shouldn't be eligible. I think it's a nice article to feature, but along Samii's lines of logic, I would have to oppose it (although we HAVE repeated FAs before.--Kendricks Redtail 04:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh...Samii Tiger didn't create the Extinctioners. How's she relevant? Spaz Kitty 04:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Neutral third party. No connection whatsoever. I could have easily worded it as "Another fur." Also, I'm switching my oppose to support, as we have precedent in Captain Carrot who was both Featured Article AND Featured Comic according to our archives.--Kendricks Redtail 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Lacks references. I do understand that for most of it the series itself is the reference. But the out-of-universe stuff needs references. --Rat 01:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fur Valleys[edit]

Has plenty of information, though it's somewhat fractured - I'm not convinced that the separate section headers work, although perhaps they would with a bit more information in each section. What I think this article really needs are more pictures depicting the different areas - other than that, it seems like it a good article. --GreenReaper(talk) 02:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously a lot of research, but there's a lot of red links. I don't feel it's ready for the front page in that state. --Rat 05:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Goodness gracious its a long one! My main concern is all the one liner subsections. It feels like a compilation of stubs to me.--Kendricks Redtail 09:24, 10 September 2007

Teenagers From Outer Space[edit]

I suspect there are a few more links that could be added, and I think the language could do with tightening up in some places. Despite this, it appears to give a good summary of the game and would definitely be useful as a "five minute introduction" to it. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is anywhere near being an appropriate featured article. There isn't a single clear mention of furry relevance. In addition to that issue, there a sections that are very casually worded and I would image are quoted from somewhere, and at least one which is an unspecified excerpt. -- Sine 08:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
In regards to furry relevance - it's my understanding that TFOS has been played at furry cons (was mentioned in Jan '97 issue of InFurNation, ConFurence's magazine), usually with large numbers of furry characters - furries are effectively aliens, so it's a pretty good match. I agree that this is not cited in the article as it stands. --GreenReaper(talk) 09:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Pretty good. There's a big block of unformatted text under Elements; maybe format it as a list, or bold the key points. Probably should have another image too. --Rat 06:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I added another image, and tried my idea out on the Elements section. If anyone else wants to try something else, they're welcome too. Support now. --Rat 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Weak Oppose I guess from talking to people I understand how this is furry and all, but not once in the article is it even vaguely mentioned why this could be furry. Without the concrete ties, this really doesn't have much of a place here. If we could talk more about how furries can get into this and its popularity at furry cons, then maybe. --Kendricks Redtail 09:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

London Furmeet[edit]

This article has quite a lot of stuff in there. Could do with a little reorganizing and tweaking. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Too many red links. Should have a couple images. --Rat 01:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vision Entertainment Group[edit]

Has plenty of details, but remains concise. Includes appropriate links to other articles, separate section headers, an image, good formatting etc. My main concern would be that it could be biased due to the lack of editors other than the original writer. Does anyone else here have experience with this group? --GreenReaper(talk) 02:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Needs cleanup, copyedit, some references. --Rat 01:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Furry fandom[edit]

I am nominating this article because I feel that it succinctly describes just about every element (including the controversies) of the furry fandom while maintaining objectivity. -- DeVandalizer 05:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It's long, and certainly has lots of information . . . my main concern is that it's recently been overhauled, and the person doing so said it needed more work. Looking at it, it looks like it could do with breaking up a bit more using a bit more in the way of sections, and some pictures (possibly from other articles) would help as well. There are also a lot of redlinks on there that are not specifically furry and should really be linked to Wikipedia instead. --GreenReaper(talk) 07:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
All true, it will require more work but at some point in the future it should be prime material. I'll work on it and hopefully I can get it fixed up by next week. -- DeVandalizer 08:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Right now, too many red links. Unresolved questions of whether it should be split or merged. Needs images. --Rat 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
However featuring it may encourage others to add to it. (Okay, unlikely, but one can dream.) Personally I vote yes.
  Tori Belliachi    talk    contribs    about   23:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


As potentially controversial a topic as this may be, this is actually an informative article. I'm not quite sure what to add (I hesitate to say "a picture" ;-p), though it probably could be longer. --GreenReaper(talk) 11:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, should the "Pornography in furry fandom" section of Pornography should be moved to Furotica ? --EarthFurst 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No, because the pornography article should be about such works. The brief general introduction is the prelude to the furry-specific content - we're a furry encyclopedia, after all. There is a very slight difference between erotica and pornography, and I honestly don't think the differences are great enough to have separate articles here (note the relative sizes of Wikipedia's articles). --GreenReaper(talk) 01:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Like the tags say, "needs references". --Rat 01:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose on the account of this isn't what I want headlining furry sites, personally. --IanKeith 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Oppose.--Kendricks Redtail 05:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oppose under same terms --  Tori Belliachi    talk    contribs    about   21:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. This and furotica should be merged with yiff, anyway, and I would still say no. That only makes this site seem crazier. Equivamp 15:10, 17 May 2011 (EDT)


There's a lack of pictures, but it's very amusing, and seems pretty well-written. Perhaps we should save this for April Fools, though? :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 21:51, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why this is here at all when we could just refer to the main Wiki article. Although it was fun "redefining human."--Kris Schnee 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. It does lack references, but I don't think people would start at WikiFur for scientific facts. --Rat 01:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


Nominated becuase it's mine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nidonocu (talkcontribs) 11:47, 14 September 2005 .

What do you guys think? Is there not enough info or external links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AX (talkcontribs) 23:49, 14 September 2005 .

It's good. I would prefer to avoid featuring too many pages about people (and particularly about contributors), but even with that I'll give mild support.
It might be better if it had have input from others who know you, as right now it appears to have been basically made by you with edits by us. I appreciate that might not be easy though, as there might not be others who know you (esp. considering your age, which also limits the amount that you could expect to be there), and I think we've previously featured articles about people with themselves as the main contributor (eg Verix). --GreenReaper(talk) 05:34, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
Right now, it's too short. Lacking references. --Rat 01:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
External link to your drawings and sketches will be very helpful. Perhaps examples of how you stand out from the average 'shadow' like myself. As it stands, I'm sorry, the article not good enough to be a featured article.Perneseblue 10:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I nominate this article that I rewrote because I believe its a pretty good size example, plus has a picture and good selection of links. ^_^; --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 11:48, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  • I'd have to oppose this, because I don't think a frequently-changing article that's been accused of so much NPOV and inaccuracy deserves to be featured as the best WikiFur can be. nn; Almafeta 11:59, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Um.. why should the frequency of changes dicate if an article should be featured? An article that has changed alot indicates that it has been worked on by many people to get to the point at which it is now. I personally also stand by my text in that it is NPOV, its accused yes, but none of those accusations have been backed up with evidence that disputes what I've written. --Nidonocu - talk Nidonocu 12:15, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
A bit too short. Also low on references for a contentious topic. --Rat 01:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is not so much the article that gains my opposition but rather the subject that the article discuss. ArtPlz gallery no longer works, nor its administrator's LiveJournal been live since April 2006. Harshly put, the subject matter is dead, and -like anything on the Net- gone without a trace. Unless ArtPlz has captained the Furry fandom in the past, this article should not be a candidate for a feature article status. And looking at the data the recommendation was made, Sep 2005, should its candidancy remain live. 3 year has passed. It isn't going anywhere. --Perneseblue 10:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ozy and Millie[edit]

A very popular webcomic. This article represents a solid WikiFur entry and I feel it warrants being featured. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taren (talkcontribs) 16:21, 24 October 2009.

The article's quite a nice one. How do people feel about having a featured article that was already a featured comic? (Admittedly, a long time ago . . .) --GreenReaper(talk) 00:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with it. I think to be a featured article, rather than just a featured comic, it should have more real world history and references. --Rat 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
At the expense of some necromancy, I'll bump this with a support. We need to keep content fresh on the front page too, and waiting for every article to be perfect won't get us there. As has been pointed out, we're smaller than Wikipedia, and we really don't have the number of well-matured articles that they do. Better to spotlight a different diamond in the rough regularly than to have the same featured content on the front page forever. We don't want to give users the impression that the site is static. --CodyDenton 11:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Support here as well. It's a well-written, informative article. --GingerM (Leave me a message) 17:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Pending promotion. I was going to do this today, but I've re-read the article. There are some very minor cleanup issues, such as fixing a few verb tenses (the comic ended 12/2008), that need to be done first. I don't have time to do that right now but in the next day or two I'll do so, and then promote this into a featured slot. --CodyDenton 11:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Promoted. Although it took me a while longer to get around to it thanks to Real Life, it's finally done. --CodyDenton 04:09, 9 June 2011 (EDT)


A very well written article about one of, if not the best webcomics available, one which has a deep plot, makes the readers think, and is still 'fresh' even after it's lengthy run. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghostgaff (talkcontribs) 01:37, 8 August 2011 .

Support A fairly well-written article which is heavily supported by references. BlueOtter 14:01, 27 October 2011 (EDT)
Support: article seems comprehensive and well-written.--Higgs Raccoon 06:02, 21 November 2011 (EST)