Category talk:Furry pilots

We didn't keep Category:Students or Category:Gamers, so I don't think this should stay. If not deleted entirely, it should be changed to a userspace category only. Spaz Kitty 05:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A pretty specific group

I wanted to add this category because it is a pretty specific group, we did keep Category:Artists and Category:Ham radio operators I think this is a valid category.

Artists has several hundred members in the category. Ham radio operators at least has almost 20 members. This has only three. If there are only a handful of people who belong to a category, I think it's more appropriate as a userspace category rather than a main one. Spaz Kitty 05:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If it became a userspace category and gained more people could it become a regular category? I mean give me a break here, it's been a ceategory for all of 15 minutes, and it's 0200 EST 0600 Zulu

As I see it slowly fills in, I say wait and see who qualifies for this category. I know a few furry pilots myself. It's as much a hobby as Ham Radio--Kendricks Redtail 17:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ham radio is arguably relevant because of presence at furry conventions (I'm not entirely convinced, myself) but I don't see even that connection for pilots. If there isn't an intersection of trait with furry, or it's not something like birth date, I don't see a reason for an article category. We have rather a lot of subcategories of people as it is. -- Sine 21:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well actually there is some presence at cons, my furry aviator pannel at FWA drew in a lot of people, and if you look around there is usually some nut with an RC chopper or a group of pilots hanging around somewhere at a con. There is also a mailing list and an LJ group for furry pilots. There are even furs who fly their (or rented) planes to cons. (Pleading badly to save category) ~Drake

So let me get this straight: You post public entries like this and we're supposed to believe you're editing in good faith? It's one thing if you're urging other pilots to add the category to their entries, but this appears to urge pretty much anyone, pilot or not, to add the category to their entry.----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 21:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forgot about that, that was actually supposed to be posted in the furry pilots usergroup, and in fact I beleive it was. Slipped up in my LJ posting. Sorry. It was only intended for the Furry Pilots LJ group. ~Drake

Duly noted, and criticism withdrawn. For the record, I don't see a compelling reason to delete the category; there are certainly many, many categories on WikiFur with fewer members than this.----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 13:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much about number of articles within a category (although that is a factor) as the ... interestingness of a category itself. I'm not sure precisely where the line is, but as I imagine we can all agree Category:Artists is appropriate, while Category:Green-eyed people would not be, there is some line somewhere! -- Sine 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What about green-furred people like myself, who might want to meet similarly-coloured folk? :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Others' thoughts, now, on the appropriateness of this category? What about the name of it? -- Sine 19:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Furry" is irrelevant to being a pilot, therefore it should not be in the name of the category. --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

And then we get to, is Category:Pilots a useful thing to have on WikiFur. I still think that, at least for the moment, it is not. -- Sine 23:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I am removing it. For the record, the people were Arlon, Dobie, Drake TigerClaw, Durango Dingo, Kiran Lightpaw, and SR Foxley. --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)