Talk:Vorarephilia

endosomatophilia points to a deleted article on WP
the people on Wikpedia considered it lacked verifiability or somthing, if endosomatophilia is really important for this article and such, shouldn't there be at least a stub for it here in Wikifur? or if it really is all that insignificant, should it really be mentioned at all? --Tigro Spottystripes 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why of that modification?
why was the pic removed, and also why the part talking about it somtimes being imagined to be a painless thing also removed? --Tigro Spottystripes 23:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable Sources
Linking to sources on a private website that makes it a standard practice to ban IP addresses makes the source unreliable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BradRepko (talk • contribs).
 * . . . uh, what? Most sites that have a problem with users coming from specific IP addresses will block them if deemed necessary - including WikiFur. I'd be more worried about referencing a site that didn't. --GreenReaper(talk) 04:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't check the source. So I question the validity of the source existing.--BradRepko
 * I think the important point here is that it is up to each reader to exercise sound critical thinking skills and decide for themselves whether an article (and its sources) are reliable. WikiFur, like Wikipedia and every other Wiki-based collaborative project out there, is a user-contributed, user-edited resource.  There are no full-time researchers here, so there are no guarantees that articles will be factual and unbiased.  Having said that, there are a whole lot of articles in the news media that are neither factual nor unbiased, despite being written by "professional" journalists.  There is an excellent article on Researching with Wikipedia that addresses the pros and cons of using a wiki-based source for research.  Though it is written for Wikipedia, the lessons apply equally here.  --CodyDenton 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncommon Not so Uncommon
There are five main types of vore; hard vore, soft vore, unbirth, cock vore, and anal vore. The more uncommon and lesser known types of vore include hair vore, wing vore, navel vore, belly button vore, and other various types of vore. I recommend that the page be modified to reflect this. --BradRepko 08:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

>> Anyone who's browsed enough vore knows that hard vore is quite uncommon. Certainly more uncommon than cock, breast, anal, and probably even navel. It's a completely different depiction more characteristic of an entirely different paraphilia, that is a cannibalism fetish. Petition to move hard vore to the uncommon subsection. -- Anonymous 91.207.175.149 18:56, 3 May 2020 (EDT)

Wow
A google search for "vorearephilia" lists this article as the third result. Is this really that furry specific? I'm in a strange fandom. Equivamp 16:33, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
 * It's not that odd once you think about it. Animals are well known for eating other animals. Honestly, I'm surprised we're not first. Wikipedia's article was severely trimmed a while ago. (They also redirected "vore" to the small Albanian commune of Vorë, which I'm sure confused a few people until a disambiguation page was made.) --GreenReaper(talk) 16:55, 20 June 2011 (EDT)
 * Eh, true. Equivamp 17:02, 20 June 2011 (EDT)