Talk:Trouble's Tales

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Trouble's Tales is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the WikiFur community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

I really have to question featuring this article, regardless of how good it is. From the main page, this puts people - potentially children - two clicks away from a very adult story. There's no age warning.

I don't believe that the adult side of Furry should be denied, as that would be lying; but presenting it on the home page seems to be going too far in the other direction. Hawthorn 18:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, of course, however I would also note that the same comments could apply to past featured articles. Also, please remember that WikiFur is not censored for the protection of minors.----DuncanDaHusky(talk) 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
This is, admittedly, the first such article I've noticed. It just makes me feel uneasy (although that might be more the feeling associated with the stories, which I read a few of and found quite disturbing). I assume the lack of age warning was just an omission. Hawthorn 20:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, Hawthorn. I have added an NC-17 image next to the links from our collection of Censorship Pandas. I would note that each of the stories appears to have an "Adults only please" in bold at the front of each story chapter, and in the readme. Moreover, anyone who reads the article would find it hard to avoid the fact that it is talking about a mature story.
As to the wider question of featuring mature topics on the front page, I respectfully disagree. As Duncan has mentioned, WikiFur is not censored for minors, nor for those who find a certain topic distasteful or unsuitable for public view. I believe this should apply as much to our front page policy as to any other page, because otherwise this creates a "second class" of articles that are, indeed, being hidden from view. I think this is a bad thing for both our readers and contributors.
For example, Babyfur is one of our best articles, with contributions from many skilled editors, and was featured early on because of it. Some people dislike babyfurs, and some might consider knowledge of them inappropriate for minors. However, if the article had not been featured then fewer people would have seen one of our best articles, and that defeats the point of the Featured article system. I think it would also have been a sign to those who took the time to write it that we did not value their contributions in that area, which is clearly not the case.
I want to make it clear that this is equality, not "swinging the other way" - that would be featuring articles on the front page to the exclusion of others that were more deserving just because they were (for example) about a mature topic. This is not necessary - such articles are popular enough already, as evidenced by High Tail Hall (our most popular content page) which received 792 visits last week. For comparison, the front page received 3,451 visits and Recent changes received 602 visits.
A significant proportion of the best creative content in the fandom (and more than a few of the best articles on WikiFur) happen to be on mature topics. If we do not feature them then we are doing a disservice to both our own contributors and the community which we serve (the vast majority of which is adult). We also open the door to avoidance of other topics on the front page, which gets us into a situation that I do not want to get into.
WikiFur should only feature its best articles. Therefore, if you do not like the current situation, your best recourse is to improve or organize improvements to an article whose topic you feel is more suitable for featuring, and then nominate it on WikiFur:Featured article candidates. Suggestions as to what articles we should be featuring are more than welcome; the last time anyone other than myself bothered to edit that page was back in November, so I have had to rely on my own judgement since then. --GreenReaper(talk) 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)