From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

Centaurs, Mermaid, Yetis, Vampires, Minos,....[edit]

Same article was deleted prior as not being furry. Taur would be a more furry relevant article, as it is common within furry lore. A centaur is just an hominid just tackled to the body of a species of animal, not anthropomorphic in any way. Taurs buckle this theory by furries with a quadruped lower body, normally of the same species - Spirou 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's probably the activity in ru-WikiFur which drew your attention to these articles %) Ru-WikiFur rules seem more accepting, but still, I'll try to defend this article. First of all, human torso on a horse body, wow, there must be a significant furry interest! I can't say for everyone, but I would play a centaur any day (in traditional tabletop RPGs, to clear the matter). They are powerful, noble, live in herds - they're horsey, even though their faces are humey. The faces, now, it depends on the world. WoW Centaurs are mostly human, Disney centaur is monstrous, AD&D comics centaur has horse ears and fur. There are Uchchaihshravi weres in new World of Darkness who change from human to horse and centaur, and a similar horse/centaur changer in D&D/d20 somewhere. Another human/centaur/horse transformation I recall from Silver Age "Lois Lane" comics, not that it's very significant reference %) Still, I remembered it because I was interested in animals and anthropomorphs. I even read that comic. Centaur fae are available with Beast Seeming in "Changeling: the Lost" RPG, along with other furries and animal-like mythics.
The thing is, centaurs and "true" anthropomorphs go alongside. Are centaurs furry? Debatable as the definition of furry itself. Is article appropriate? I think it is. Should it be expanded? Surely, as most of wiki articles are. In ru-WikiFur, I plan to expand in significantly with the info above and more. EvilCat 12:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
"It's probably the activity in ru-WikiFur which drew your attention to these articles" No, it was was actually the past discussion if centaurs were really furry or mythologically mainstream creatures and it subsequent deletion of this article. Worthiness or not, a human with an animal appendage a furry does not make. Were wolfs, which some people have also a problem (I don't), transforms a humanoid into an anthropomorphic beast, hence the furry side. I didn't put the "Appropriate" tag because I wish to see this article go, but instead because the discussion was already meted in the past for its unfurriness,... Case in point, as with mermaids, is Disney's Ariel a furry?.
Deletion here does not mean deletion on the ru-Wikifur, by the way, just FYI - Spirou 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I know they're not connected, I just root for these amazing mythic animal-hybrids as whole %) Anyway, Nutella is not a furry, as are humans and to some extent raptors and Lion King. I'm not to judge if human/animal changers (without manbeast form) are in scope of en-WikiFur, but if they are - this article should be expanded with the info above, not deleted. I would do it, but I don't have that much confidence in my language skills.
About Ariel, she's not a furry IMHO, but some incarnations of merfolk are. Those in Magic: the Gathering [1] [2] have a lot of piscine features. Armenfilm animation "Under the blue sea, under the white spindrift" has mermaid who has fish for a head. World of Darkness merfolk (a changeling kin) can be as "fishy" (or based on other sea life) as players like. Milk! #35 has an antropomorphic mermaid character named Fen. Merfolk are furry-capable. EvilCat 21:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
"I know they're not connected, I just root for these amazing mythic animal-hybrids as whole %)" Adoration is not precisely a qualifying term for article entry; Many entries have been started (I.e. Animorphs) because because people thought that they were a concept that may be spot on for Wikifur. As for the examples you brought forward:
Nutella,...This product is so engrained in US furry lore that its omission would be sacrilegious for some fans o.O Human, the base unit that a furry starts from, with no Human there will be not anthropomorphics to begin with, Lion King not furry, no, not furry per se, but as of furry interest, several hundred fans and artists may have a word or two about it (a following that Centaur does not measure to). Raptor,... well, slap a Appr tag on it (done).
We are re hashing a topic that has been discussed/deleted in the past. You feel that they may a point to reintroduce them back on Wikifur, so, how about this. Along with the Appropriate tag (it takes several months and updates before deletion, so other editors can way in on the pros and cons), I will add the Merge tag, in the event that deleting it again, it may be added to the Taur article. Discussion is the key, unless overall opinion sways it one way or the other.
AS for Human Merwolk, what would a fish/mammal version of a Taur would be called? - Spirou 03:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Ouch! A raptor is a kind of fursona for me (a morph, actually), and it seems like several other furries and possibly most scalies deem them appropriate. About Lion King, TLK fans take more than a half of Russian furry fandom, thus both physically anthropomorphic (humanoid) and psychologically anthropomorphic (talking animals) characters are accepted. Seems like the culture is hugely different across the globe... Still, it's not like only bipedal animals are called furry in English, according to my research. It seems to be the case of no established terms.
Anyway, I'm not the one to rule what is appropriate or not in en-WikiFur. My purpose was to lend some thoughts and arguments. In ru-WikiFur, the only notability guidelines are "you, the fandom member, is the best judge of what is appropriate" and "write in the context of anthropomorphic animals and furry fandom". With the small fandom we have, works pretty well. We only had to delete as much as three or four articles and clean up some.
So, my work here is done. Good luck %) EvilCat 16:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Part of the article conflicts with what my dictionary and Wikipedia say.
The Wikifur article says "For instance some have the upper bodies of humans but the lower bodies of foxes, lions or even spiders. ..."
My dictionary says a centaur is "a creature with the head, arms, and torso of a man and the body and legs of a horse."
Wikipedia article about Centaurs says "In Greek mythology, the centaurs ... are ... part human and part horse. In early Attic and Boeotian vase-paintings ... they are depicted with the hindquarters of a horse attached to them; in later renderings centaurs are given the torso of a human joined at the waist to the horse's withers ..."
Perhaps the info about taurs without a horse portion can be replaced with a See also link or a single sentence such as "Taurs are the furry fandom term for any creature with a furry anthro humanoid upper body joined onto the non-anthropomorphic lower body of another animal," --EarthFurst 05:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Article update #1 (March 6, 2010)[edit]

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete?. - Spirou 00:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Article update #2 (July 25, 2010)[edit]

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete? - Spirou 23:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, I have seen Centaurs illustrated in the fandom and there are those that believe them to, even with their human parts, to be furry because of the animal parts. I'm on the fence with my own opinion on that, but since we take the community's opinion and not our own, I would have to say that the article should be kept. Taurs are really not the same thing in comparison. They are similar, yes, but not enough to really combine the two articles together. SilverserenC 06:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I say keep. Although I think some of the article (such as "For instance some have the upper bodies of humans but the lower bodies of foxes, lions or even spiders.") should be moved to Taur article. --EarthFurst 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)