Should there be a Were characters category? Spaz Kitty
- We have Category:Therian characters, but judging by the articles within that it is being used to indicate people who identify as Therian. -- Sine 04:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Added context cleanup tag. I find current version (of Were article) unclear ... mainly regarding
1) difference between weres and other shapeshifters.
and 2) Article says weres "unlike furry fandom, they have become a very socially dominant group". Socially dominant how? --EarthFurst (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2014 (EST)
- Really unreferenced, padded, grandiose claims, fluffed article. "Socially dominant how?". Whoever wrote that has an inflated view of weres. That whole paragraph was totally impossible to prove or contest. - Spirou (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2014 (EST)
"Unlike furry characters, "were-animals" are generally more bestial and less intelligent, usually controlled more by animal instinct and impulses rather than intellect, often to violent results."
Actually, they're highly intelligent. The idea that ALL individuals of this category are somehow stupid is based on the "big bad wolf" trope which depicts wolves as being unintelligent, killing for fun and eating when they aren't even hungry. Werebeasts (not 'wereanimals', where'd that come from?) are merely trying to survive. And "general" literally translates to "all", despite there being very intelligent werewolf characters in notable sources of media such as books and movies, such as Big Bad Wolf where the werewolf in that movie was indeed evil by choice.
And as far as I recall, furry characters and werebeasts are one and the same. Both are anthropomorphic animals, so isn't this calling furry characters stupid? Mavrabeast (talk) 03:41, 21 February 2020 (EST)