WikiFur talk:What WikiFur is not
Yay for a 'is not..' page, these are always quite interesting to read. ;) I recommend the creation of a 'Wikifur is..' page to counter this one nicely. I may do a little cleaning up as there are a few WP references still here and there. -Nidonocu - talk 20:57, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Might I suggest adding 'WikiFur is not a soapbox' to this list? To ask that articles, not adverts are written. It can then be used to support the advert cleanup template. --Nidonocu - talk 03:07, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I can see that we don't want some things, but I can see areas where we might want to allow limited relevant information that could be viewed as advertising under a very strict definition. For example do we want to allow people to put links of amazon titles in external links sections on the relevant articles? I'm a little worried about making rules on that too early, as there haven't been many examples of people doing advertising or promotion yet.
- And templates are there to support people enforcing established community policies, not vice versa. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 15:35, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that advertising falls under the NPOV rule. If one advocates a particular point of view (Buy this! Love that!) then one is at least pushing the boundaries of NPOV, and there may be grounds for correction if the overall tone of an article appears to be persuasive rather than informative. -- Siege 07:44, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- A good example of this is how sponsorship announcements for (U.S.) public radio stations are written: a statement of facts and where to go for more information is OK, but any imperative statement that instructs the listener/reader to do something is Right Out. --Duncan da Husky 13:52, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Under WikiFur is not Wikipedia
- The main criteria for inclusion in WikiFur is that a topic must be capable of being interesting to some portion of the furry community.
I'd like to suggest this be changed from "being interesting" to "holding relevance". This is probably why the Interlingua articles were added: someone thought they would be interesting, even if they had no obvious relevance to furries. -- Siege 19:14, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- That's probably true. Do people think that this is, in fact, a bad thing? --GreenReaper(talk) 04:27, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Nobody else wants to comment on this? -- Siege 08:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for missing this - sadly, it's too easy for stuff to go by in the slew of Recent Changes. I agree with Siege's comments, and I would support this change. --Duncan da Husky 13:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- Likewise. I can't see any problems with this change as "being interesting" is a little ambiguous and does lead to articles like those. Should we go in to a little more detail (give examples, etc) on this area in general as Wikipedia has whole pages explaining what is and what isn't to be included. We should maybe have a little more at least than just a paragraph. --Nidonocu - talk 17:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
- And I did a fix that really works better outside the wiki pedia section (others may disagree). I image such a thing will be reverted--or at least decently edited. Figured I'd put this in, to give a more solid image of what exactly the scope is on the subject matter. --KatrinaTheLamia 06:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Gah--and apologies on my part. I have gotten to the point that due to various ad banner schemes on the net, how the template was present kind of went into me "ignore this area of the page" line of thought (as that spot, typically, was used for ads of the sort of "you have one new message"--I don't even see that part of the page anymore). Though, I for one, and not one to want to discuss this sort of thing with a committee when I think I know how to do it. I will note, that just acting on a situation, rather than asking permission has been the main reason I have actually done and figured out most things in my life. It also puts me as a prime candidate to having the famous last lines of "hey! look what I can do" (or some variant). Not something I really mind, myself though. --KatrinaTheLamia 07:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it needs to be added under "links" that the linking to websites that host warez for downloading, such as thepiratebay, should not be allowed. Both GreenReaper and myself have some agreement upon this in that allowing people to place links to warez websites, even if the linked page itself has a peice of relevant information to a given page, should not be allowed. Copying and pasting the relevant text of the page into the article is one thing, but linking to it with an external link is something else entirely that could potentially be harmful. Thoughts and comments?
Edit: ::I also should note that part of the policy addition is that certain links, like those to posted copies of emails might be exempt, but could be discussed so their placement and relevancy can be decided by a consensus. --Markus 01:42, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Seconded. It may occur one day that a direct link may be needed to be made for an article, but we can cross that river later on. At this time, direct link to Warez material has no benefit, and, as Markus indicated, can be a source of trouble. Spirou 02:30, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- I agree as well. I also think this policy should be implemented with some alacrity, given that the topic is particularly relevant at the moment. --Duncan da Husky 13:03, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, on further review of this, while I see that this could go under "links", I have to wonder if a better page for this information might be under Policies and guidelines. None of the existing sections there are a good fit, so it would probably need a new section. Perhaps something like:
- Acceptable Links
- Links to sites that profit from the distribution of illegal software are not welcome on WikiFur and will be removed by the administrators.
- Short and simple. Thoughts?--Duncan da Husky 13:29, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
- A better name could be simply Links to warez sites. It could also go here too under a similar name, though the end location for it will be up to the consensus. Naming convention anyone? --Markus 14:16, 20 Dec 2005 (UTC)
I'm aware that I've pretty much broken one of the policies on this page by making pages like List of furry LiveJournal communities and List of media links. Can I take it by people's lack of comment that these are indeed useful and this policy is perhaps not as appropriate here as it would be for Wikipedia (from whence I copied it), or were you all too worried to say anything bad? :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 11:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, they're not entirely lists of external links - they tend to be linked to appropriate articles, which is part of the point of it. Still! --GreenReaper(talk) 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Chalk it up to short attention spans ;-) While I don't think we want to have a series of pages that are content-free and are only lists of links, I don't think that there is a need at this time for a complete ban on such lists. That may change in the future, but hey, we grow, we evolve, we adapt. --Duncan da Husky 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
"WikiFur is not anything beyond the furdom"
This statement and its explanation may need clarifying. I had to read it three times before saying "Oh! So that's what it means!". I don't know the cases mentioned above that showed the need for this policy, but I suspect this is something like Rehabilitating Mr. Wiggles.
There are items out there, that are entirely run by furries, and heavily draw on many furry influences. However, if the subject matter at hand is not in itself furry based, then it does not belong here.
Say a comic or animation on the internet is run entirely by a community of furs, and is referred to as Rodney Rodent, with a character that acts and dresses in a manner that presents a solid cause of plagiarism for the Disney Property Mickey Mouse, if the subject matter in the material is not in itself furry, it does not belong here.
There are items out there that are entirely run by furries or heavily draw on furry influences. <We welcome any contribution and other encouraging stuff, have to keep rules friendly> Note, though, that the furry material has to be the focus of an article, and other info must be kept compact. A paragraph or two will suffice to relate context or its significance for the topic.
For example, there is a videogame series which occasionally features anthropomorphic animals as opponents. The Wikipedia article focuses on plot, gameplay, reception, possibly without even mentioning the furry presence. In WikiFur, this article would be most interesting if it contained the information on furry races of the game world, on what is their role and their distinctive qualities. General description of the game is good for context, but doesn't have to be overly detailed.
EvilCat 08:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone?... EvilCat 08:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)