Talk:Furry fandom

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify WikiFur's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments.
Needs reverting! --JSB 20:00, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Needs improving[edit]

This page could (and should) be so much better. It's linked from a lot of pages and is probably the first or second place people will look when wanting to know what furry stuff is. It should be oriented towards them and not go rambling off talking about "spare baggage". Basically, Wikipedia should not be able to write a better furry fandom page than we can. :-) --GreenReaper(talk) 02:46, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You have some points there, although as a general introductory page oriented toward the uninitiated, I do have to think there should be some sort of advisory to the effect that Furry is going to mean different things to people, sometimes very different. And that fans can be sensitive to dropping assumptions upon them about just what it means because they're into furry, beyond the most basic definition. Heh, 'cause honestly, that appears to be one of the biggest sources of animosity within the community - people bristling at outsiders and other furries assuming because they're a furry, they're into X strange thing. -- ToyDragon(talk) 04:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with most of the first paragraph. There needs to be some element of disambiguation, as there is on furry itself. After that it goes downhill, though - there's no clear outlining of the interests of the furry fandom, or why people want to be in it, what they do in it, or even what sort of people they are. Hints get dropped here or there that it might be about anthropomorphic characters, but other than that it's pretty impenetrable for a newcomer. --GreenReaper(talk) 05:03, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A thought: Perhaps we could make this page a portal to the various categories on the wiki. So an overall definition, followed by sections with summaries of each main category: Members, beliefs, terms, the various arts, media attention, and so on. The idea is that while Wikipedia has one page on us, this whole wiki is about us. -- Siege 19:47, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

That could work. I think it would be good to see something with lots of sections with short summaries and links like:
For more details on this topic, see fanzine.

If nobody would object, I could do something with this page like I had started to do at Wikipedia. For some reason I feel inclined to try it, even though my nerves really got frayed at Wikipedia. So I guess what I'll do is draw up a demonstration of what I think the page should look like and see what kind of reaction it gets. If you all like what I do I'll take Green Reaper's invitation to ditch Wikipedia and work over here. If not, well, you can always revert. Perri Rhoades 12:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Less Words, More Meaning?[edit]

Granted there is a lot to say about the Furry Fandom, but its not all nessessary for someone trying to learn about it to know. If you talk to another furry, and say "I'm furry" or "I'm in the furry fandom" they know what you're talking about. Theres never a situation (at least I couldn't ever imagine any) where one furry would tell another that they're in the fandom, and then they start asking each other what they're talking about. I think the goal of the page in WikiFur is to convey that understanding between furs to someone who is not familiar with the fandom. (Such as friends or family of a fur, looking to learn more).

That would be at the very top, and below there could be catagories of debates within the fandom (if any) things that are explcitly included in the fandom (Such as furry art) and things outside the fandom, but still considered a "furry" (Bugs Bunny, Sly Cooper, etc). Then there could be a section that includes activities exclusive to the fandom "Parts of the Fandom" (Anthrocon, Mini-Meets, Yiff, etc) and things that the Fandom has become a part of; Anime, DDR, Costuming, etc... Omnibahumut 00:18, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a "what is furry?" article that might be useful for explaining this, perhaps? We could just link to it from the top of this page. --Dmuth 03:48, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Created a What is Furry? page, tried my best to define its meaning without going into details that are covered in other articals. Omnibahumut 16:44, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Merge with History?[edit]

I'm not sure that's appropriate. Some history should be a part of this article, but there's more to be said on that than can be said in one part of one article, I think. This should be a page where people can come to find out what furry fandom is now, and the history that is here should be to support that, not as a complete documentation. --GreenReaper(talk) 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with GR on this one. Additionallly, combining the two articles would result in a monstrously huge article that would take some serious dedication to wade through!----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 12:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I a also don't think that this article should be merged. I think that the History section here should be trimmed down a bit, with a brief summary, with a link to the history article which should be fleshed out a bit. I also don't think that [furry] should be merged, either. The Furry article is more about what the word means, and not necessarily about the entire fandom itself. To include both in one article would be a bit overwhelming and make it difficult for someone who is trying to get a grasp on the concept to find what they are looking for. Omnibahumut 15:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with above. The History article was even splitted into original one and History of anthropomorphic characters. Brief history with link to detailed article is imho appropriate. --Xkun(talk) 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Misinformation too biased.[edit]


Many people misunderstand the fandom due to a lack of non-prejudicial information being available. In many cases, the first things outsiders see of the fandom is sensationalistic fiction on TV shows. Others may take note of the adult themed art on the net and assume this is the whole point of the fandom, never realizing what an ancient and respectable genre the fandom is built around.

This seems a little too biased. We are not based upon an ancient genre. If we were, the fandom would be far older. And yiff art is the majority of furry art, when counting Fchan (mostly porn) VCL (50/50) and Yerf (all clean). 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people believe that the tradition of talking animals should be rolled into furry fandom, which is where the "ancient and respectable genre" bit comes from. I personally disagree with a lot of this, too, and I support its removal. However, I'm not sure about that 50/50 split. It seems more like 35/65 in favour of clean art to me, based on things like convention art show proportions and the like. --GreenReaper(talk) 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
No fandom invents its own genre. The item in question is referring to the genre that the fandom is built around. That genre is as old as art and culture, if you take into account the large percentage of furry fans who cite things as old as Aesop's Fables and Egyptian art, not to mention the Native American connection.
Furthermore, an internet community does not invent a fandom. It merely draws a fandom together. Being in the collectibles business long before there was a furry community, I encountered many furry fans. Thus, nobody knows how old furry fandom is. It's quite possible furry fandom is nearly or over 100 years old. The evidence is in the collectibles, which is something nobody ever seems to research in connection with this topic.
Besides that, another thing that needs to be understood is the concept of a metegenre. A metegenre is not an ordinary genre. It's a genre that does not exist on its own, but rather reaches into other genres and latches onto various titles, not because of story content, but because of what kinds of characters are in the story. Thus, the furry metegenre reaches into anything with talking or anthropomorphic animals in it, and there have been anthropomorphic characters as long as there has been literature.
As for the respectability of the genre, you have only to look at the titles listed as being encompassed by it. George Orwell, Felix Salten, Richard Adams and Richard Bach by themselves encompass a wall of credibility around the genre that is beyond question. Perri Rhoades 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

to fix[edit]

  • condense introduction
  • organize history into a timeline
  • replace examples with link to categories of examples
  • create a version for public-at-large (for parents, media, and such)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

current activity[edit]

I rearranged the sections around. The wording of the sections needs to be fixed. For the history section a list of events would be appreciated. Also, the article seems too big. History could be turned into a timeline of events and Furry could be a introduction for the public-at-large (parents, media and such). I removed the Spoken content icon icon, because it kind of makes the page look ugly.

What is with the <ref></ref> tags? Oh, now I see it. It is for the list of references at the bottom.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 06:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Merging with Furry and History. This may make Furry_fandom too large. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 18:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest: merge hate groups and self-criticism?[edit]

I think they would both be more accurate under "Criticism," because I wouldn't exactly describe "anti-furries" as a hate movement, especially given the number of furries on SA/ED/etc. It seems more of a criticism of certain douchebag elements, really. Leam 06:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My experience with anti-furries is that there is no other way to think of them than a hate group. It's just weird that so many furries participate in this hate, but it's hate none the less. This is the big difference between hate groups and self-criticism. Self-criticism is a constructive attempt to improve the fandom. One wouldn't want to improve it if one hated it. Plus, self-criticism issues often aren’t the same issues anti-furries tend to harp on. Just my thoughts on the matter. Perri Rhoades 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC) link?[edit]

At the top of the article is link to which was added 12:16, 3 July 2006, but it currently results in "Sorry, this guide cannot be located at this time." Page not archived at Any idea of what was at that page? --EarthFurst 08:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it was a link to a set of furry-related items. Amazon users often create such buying guides. Probably best to remove it if it doesn't work (or perhaps even if it does, as I think the guide-maker got a commission on such purchases). --GreenReaper(talk) 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it neutral?[edit]

Just about anyone with any kind of interest that can somehow be tied to furry can set up a new neighborhood in the furry community for that interest. For some reason, the furries who create these neighborhoods have a tendency to give them names that sound worse than the actual intent, and thus may generate prejudice or attract the wrong kind of attention.

This and "Self criticism" section seem biased to me. EvilCat 08:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The quote is in reference to a trend that is no longer active. It's no longer relevant and can go. Perri Rhoades 04:06, 29 April 2011 (EDT)

Proposed merge of Mainstreaming into new section of this article[edit]

The article Mainstreaming is entirely devoted to the subject of the furry fandom and its relationship to society. EvilCat suggested on the Talk:Mainstreaming page that we merge them, and I concur. It is likely to be an uncontroversial edit since the content works better in a single article. This will be done on Sunday 13-Feb-2011 unless someone objects. ==CodyDenton 19:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it's much later than the proposed date for the merge, but I think it's safe to say that no one objects at this point. Merge completed. The original section was at Mainstreaming, please refer to the edit history there for attribution. --CodyDenton 03:42, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

Edit request[edit]

Please remove the pipe in Virtual environments, such as MUCKs, soon became the most popular places on the net for furry fans. The page MUCK exists and MUD doesn't give any information on it other than a link to MUCK. --anon 18:49, 5 August 2020 (EDT)

Acceptance of bestiality in fandom needs to be updated[edit]

“ In particular, discussion of bestiality is a trigger for angry debate within the community. Many insist that absolute tolerance must be absolute, while others resent the association of the fandom with a practice that is not only illegal in many places but is considered by many to be a form of animal abuse. Because of these two hallmarks of the current fandom — tolerance and the protection of real-life animals — acceptance of bestialitists is a hotly contested topic of the furry community.”

I feel like these sentences claim that there is some kind of controversy in the fandom that about bestiality in the fandom. When in reality about 99% of furries agree this is kind is not okay. Even the ones who are into the sexual aspects of the fandom say zoophilia and bestiality aren’t okay. I know this article rarely gets edited and this claim was probably added when the fandom was very small.

Some might argue that the sexual aspects of the fandom are zoophilia or bestiality. The problem with that argument is that, almost all furries are aware anthro animals aren’t animals. They don’t look like real animals nor do they act like real animals.