Talk:What is Furry?

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

I removed the following text from the article until the NPOV issues in it can be resolved: Sexual - It is quite common for a Fur to be sextually attracted to Furries. A significant portion of art created by the fandom is sexual(or "yiffy") in nature, and it is because of this strong affinity towards it among Furs. It is from this dominating sexual intrest that Furries are often slandered.

The phrases "quite common [...] to be sextually[sic] attracted to Furries" and "dominating sexual intres[sic]" are unsubstantiated and, in my opinion, unwarranted.

To give an analogy, it would be like saying that just because there's quite a bit in the way of erotic fiction depicting Star Trek characters in adult situations that there is "a dominating sexual interest in the Star Trek fandom". I think a lot of Trekkers would disagree with that statement. --Dmuth 17:42, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Not familiar with NPOV... Either way though, sexual aspect of it shouldn't be excluded entirely at all, because it is a part of being a Furry for a lot of Furs. Perhaps its not as significant as I made it out to be, but its a part nonetheless Omnibahumut 21:21, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
NPOV means "neutral point of view", it's a Wikipedia term that carried overe to here.
I'm not saying that we should necessarily exclude any talk about sex on this Wiki or elsewhere, but I think that putting it on a "what is furry" page that people outside the fandom are going to see is a really Bad Idea. Just because there may be some sex in the fandom doesn't necessarily mean that you want to publicise it. For example, just because there's Raver Porn or Pokemon Porn (click on those links at your own risk!) doesn't mean that you see them talked about in the definition of either word. --Dmuth 21:31, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I did a weak test, by googling "Furry art" and "Pokemon Art"... and Yiffy sites scored higher for furry art, compared to simalar content for pokemon. But this may also be due to the comprable size of each. The top result for "furry art" was none other than VCL. I took it a step further and searched VCL images only for "Yiffy" and got 'about 1,200 results'. I then clicked "View > Artwork" and got a result of 30 images per page and a total of 1452 pages. I assumed that to be the total artworks on VCL, which is a grand total of 43,560. According to the Google result, 2.75% of that artwork is "Yiffy". But that was enough to warrent a warning on thier main page so... Notwidthstanding, part of me agrees that mentioning the adult aspect could be dangerous --Omnibahumut 22:12, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

There, how's that?[edit]

I hope this edit at least cuts out a lot of the aforementioned problem, while covering it in good summary fashion. -- Siege 06:49, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I like these edits a lot, thanks for helping clear things up. Also want to point out that some of the discussion is on my talk page also --Omnibahumut 17:02, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Merging with Furry[edit]

This looks like a good idea to me. This article is better organized, and I think it has more useful information. --Duncan da Husky 14:53, 29 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, and actually thought of that after I had written it and looked back at the Furry page. I might have done it already if I knew how :P Omnibahumut 03:04, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
If you want to merge it, I suggest using one page as a reference, and just rewrite the other page to use as much as you can from the first. -- Siege 04:26, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Edit this page to include all pertinent information on furry, then note it on the talk page and an admin can move this page to furry and replace the previous article (either moving it to furry/backup or just deleting it). --GreenReaper(talk) 09:24, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, looked at the furry page, and I don't see anything that I havn't already included somewhere on this page. I suppose a few of the "see also" links could be added, but thats it really. Omnibahumut 04:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
The What is Furry page is quite a good article. It's the simplest and best brief on furry I've come across. The Furry article is OK, but not as well structured and professional as the What is Furry article. So perhaps just get rid of the Furry article and replace with with What is Furry.