Talk:Merfolk

Appropiate tag

Mermaids are non-furry per se, even of the addition of an animal appendage. They are more creatures of mainstream lore, mythology and fantasy Spirou 23:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Other mythological creatures have been featured here of similar lot. With a tremondous rewrite that ISN'T an import of Wikipedia, this could reasonably stay.--Kendricks Redtail 03:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mermaids are humans with fishlike tails, not anthropomorphic fish. I don't think they are appropriate for an article in WikiFur. -- Sine 03:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like some clarification as to why the centaur, selkie (species), sphinx, demon, etc. are acceptable as furry species and merfolk (mermaids, and mermen) are considered as not furry. Centaurs are the some proportion human as mermaids are and they are not anthropomorphic. A sphinx is less human but still mainstream. A selkie is considered by most to be a variety of mermaid. Mermaids are depicted in art in many if not most furry art archives and sites in one form or another. Please read the second sentence in Furry.

I personally know four furries that have characters that are mermaids or mermen, counting Dylan Addison a merman character of mine. Dylan has swam along with a mermaid at RCFM and MFM. We seemed to be accepted as just two more furry characters there.

I would like to create a “Mermaid” page that will introduce the species, describe there part in the furry fandom (characters, participation in furry events, etc.) and informs those interested in where to look further into this subject. Alternately, I would like a reasonable explanation as to why one combination of human and animal is considered different than another if it is the consensus of this group that a page about mermaids (including mermen) doesn’t belong here.XyLII 23:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think XyLII raises a good question. When the article on Mermaids was deleted I did wonder why the article on Centaurs remained. If mermaids are "humans with fishlike tails, not anthropomorphic fish", could it not be said that centaurs are "humans with equine bodies, not anthropomorphic horses"? (Just my opinion, but I'd call mermaids "furry enough" for inclusion.) --Higgs Raccoon 00:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of an animal component does not necessarily a make a humanoid furry. A Mermaid, just like a Satyr, Vampires, the Birdmen from Flash gordon, etc, are just that, humanoids with animal features, creatures from the long established world of mainstream mythology or science fiction,...

Everytime we include one of type of beings into Wikifur, we always ended up in this situation/discussion,... some are easy to dismiss (Yeti's,) other toe the line (Centaurs, which brought a good point by somebody in IRC of their correlation to Chakats, pseudo-anthromorphs and furry... I now wish I had saved that discussion,) and then, the ones that have everybody scratching their heads on which way to go with them,...

In this case, Mermaids =) As before, it's a general consensus that decides on the article merit, and I'm just going with my prior point against them (Sine makes a good point about this, too,)... Centaurs, I'm 50/50 on them, Silkies and Sphinxes, I can easily see them on the same level as Kitsunes (Japanese demon,) and, as per Demons, if they can be Human, why not Anthropomorphic too? =) Spirou 01:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hm. Personally, I think of centaurs as included in furry not because they are themselves necessarily furry (they're much more on the "mythological" side), but due to the long furry association created by people having made myriad different types of much-more-indisputably-furry taurs based on them. Had that not happened, I don't think they'd be appropriate either. Mermaids don't really have the same kind of association. Silvermink 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

So far this is the same situation that occurs when you get ten furs in a room and ask them what furry is. You get anywhere from twelve to fifteen similar but different answers.

The position that mermaids and mermen are too mainstream can also include all animals that have been in existence outside the furry fandom. All animals have more written about them by regular humans than furries. Other than the hybrids and Chakats, which are based on real animals and therefore too much outside the fandom, the only truly furry species that I know of is the purple furry eater, Ooga Chaka, by that definition. I thought we, as a group, were supposed to be working toward being accepted by the mainstream. This seems to me to help hold the separation between them and us.

The position that they are part animal but not furry and are too much fantasy, goes against the texts already within WikiFur. The second sentence in Furry is “Predominantly, it pertains to an interest in anthropomorphic animals and/or mythological or imaginary creatures which possess human or superhuman capabilities.” According to this definition, technically Spiderman is furry by the fact he is part radioactive spider by DNA transfer through a bite. Anthropomorphic? No. Imaginary creature with superhuman capabilities derived from being made part arachnid? Yes.

I personally am for the inclusion of any species or hybrid that is any part animal even if they have the outer appearance of being fully human. I thought WikiFur was about making knowledge of all things furry available to anyone interested for the present and the future. At RCFM, a few furries liked and wanted to get or make there own mertail. It had never occurred to them to look for one or for the information about mermaid tails on the internet just because they never knew they were available. I know one that now has a character that is a mermaid.

As to the Yeti, yes they are furry. Vampires, depends on the definition. Are they were bats or just humans that live from consuming blood? I notice there is a werewolf species. Why not were bats under the label vampire if that is how they feed?

I am sorry if you don’t agree with me in this. I will go along with the consensus of the community no matter what it is. Do we continue with this discussion or have we decided yes or no?XyLII 07:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Do we continue with this discussion or have we decided yes or no?." Some decisions may take a while, as all editors that may wish to make a point are not available/ready/online for a decision. If no consensus have been reached after 30 days, its brought back up for debate again at that time, and every 30 days after if necessary,... Patience is key sometimes - Spirou 10:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that there is interest within the furry community, so it's a legitimate topic for inclusion here. Example: [1] --Rat 10:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the conflation of something that a furry is interested in with something that is in itself furry. As discussed some while back on Category:Furry pilots, just because people who consider themselves furry are interested ins oemthing doesn't make that activity, or hobby, or interest furry.

While I cannot argue that the defintion of furry which XyLII offers is true for XyLII, to me it is far too broad. My own defintion of furry is, I think, actually somewhat narrower than the usual (I can't say than the consensus) and makes a distinction between animal and nonhuman, with the latter rarely coming under the heading of furry. -- Sine 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I was using "Spiderman" as an example of a character that fits the established definition of furry in WikiFur and not my own. It is an extreme stretch of that definition but I think out of a large group of furs that a few would at least consider it. I am seeking consistency. Are we to follow our own writings or some unwritten rules that I am unaware of? We have The Furry Book of Style and other help pages for how to write about something but nothing other than the pages of WikiFur to look to for defining what to write about.XyLII 01:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Opening the door...

Question: How come there is an article on centaurs but not one on mermaids? Recently, I was going to write a article about mermaids and I saw the log about it being deleted because it's "not furry". I don't mean to insult anyone's intelligence here but, a centaur is "top half human, lower half horse" (you know what I mean) and a mermaid is "half woman half fish" I seriously don't see the problem...

Is it because there are foxtaurs, skunktaurs and chakats, and one would be very hard pressed to find a picture of a furry mermaid? Or because if an article on the mermaid is allowed, it'll open the door for articles on the lamia (half woman half snake), medusa, the harpy and anansi (part man, part spider I think)?

I'm confused... Tai 1 03:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

   Did you have a look at the past discussion on Talk:Mermaid? That might answer some of your questions. -- Sine 19:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 

I didn't realise that was a talk:Mermaid link...I still don't agree about why there isn't a mermaid entry though...Tai 1 22:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I "moved" (OK, copied and pasted) this article here as it should be.Tai 1 16:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Take three (back to beginning again )

I thought about it much and I think I'd like to re-create this article sometime. But before I do that, I would like to gain approval. The focus of the article should be on two merfolk-related phenomena:

1. Merfolks who are more anthropomorphic fish than humans with fishtails. Examples: [2] [3] [4] 4, World of Darkness merfolk...

1. Merfolks in anthropomorphic settings (Disney's Ariel among other things) and in furry fandom. This section of the article should describe the role of merfolk among furry characters and setting.

This way the article should be definitely appropriate. What do you think? EvilCat 11:42, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Support, if only to see how it goes. 174.126.213.241 12:04, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

Going back to several years back, the conclusion was that Mermaids were/are a mythos of old mainstream fantasy and mythology, plus this little titbit: Is just a Human being with an animal appendage. Not a furry term, created by, or intellectual furry (Wikipedia asserts this point regarding this creature). We had a discussion about this year ago, it hasn't change, BUT,...

Merfolks,... now EvilCat has got something here. Merwolks are another variant of otherkins related to the fandom. Found hits to cover the suggestion, plus images to cover the article with media (Warcraft, an example, has its own version of Merfolks.) 100 % fish that has assumed anthropomorphic appearance, by magic (i.e Werewolves), or evolution.

Mermaids we have covered them death (along Vampires, Minotaurs, etc), and I still keep my non approval, but Evilcamp has a hit with Merfolks, which is strange we haven’t covered them before. On Merfolks ,Yes - Spirou 00:01, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

So, I created Merfolk article. If it's satisfying, I suggest to redirect "Mermaid" to it (as well as some other alternative names) and move this discussion. If it's ok with you, I can do it. EvilCat 03:39, 22 July 2011 (EDT)