From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Talk:Nāga)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep or delete? (Vampires, Minotaurs, Mermaids, Centaurs, etc,... Spirou:Delete) - Spirou 00:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep, and I expanded the article. EvilCat 15:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on this one?[edit]

I lean towards delete but am not invested either way. -- Sine 15:39, 23 June 2011 (EDT)

Why is the article, in its current state, less appropriate than any other scalie-related article? EvilCat 11:08, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Nagas are more related to the anime fandom. Equivamp 11:11, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
Are they not related to furry fandom too, even if less so? As a proof, I see many articles linking to this one. Obviously there should be an article titled "Naga", the only question is the content. Maybe I can fix that too, if I know what's wrong %) EvilCat 11:14, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
I have no opinion of this one. Keep, sure. It does kinda seem like the mermaid situation to me though, but if lots of articles link here, that's reason enough to stay. Equivamp 11:22, 30 June 2011 (EDT)
I think that the mermaid article, too, just has to be written with appropriate focus. EvilCat 11:43, 30 June 2011 (EDT)

... (deux)[edit]

Going back to several years back, the conclusion was that Nagas 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 (a Human being with a snake lower form attached to it a furry doesn't make),...

Still keeping my Delete"" on this one - Spirou 00:43, 1 July 2011 (EDT)

Tentatively agreed. There's very few WikiFur articles linking to Naga, and more than one of those are in reference to not being one. -- Sine 23:50, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
So, you will delete the mention of Werewolf: The Apocalypse Nagah (played by furries, seeing how W:tA is known as one of the furriest RPGs), the mention of Warcraft Nagas (also played by furries, since they are a player race in Warcraft d20) and D&D Nagas (who also are playable and have a sourcebook, unlike gnolls, for example)? All these nagas are full anthro or zoomorphic, and it's clearly stated in the article - why do you say that they are humans with snake tails? EvilCat 10:44, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Keep. After all, we have neko, and aren't they just girls with cat tails? ;3 Equivamptalk 10:48, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
(Don't know what is going with my account and rollbacks),... and Neko is tagged as Unappropriated too, and Minotaur, and Naga (Mermaid was too, but it was shoved in. wasn't suppose to be about Merfolk, fish with human attributes?),... We again having a discussion on a matter settled years ago,... this are non-furry characters... they are Mainstream fantasy that some players play as, but not furry. Why not an article on Heavy rock? engrained with a lot of furries, lots of furry "bands", furry rocking characters, part of Furry Fan Fiction,...
An animal appendage does not a Human a furry make. At this rate, we will be adding Vampires, and Wikifur is a historical database on furry lore and history, not mainstream fantasy lore mixed in for X reasons - Spirou 18:35, 4 October 2011 (EDT)
Do you define "furry character" as "character invented within furry fandom"? Are you sure that's how all furries define it? I'm not sure (see Alt.Fan.Furry FAQ - one of the definitive publications). Using your logic, we would have to delete all TLK-related articles, Watership Down, Gnolls, Tiny Toons and many, many other articles which furry fandom is fandom of. EvilCat 04:52, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
No, I'm talking of forcing non-furry characters which belong to mainstream history into furry. - Spirou 04:58, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
How do you know if a character belongs to furry history? For example, Felidae novel or Anonymous Rex movie which were created outside of fandom and probably wasn't mentioned in definitive publications.
And why is it "forcing" if a fur can read all rules and not suspect that adding a favorite species with a character list is inappropriate? After all, it's called "WikiFur", not "Furry History Wiki", and the About page reads: WikiFur is a cooperative attempt to record information of use to the furry community. EvilCat 06:31, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
If the consensus is that only things invented in furry fandom and things that "belong to furry history" should be in WikiFur, it should be added to the rules, with a clear explanation of the criteria. EvilCat 07:50, 5 October 2011 (EDT)
Also, the explanation in Furry fandom article isn't this strict even to half-human mythical creatures, let alone full anthros in mainstream culture. And it's sourced with three defining references right from the furry history. EvilCat 04:08, 6 October 2011 (EDT)
ah,... Point of contention lost on discussion, go ahead then,... But if we are using this logic, this does apply too to the Yeti, Vampire (folklore) (not to be confused by Vampire (bat)), Chimera (mythology), Fly (movie), Saun, Satyr, Medusa (no, she can be a subsection on Naga) among others then, if we are inviting everybody to the furry ball - Spirou 17:21, 7 October 2011 (EDT)
We actually have some of those pages on Russian WikiFur, but I'm not saying it's has to be the same on English. Russian furry community is somewhat different: it's young, therians, dragons, otherkind, weres and toonsters have huge intersection with it, and the community itself is yet too small to have set-in-stone traditions. I understand that Western furry community has much more inside culture, and non-furry anthropomorphic culture is already well described in English sources. English WikiFur doens't have to be omnivore.
I'm just surprised about Nagas... Mythological nagas may be humans with snake tails (they also have full snake and full human forms in various Indian myths), but it's not all nagas are. In many fictional worlds nagas are true anthropomorophic snakes. I included it in the article. If WikiFur allows articles about anthropomorphics not invented in furry fandom (and furry fandom is not only fandom of itself), nagas have all rights to stay. EvilCat 13:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Does it count as consensus and removes the {{appropriate}} template? And how about dinosaur species? EvilCat 02:07, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

Final (I guess)[edit]

Appr tag gone. "In mainstream culture" takes 95% of the article, is not inclusive written for furry, and the furry section is a negative paragraph to boot. Nice start.

Dinosaur?,... can't tell, I haven't seen or worked on that one - Spirou 02:24, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

The whole "In mainstream culture" should be nuked, and have somebody knowledgeable of Naga rewrite a small/medium Mainstream intro, and a larger, more compressive angle of Naga and Furry - Spirou 02:45, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
That's harsh! Why World of Darkness Nagah shoud be nuked? Look at them. Or at Warcraft Nagas, for that matter. Or D&D Nagas in all their variety. Also, 4677 search hits for Naga at FurAffinity displaying every type of anatomy from human-taur to full snake. I own WoD Nagah breedbook - do you think it has some connection with me being both furry and snake fan? That's just like saying there is only one true way to be furry. EvilCat 05:46, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
No, it's the article. It's one side biased, focused on mainstream only, provides no info on Naga data on a concise matter, it's a mess, mixes fandoms, and still takes the whole of the article. As for the points you mentioned as examples, exactly!, they are going everywhere, while providing nothing for the reader, no context. No proper Naga intro, biology notes, mythos, clear examples... No proper segway to furry, furry/naga biology, examples, media, etc,...
The link was dead, the "See also" was a chaotic frakkin' mess (Orochi?, who inserted him there?). You really want to run the article as is right now?,... A wipe and rewrite is what this article needs. Since we are adding Naga to Wikifur, do it by the book. Right - Spirou 06:18, 11 October 2011 (EDT)
I don't understand what kind of article would you want to see. Can you provide an example?
Also, I think that your judgment of what is relevant and what is "mainstream" is very arbitrary. Mainstream is "accepted broadly rather than by a tiny fraction of population". I don't think that major population has any idea about D&D or WoD nagas. And according to definitions in this very wiki, anthro characters in popular culture do hold interest for furry fandom. It's not only about wolves and foxes. EvilCat 07:39, 11 October 2011 (EDT)

Nāga has no hits with FurAffinity. This type of character is not known in furry community as Nāga, it's known as naga, and I was trying to focus the article on modern, relevant understanding of them. Mythological details deserve to be in a section much more than so called mainstream. The article should be titled by the common name. EvilCat 17:55, 11 October 2011 (EDT)