Talk:Ocelot (species)

The Ocelot has been listed in the US as an endangered species since 3/28/1972

The base name "Ocelot" should refer to the species
According to Species the page at Ocelot should refer to the species and the disambiguation page should be at Ocelot (disambiguation). Most people searching for Ocelot will be wanting to know about the species and redirecting to a disambiguation page will not be helpful in the majority of cases. --Babou (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Wikifur is first furry centric, species articles are normally handled with Wikipedia linkage unless significant furry lore is attached to it. This is barely a stub, overshadowed by the more know Ocelot. But since there are several Ocelots, her article was renamed and added the Ocelot disambiguation page. -Spirou (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
 * Well, they might. oCeLoT was actually created first, which suggests it might be more important to furries - she was an active and skilled artist. That said, she hasn't been visible in the community for a while. The importance of topics should be re-evaluated over time. (Never mind, we just didn't have a recent link.) The artist has used the name "oCeLoT" and "oCe" to distinguish herself, so one might expect that uses of "Ocelot" would be the species, and not the artist; in that case, it might be the main page and oCeLoT could be a hatnote. --GreenReaper(talk) 13:02, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
 * I am inclined to agree with Babou on this one. We had essentially the same discussion a while back on fox species and after some back and forth concluded that an article about a species takes precedence over an article about any person, work, etc., that uses that species name as its name. Maybe there should be room for evaluating such instances on a case-by-case basis, but I think we'd need a pretty strong argument in favor of the non-species article getting first rights to the name. --mwalimu (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2015 (EDT)


 * I agree with Babou (and in fact had already done this the other day, until it was undone by Spirou). The same thing was done with Wolf vs Wolf (disambiguation) not terribly long ago. However, as I talk about in the section below,I actually think this page should be deleted. --Equivamp - talk 17:25, 30 June 2015 (EDT)


 * As the artist tends to use the abbreviated form nowadays, anyway, I have simply moved the page to oCe. --GreenReaper(talk) 17:26, 30 June 2015 (EDT)

Popularity of Ocelot as a species for fursonas
I added the following text to talk about the popularity of ocelot as a species for fursonas. This was removed by Equivamp with no real reason given in the edit comment.

I feel this is relevant information that should be added to the article, although perhaps it does need to be reworded?

--Babou (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2015 (EDT)
 * That statement is an opinion, not factual information. There are plenty users with Ocelot fursonas (try, as an example, a Fur Affinity search). Any survey are always skewed to the partial data based on a number of participants, not the entire fandom. Creating a species article just force a possible furry factoid with no strong backing or additional fandom related support data now leaves it a stub article that can no longer be fully expanded.


 * The best options would be to delete and leave it to Wikipedia to cover the subject, or redirect the page to felines, leaving the basic blurb in the disambiguation as enough information to cover the subject (a Wikipedia link is also present in the See Also section of that page). -Spirou (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2015 (EDT)


 * As Spirou said, the survey involved is one that reflects the fursonas of [adjective][species]'s readers, a relatively small bunch not representing the furry fandom as a whole. Using it as proof of popularity of the species amongst any group except [a][s] readers is just junk science. So is trying to prove a negative. I also don't know that that is something useful to include in this wiki (popular species certainly, but not unpopular ones). In fact, I'd argue this page should be deleted; there's no need to have a copy of the Wikipedia article here. --Equivamp - talk 17:22, 30 June 2015 (EDT)


 * The [a][s] survey was promoted beyond their regular readers, and I believe it has a reasonable number of entrants (though that number should, of course, be noted, along with any discrepancies in comparison to, say, ARP figures). My own concern was that it might mislead people into thinking that there were more ocelots in the fandom than there were, because it was trying to use a piece of data which wasn't specific enough. What we need to know is what will make this article specifically relevant to furry fandom beyond something which might be added as a one-liner in . Failing that, yes, it probably should be a link to a Wikipedia article. --GreenReaper(talk) 19:26, 30 June 2015 (EDT)