Talk:Timeline of media coverage

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

Daily Show 2016[edit]

Last Thursdays Daily Show briefly had furries in it (9minutes in):

Rush Limbaugh[edit]

hello, just wanted to state that Rush Limbaugh covered Further Confusion 2006 in a news short, if that counts 14:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

piece copyright PR Newswire?[edit]

I noticed that KSLA has page about Ben Goodridge's novel White Crusade that is copyright "2008 PR Newswire" and I'm wondering if it qualifies as media coverage. --EarthFurst 01:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as media coverage of furry fandom, since it's mostly a review of the novel with only a brief mention of the fandom. But it would be great to add a link to it to White Crusade. --mwalimu 20:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


there's this film coming out (it should be on apple trailers) called ten9eight and although it seems unrelated for the most part, there does seem to be a fursuit in a couple of shots, I haven't personally been able to find out if any of the characters are furs, but I'll leave that to you.

Music video[edit]

[1] / [2] probably doesn't count as "media coverage", but it's still nice to see a music video that uses actual fursuit(er)s. :) -- Schnee 10:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Daily Show, October 2000[edit]

EWS pointed out this on FA — apparently, it mentions furries, but I can't watch the clip from outside the USA, so I can't verify it. If anybody else could, and add it if appropriate, that'd be great. -- Schnee 00:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

They do mention anthropomorphic erotica - there's some coverage on The Daily Show. We didn't have a link though - thanks! --GreenReaper(talk) 01:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps split[edit]

Into 20-year chunks, perhaps? And somewhere in the 20xxs could lose the distinction between media coverage and Timeline of internet coverage although I do think that's a valuable distinction up to a point. -- Sine 21:39, 29 March 2012 (EDT)

I'm not convinced it's a valuable distinction at any time - we also don't distinguish between newspaper coverage, magazine coverage, TV coverage etc., so singling out one medium for its own special page does not make sense to me -, but breaking the article up into managable portions is a good idea. Perhaps one for each decade? -- Schnee 05:12, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Actually, there's a little TV icon, though I'm not sure it's consistently applied. I wouldn't as much mind internet coverage included if it's similarly marked off, but I don't think blog posts, online mentions, references in webcomics, are the same category as coverage on TV, in newspapers, and so forth. -- Sine 12:21, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Interesting, I didn't know about the TV icon. Yeah, we should use that more, and an icon to indicate coverage on the Internet would be good, too.
I also agree that not EVERY mention on the Internet deserves to be included; this is a timeline of media coverage, after all. Major blogs such as BoingBoing or ones associated with newspapers should qualify, though. -- Schnee 12:23, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Some years back I considered the distinction at Talk:Timeline of internet coverage. I think it's simplier to have internet coverage separated than try to make an individual call on each online item whether it is major or sufficiently associated with a newspaper. -- Sine 12:27, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Why? In most cases, it should be clear enough, and in the unlikely even that it's not, contributors can either be discuss the matter here on the talk page and ask for others' input, or just be bold and add it (or refrain from doing so if they think it doesn't rise to the required level of major-media-ness).
That said, if you see this as a potential issue, I'm also not sure how splitting the page and moving Internet coverage to its own page would help. We'd just be faced with the same issues there, unless we'd want to relax the rules there and collect every last reference to furry fandom on obscure blogs, forums, or webcomics; but the only thing we'd have achieved then would be the burial of the useful and interesting material (such as coverage on major blogs and other important Internet media) under a mountain of irrelevant entries.
As such, if you want to split the article at all, a better conceptual split would be along the "important/unimportant" line, with items that don't warrant mention on THIS list being spun off into a new page. Of course, that'd still mean people'd have to make judgement calls, but I honestly don't see a way around that: it's a fact of life that there's both major/important and minor/unimportant sources on the Internet. -- Schnee 12:35, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Note that I'm talking about maintaining the split in timelines and categories that already exists. -- Sine 12:39, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Fair enough (to be honest, I never even knew until today that this other page existed). In any case, I've shared my thoughts on the matter, and there's nothing I can see right now that I'd still need to say. -- Schnee 12:42, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
Thank you for doing so, it's good to see discussion. -- Sine 12:46, 30 March 2012 (EDT)
You're welcome! :) -- Schnee 12:51, 30 March 2012 (EDT)

VancouFur with a Bad Link?[edit]

2012 > March > VancouFur video news coverage. The link sends me to a CTV News summary clip. Doing some digging, I believe the correct link is Or, am I just crazy?

Maybe the link worked. But now just results in video titled "Man dead following police-involved shooting in Edmonton". --EarthFurst (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2018 (EDT)

The Drew Carey Show furry episode[edit]

Wasn't there an episode of The Drew Carey Show where Drew Carey dated a woman who was a furry and wanted to have sex with him while wearing a fursuit? I swear I remember an episode like that back in the late 90's. -- Iffy the Bothan Spy --2602:306:C455:E6F0:4C3C:4466:8E54:3C16 11:10, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

Described here: The Drew Carey Show. --Higgs Raccoon (talk) 11:45, 21 June 2014 (EDT)

preferred style for newspaper entries?[edit]

What is the preferred style for entries about article in a newspaper is/should be? Timeline has newspaper lines in various formats.... including (but not limited to):

  1. Why Mickey Mouse Wears Pants in The Varsity, the University of Toronto's student newspaper. (article title links to WikiFur page, name of newspaper and newspaper description)
  2. British newspaper The Guardian publishes an online article about mascot sex. [5] (so newspaper name RED-link, article description then ext link. Article title "Is your team's mascot a fervent?" NOT included.)
  3. Get Furry in The Battalion, the student newspaper of Texas A&M University.. (so article title, newspaper name, and newspaper description))
  4. We're at it like rabbits in the UK's tabloid newspaper The Sun. (so article title linked to page at WikiFur, and newspaper description and newspaper name)
  5. Unleashing the inner beast in The Age newspaper [93], November 29, 2010 (so article title RED-link, newspaper name linked to article at Wikipedia, article EXT link and full date)
  6. Costumers let their fur down at VancouFur convention: article about VancouFur in Burnaby NewsLeader newspaper. [144], March 8, 2012. (so article name REDlinked, article description, newspaper name and EXT link .. and full date)

Suggest style be ARTICLE NAME in NEWSPAPER NAME, NEWSPAPER DESCRIPTION, EXT link to article and full date at end. --EarthFurst (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2016 (EDT)

2018 Daily Mirror raunchy article[edit]

Timeline includes "Raunchy couple caught making X-rated motions in hotel lobby during furry animal costume convention: article in the Daily Mirror [249], April 10, 2018"

Link results in 403 error and resulted in 403 error back in May 5, 2018 so less than month after publication, which makes me think they had to retract the "story". --EarthFurst (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2018 (EDT)