Category talk:People

Found a small error in the page's bulleted list. Specifically in the alphabetical range. It went from E-L to N-R. I have corrected it and added a few names of artists I have met while at AnthroCon last month. --Markus 09:39, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Good call! -- 14:04, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

People?
Shouldn't it be fursons or something?


 * My 2 cents ... That term isn't accepted by all in the community. Perhaps there should be an article on the word Furson ... but to keep it relativley neutral, People seems best. -- 00:34, 16 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * God help us if anyone uses "Feeple" ;) --Tom Howling 23:19, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Uneditable?
Has this page become uneditable to the public?


 * It had, yes . . . -- 04:34, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Personal information
I'd like to take initiative and start editing pages about people with information that's too personal. For instance, remove lines where people write their "likes" and "dislikes" and start turning pages about themselves or other furries into personal ads. I think it'd be better if this site contained more "information" information instead of having so much personal information on people. From numerous comments about the pages off-site, I know that I'm not alone in this. Thoughts? (I'd like non-admin input, too. Contact me via my talk page or through my contacts for comments.) --Verix 08:01, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest that if there is a user for that person (check the history, they probably edited the page) then you should move such personal information to their user page, creating it if necessary. Ensure that there are links both ways - I find you can usually add something like " . . . and is also a WikiFur user." to the person page. If there is no such user, I'd move it to the dicussion page instead. -- 19:46, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Ages of people
I would like to suggest that People entries not give the ages of people, but rather give their year of birth. If this site is around for very long (as many of us are hoping it will be), age information becomes outdated, whereas the year of one's birth never changes. Mwalimu 04:00, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetization - first and last names
Most names where a first and last name are provided are alphabetized by first name, but at least one is alphabetized by last name. Should be choose one way or the other and stick with it for everyone? Mwalimu 20:28, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the human names could be sorted by last name? Example: Mike Curtis and Carole Curtis. If all names had to be sorted the same way, then I'd vote for sorting by first name. --EarthFurst 18:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally favour consistent first name sorting otherwise I think it'll look a mess. I know Wikipedia uses last-name sorting, but . . . well, that's one of the differences between a community wiki and a general-purpose encyclopedia. I usually use first names in articles as well (so "Laurence did this" rather than "Parry did this"). If people really don't know a first name, they can always use the search to find it. --GreenReaper(talk) 18:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Error on page?
Why does the "Articles in category "People"" list end with the letter S? Am I missing something? And out of curiosity, is this page dynamically generated? --Tom Howling 23:21, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey Tom :) Yeah, it's made automatically whenever another page entry is linked to it. And I want more of that gefilte fish, damnit.--Crassus 23:28, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * It stops at S (now R) because the number of entries now exceeds 200. If you scroll up, you'll see "(previous 200)(next 200)"; you can click on (next 200) to see the rest of the entries.
 * One behavior I don't like, however is that it also splits up the subcategories at the same place in the alphabet. It seems to me it should keep all those together ahead of all the entries. Mwalimu 05:22, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. No need to reply to the comment I posted on your Talk page (asking the same question) -- I'll delete it now. --Tom Howling 16:22, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Privacy?
I see some people has been moved to the "Voluntarily Excluded" section, or however it's called. I know some of them, and they wouldn't have asked to be there if people hadn't posted personal info about themselves. They said that's the option they were given.

So why not the option of reverting to an older version of the page without that personal info, and then lock the page there? Why all or nothing?
 * Because you can't delete the history of an article. Article history isn't archived by Google, but it can be scoured by trolls, stalkers, vandals, etc.  Almafeta 19:29, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpose of a wiki is to have ever evoloving and changing information as we understand things. Locking down a user's page defeats the purpose of having most everything editable.  Remember, nobody owns the information on a wiki... everyone does. Redcard 19:30, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Being freely editable is the means, not the end. Almafeta 19:35, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * It's both. If it weren't, everything we do here wouldn't be going into the GFDL or CC.  Redcard 19:39, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm . . . no, the the fact that it is freely editable is the means to the end of having the best site. I don't necessarily view the fact that it is freely editable as being the objective in itself. My objective (or one of them) is to make the best furry reference site, and it just so happens that for most articles, free editing is the way to achieve that. In the specific cases of pages about people, if our choice (made out of a sense of responsibility) is either something static or blanking, it may be better to have the something than the nothing. -- 06:28, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if the end is having a good source of information isn't it better to know that X person is this and that; rather than only knowing it exists, but asked to be excluded because their privacy was being compromised? And if the reason for not allowing people's entries to be locked is to prevent them from being one sided, why is there at least one locked page in this category? (Yeah, I know the answer is Vandalism, but does that mean that if user X wanted his entry locked but not removed he better find people to vandalize it? Sounds like a punishment for being good and reward for being bad) Tundu 03:23, 28 Aug 2005 (CST)


 * Well, the thing is, locked entries aren't locked for ever and if people really wanted to add content to it, all they would have to do is contact an administrator and have them put it in for them. ;) You can't stop a wiki that easily. -Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 08:37, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but I don't get why it's all or nothing for people whose privacy /has already/ been compromised. What's wrong with locking the entry to a state how it was before the privacy violation, especially if the page wasn't created by the person it refers to? Tundu 13:58, 28 Aug 2005 (CST) (with DST I keep forgetting how many hours to add for UTC x.x)


 * Because that's anti-wiki. If you lock an entry so no one can edit it, what's the point of it being here? Wiki's should be editiable to all. Locking pages just because people don't want things listed here (but interesting can be easily found out with a simple check of our overlords Google) I personally find wrong. -Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 19:11, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * But at risk of sounding repetitive, is this about preserving the Wiki spirit or having a complete source of information? Why is Sibe locked because of vandalism, yet other people can't request their privacy protected using the same method? It seems to reward bad behavior, vandalism, and punish what I consider to be a legitimate cocern for privacy. Sure they can remove their personal info, but it'll always be in the history, and people shouldn't have to be forced to check here every single day to see if someone already reposted some personal info. If it was something like "he got himself kicked out of con X" I'd understand how it's against the spirit of the wiki to lock an entry just because of that, but c'mon, if someone came here and posted your real name, address, phone, etc... wouldn't you want to prevent that? Completely removing your entry... well, I feel that goes even worse with what this place is all about, and maybe you even liked your entry before someone spoiled the fun with personal things :P. If I sound harsh my apologies, it's certainly not intended, I just tend to use examples a lot, and some have taken that badly in the past =P All I want is for this place to be better ^^ --Tundu 20:15, 28 Aug 2005 (CST)


 * We are currently debating this policy actually over at Personal_information so I recommend going to its talk page to air your views. One other feature I'd like to point out is that you can leave comments in the source code of pages as HTML comments. Thus warning people that certain information is not wanted here. Generally speaking it is thought that the fact this is a wiki means all mistakes or delibrate vandalism will always be caught and removed. So one wouldn't need to check here everyday, you have a good 15 or so people doing it for you. --Nidonocu - talk [[Image:Trans 168.png|16px|Nidonocu]] 02:20, 29 Aug 2005 (UTC)

More people subcategories?
What about more subcategories for people, such as say, Post-Furs, Christian Furs, etc.?


 * I'm not sure the wiki infrastructure really copes all that well with fine-grained taxonomies, seeing as it doesn't seem to automatically inherit categories. You can't just tag someone as an Artist; you also need to explicitly tag them as a Person as well.  Given that we want casual users to be able to add articles, they're probably not going to be willing to learn a complicated classification scheme.  At the moment, it's unusual for any particular article to have more than three categories at once.  -- 08:29, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, there's no rule saying articles have to be categorized all at once. If there are appropriate - people could come around and add them later. Categorizing people does tend to be a contentious subject, though, especially when those categorized disagree with it (hasn't happened yet here, to my knowledge, but then we don't have many contentious categories ;-).


 * Basically, I think if you think it's a useful category, and you know who you'd put in it, go for it. -- 14:12, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * I could see creating a separate category for people like published authors, animators, game programmers, etc., who are not really involved in the fandom except for the occasional GoH invitation or Ursa Major Award. mwalimu 14:22, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Multiple nicknames
I did the initial stub entry for Ayame/Sheena Was the other day, and I was wondering what the correct procedure is for people who are known by more than one nickname. At the moment, Sheena Was is a redirect page, and it doesn't seem possible to add the "Category" tags to a redirect page, so that the entry shows up on the listing for that category. Is there any way of getting "Sheena Was" on the "Category:People" listing without having two seperate articles? Tevildo 08:08, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought of one way, but I'm not sure it's a good way. Make the main article "Ayame/Sheena Was" and have "Ayame" and "Sheena Was" both redirect to the main article. That seems kind of messy, though.--Duncan da Husky 12:29, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem with that method is that she'll still only get one entry in the category list - someone looking for "Sheena Was" won't find her under "S". Tevildo 13:05, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

The subcategories list
This may be a Wiki issue that we don't have much control over, but I'll ask anyway... Is there a way to have the list of subcategories appear all together in one place, instead of having them split out with along the People names according to where they are in the alphabet? --mwalimu 06:40, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I think i understand your question, i assume your request has been fulfilled by the People subcategory box at the top of Category:People. --EarthFurst 16:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about adding oneself
Er, hi. I haven't registered at Wikifur yet, but I have a question. I'm a fur, and I'd like to add a page on myself here... but I'm not exactly very "famous". I mean, I'm kinda known in the gaming community I'm from and I'm also known by many furs, but I'm not a super famous artist, writer, programmer or anything like that. I'm just one of two or three furs that have been around in my particular hobby.

Is it frowned upon to add yourself to the site? Or is it allowed and encouraged? Thanks! 201.143.11.36 07:39, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * That's perfectly legit, as other people have done it before. Just be aware that an article about you may be mercilessly edited by other people. ;-)  You always have the option of creating your "User" page, which is considered to "belong" to you, and not freely editable by others.  --Dmuth 15:10, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know that. There's a few trolls who know me and bug me if they see me, so that's okay, I guess. To me it's not so much adding -myself-, but the stuff I've done (which is related to furry in a way). Thanks! 201.143.11.36 17:21, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Convention Staff?
I have a suggestion for a new subcategory, but since it would be entirely self-serving I wanted to air it here before implementing. Since there are those of us who can't draw and aren't writers, yet serve the fandom out of insanity (or as I like to call it, constructively directed OCD :-) by helping out at conventions, I would like to suggest the subcategory of Convention staff. Thoughts on this? (And yes, there are also artists and writers who are convention staff. We hates the talented folk, we do.) DuncanDaHusky(talk) 13:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a reasonable idea. Subcategories for specific conventions? Inclusion of past convention staff? Where exactly do you draw the line of "staff"? --GreenReaper(talk) 19:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Two cents: Showing who was on staff each year at each con is a noble pursuit, but would take tons of work. It's a tidbit I've been curious about in the past. Two more cents: I think the line of who is staff is self-evident; most cons have staff lists on their website. --Brody(talk) 14 April 2006


 * Do gophers count as staff? -- Sine 21:09, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the subcategories index
I think the subcategories could do with being split into things people do and interests they have, though I'm not sure hwo best to work that! I'm thinking something like:

Except prettier. -- Sine 17:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Bumping this on to recent changes in hopes of discussion. We could also do with a line for people-in-groups such as Category:Dorsai Irregulars and Category:Tucson Mob. -- Sine 22:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * At the moment I prefer one box with subcats all in alphabetical order. Any objections to adding more categories to the subcategories box at top of "Category:People" page? (Additional subcats are: "Dorsai Irregulars", "Ham radio operators", "LittleFurs", "Milfurs", "RadioFurs", and "Voice talents".) --EarthFurst 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection to the addition, but I also think that splitting the boxes to activities vs. social groups makes sense. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A category for students?
Any reason why we can't have a category for students? --Douglas Muth 03:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See Category talk:Students for that discussion. Spaz Kitty 03:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this sounds stupid
I'm really new to this sort of thing; I've tried in the past to add a page about myself, but I just can't figure it out. Editing existing pages is easy enough, but I want to make new page entirely. Ronin 05:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Either change the URL, load the new URL and click edit; or edit an existing page, add a link to the new page, and click on the link in the preview (it is not necessary to save the page). --GreenReaper(talk) 07:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)