User talk:GreenReaper/Policy1

This is an archive page, covering admin and policy issues discussed on my user talk page from the foundation of WikiFur to 10 September 2005. Please do not edit this page - if you wish to bring up a topic, copy the relevant portion into a new section on the current page. Thanks! --GreenReaper^(talk)

---

NPOV / Vanity Pages

You know, if you're aiming for NPOV, you might want to consider instituting a rule about, uh, not making articles about yourself. They tend to be one-sided at best, and blatant advertisments at worst. And the authors tend to react rather badly to other people editing 'their' writeup.

But then again, E2 is not NPOV and is also quite awesome. --Xax 19:02, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

We're not, exactly. I accept that most articles about users are going to be positive. I encourage that, actually, as it's the negative ones that seem to cause trouble. See this discussion for more on my views about vanity pages, and less important pages in general. Basically, what's appropriate for Wikipedia may not be appropriate for us. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:12, 14 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, it was just a joke. I wouldn't actually go along with something like that, since I'd be banned pretty quickly, I'm sure. :>

Redirect policy and anonymous editing

Is it possible to have both me redirect page "Alex Vance" and my full entry "Osfer" listd under People and Writers, or is this bad form? Considering how many furs alternately use their full name or their handle on-line, I suspect such a construction may be of use to more people.

replied elsewhere - the answer was that yes, you can do that

Also, have you considered disallowing anonymous edits? The extra effort of registering might be a slight deterrent to casual vandals. --Osfer

It can be done, but wither it is or not depends on how much longer the trolls persist in causing trouble and grief in their malicious edits. --Markus 13:16, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

kekeke goon rush

At this point I would just suggest forbidding anon edits and new account creation for a few hours (if you can do that) --Xax 18:14, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

This was in relation to an invasion of Something Awful goons (we found this out a few hours later). In the end we did not forbid account creation and anonymous edits, but instead rode it out with the aid of a few good admins. The right choice, I think. --GreenReaper^(talk)

OMG whut admin?

No, I certainly don't mind keeping an eye on the RC for vandalism for the time being. The whole "goon rush" issue is what helped me find out about this wiki :) MelSkunk 19:21, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Article naming convention proposal

When I saw Serval come up as an article, I knew we were going to have an issue. As I'm sure you're aware, some of the older fur fans have gone by animal names as fan names. I propose that we have a [[Category:Species]] with names of things that are animals, as opposed to characters, appended with Serval (species) or Panther (species) or Fox (species), sort of like how WP is has (film) and such. What do you think? MelSkunk 05:14, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Go for it! --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:31, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

About "admin" status.

I feel kind of weird for now noticing this, and even weirder for bringing it up, but I'll throw this out there anyway:

WikiFur:Administrators lists me as an admin, and you've also done it on the community LiveJournal which proves that it wasn't just a misclick or anything like that, but after looking up what I'd be able to do with this status, I notice that... well, none of it's there. :) I confirmed this by looking at the literal special page and notice that, while Osfer's name is on there, mine isn't.

Not harping on you to get right on this so I can go willy nilly on this here Internet Wikipedia machine, because that would be stupid, but can you double-check to see if you did add me to the actual admin database? Thanks. -- Verix 06:17, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

*scratches head* - I certainly thought I put you in there . . . I was on wireless, though, so maybe it didn't take . I was in a bit of a rush adding new admins at the time, so I didn't check. Sorry! Should work now. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:21, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

And there it is in the log. Thank you for trusting me enough to give me this ability. :) -- Verix 06:22, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

---

Abuh? Well, that was unexpected! Thanks - I'll try to help out as best I can. --Duncan da Husky 17:18, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

You came recommended - besides, you already have been helping, this just lets you help more. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:28, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Policies

I agree we need to set up some policies - deletion, featuring and the like. Right now we are trying to be as inclusive as possible becuase there's really no harm in having articles that are only mildly related to furry topics, but it's something we'll probably have to look at going forward. For now, don't be too worried if you see something that doesn't seem to fit with the wiki's purpose - we can always do a cleanup later. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 15:54, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Might I suggest creating a 'dubious' template then to help us flag articles that need writers to find more proof of their 'furryness' and at a later date, give us a handyway of tracking down things to go on deletion lists. ;> The closest wikipedia tag I'd say would be Wikipedia:Template:Unencyclopedic, to us of course, anything not furry related is Unencyclopedic.

That is a big "of course". I would be wary about limiting the scope of the wiki in that respect. Topics that are only tangentially furry may still be of interest to WikiFur readers and it might well be that there is stuff that can be said about the topic that relates to the furry fandom, and which would not be accepted in the "right" place. Obviously there are cases where links should be converted into links to Wikipedia and the like, but that is not always the case.

Likewise, we could do with getting Wikipedia:Template:Advert for pages which are clearly adverts for furry sites and need turning in to articles. Infact.. I was about to list a few more but realised we could do with importing quite a few of the templates. Would you mind if I did so and made changes where needed? I'll also make some wikifur: namespace pages if needed with info and so on about them and how to use. -Nidonocu - talk 16:04, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead - be bold! But also, be somewhat wary that you do not bite newcommers by telling them that their contributions are not wanted. If you can see a way to expand the from (say) a stub about an unrelated technology to an article about how the technology is used in the furry community, with links to articles in more depth over on (say) Wikipedia, then that would be more appropriate.

Note that you can theoretically use wikicities templates with this method: {{Wikicities:Advert}}. However, if you have time I would import the template as there have been problems with this - most notably it is case-sensitive!

I disagree with the use of the Unencyclpediaic template because I think it imposes strong an opinion on something that is a matter of opinion - there's been a lot of discussion about it. The Advert one sounds fine, because it is a more obvious statement about the quality of an article. --GreenReaper^(talk) 16:22, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I'll get going and take on what you've said. :) More fun than staring at Recent Changes. o.O I'll send some links your way when I've made a few up. -Nidonocu - talk 16:34, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Blanking personal pages policy

Is there a set policy on deleting a person's entry? I noticed you removed someone's entry upon his request. I figure if there isn't one, it might be a good idea to set one up now and make it fairly publically known. Maybe make a template where it would appear rather standard and lock the entry down so it couldn't be changed....something that says "the person in question has asked us not to be included in this project". Rama 01:09, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

A good idea. --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:21, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Person pages vs. Personal pages

Since this is going unanswered in the Category talk:People section, I'm going to take this here. :>

I'd like to take initiative to start removing information that's too personal-- such as the likes and dislikes of a person, who they're friends with-- in order to make the people pages sound more informational and less like the person is advertising themselves to other possible friends or love interests. Not saying that these are bad, but inapropriate for something like this wiki, which is supposed to be an online encyclopedia.

Thoughts? --Verix 19:35, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Answered on Category talk:People. --GreenReaper^(talk) 19:46, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

On pre-emptive protection:

It wasn't pre-emptive. Yesterday there was perpetual vandalism going on on the front page from YTMND.com, spamming "GNAA™" and editing various other parts of the template where they'd just add something stupid. Just wanted to clarify that. :) --Verix 14:20, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

OK. :-) Just make sure you unprotect them when they go away again! *grin* --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:30, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Regarding pre-emptively protecting things, I'd like to propose that we really should be protecting certain "high-visibility" pages, such as the main page and the templates for menus and such. If any one of those gets vandalized, it could affect the entire site instead of a single page. Also, I'm not sure that we want random users modifying them without checking with us in the first place, even if their intentions are good. Thoughts? --Dmuth 19:35, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

We did end up protecting the main page, and a few things, but fortunately not too much, as by then we had enough admins and few enough trolls to handle things.

Featured Articles

Well, we don't have to have a new one every day, but I personally recommend the Caitians one for "next up". It actually had so many images, I had to leave one of mine out. Plus, M'ress is a notable early furry character. -- MelSkunk 23:51, 19 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Could do with some links to Memory Alpha for the added material, especially since it's a Wikia project too. If it was spaced out a bit more somehow, you could fit more pictures in. Perhaps an external links section?

As for the Featured Articles, we do have to have one every day, because otherwise the script will go on and there'll just be an ugly red link. Admittedly you coulc copy the last one, but that would be cheating. ;-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:28, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Articles of the day

How do you choose articles of the day? Will you be starting a vote system (something like this or anything like that once Wikifur's engine's running?

(Also, you don't need to move this discussion to my talk page when you answer... I check everyone's talk page that I've left a comment on for a day or two out of habit.) Almafeta 20:16, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Right now, I'm choosing them by looking at the length and technical quality of the article, its subject matter, and whether or not it's got a good picture to illustrate it. See WikiFur:Featured articles, which will be going up on the next one as a link below the box (didn't want to put it there until it had some entries).

I fully intend to instigate a "Featured candidate" system closely following the system at Wikipedia at some point, if only because it's a real hassle to have to do this myself every day. ;-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 20:35, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Coders category

Think a coders category would be useful? We have at least one with a wiki entry already - Shippa, and Toast, when done, could also fall under that category. -- Sslaxx

That's a good idea, although I'd say [[Category:Programmers]] would be better than coders. --GreenReaper^(talk) 22:19, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Shall it be added, then? Sslaxx

You don't have to ask, do it yourself - Be bold! Just add [[Category:Programmers]] at the bottom of the pages to be in the category, and then click one of the resulting red links and fill in some blurb about what programmers are, and put [[Category:People]] of the bottom of that, and you're done. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 22:28, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Another question (are we Wikipedia?)

Is Wikifur limited to Wikipedia-style pages, or are other things possible? For example, if I had written up a how-to guide on (say) how to build a ventilation system into a fursuit without being obvious, such as would normally go into Wikibooks, could I put it here? Almafeta 04:34, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Most certainly! We're not subject to those sorts of content divisions - if you have something of use to the furry community that could benefit from being on a wiki, this is the place to put it. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:50, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Administrator

Enjoy your new tabs! Try to use them sparingly. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:39, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Squee!!! :D :D :D *cough* Yes sir. :> --Nidonocu - talk 03:53, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Mark page as policy

Heya :) Was wondering if you could review WikiFur:Speedy Deletion and if its all ok mark it as official site policy? I've noticed a few pages being marked for Speedy Delete when they do actually contain content but its not fur related, so I'm going to make a new Warning type template to stop people doing that and instead place a request for making the article in to something fur related. If you check out Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion at the moment, all the entries it has (not including the Template pages of course) are articles over which the reason for it being here is debated, not that it is SpD material.

Done. --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:59, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Also as a side note, I'd recommend archiving some of your talk page as its displaying the too big edit warning right now. o.O -Nidonocu - talk 16:41, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for the SpD review. That's the most appropriate template we have right now, but I think it would be good to have something more along the lines of "This isn't furry-related enough." --71.14.103.214 17:57, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There are a few things that have been removed because of that already, although preferably we develop articles to have furry content, if possible. --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:59, 27 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Two (three) comments (D&D, trolling, archives)

First: From your comments re D&D characters on another page: is gnoll okay? I included it because it was a notable anthropomorphic race, and you occasionally see gnolls on places like FurryMUCK

I think there should be some reason for it to be on here rather than for links to it to go to Wikipedia's gnoll article instead. It should at least link to that article, too. Perhaps there are some notable gnoll characters that could be listed here? If not, what would a page here add that a link to Wikipedia would not?

Second: I'm kind of worried about the future of this site, since you're taking such a soft line on vandalism and trolling. Why work towards goals like 1000 articles, 2000 articles, etc., if we're going to make those goals because every day another five people whose only connection to the furry fandom is of accusing it of something or other have made vanity pages about themselves and the vandalism groups they belong to?

As mentioned elsewhere, I (and I think most other admins) disagree with your definition of "vandalism and trolling", which is probably why I seem to be taking a soft line on it in your eyes. We seem to simply have different ideas of what constitutes it. I restrict vandalism to damage to existing articles, to spamming links, to calling people names and the like. Trolling is more subjective, but I would tend to associate it with more subtle actions that are trying to get a response or "stir up trouble". Some of this can be from the creation of spurious articles, but, in general, people who spend a long time writing articles about anti-furry groups are not vandals or trolls. They are contributors. I have no problem with people who poke fun at the fandom, as long as they don't get personal about it. They are part of it, and a part of our history.

Please understand that I would rather integrate people into our community than have them as our enemies. If you've read ED's page on WikiFur (http://www.encyclopediadramatica .com/index.php/WikiFur), you will see that they expected drama. The fact that they did not get what they expected is a direct result of the fact that we got some of the key people who could have caused it (the ones with more sense) actually involved in editing on WikiFur.

Part of why people do things that you would consider vandalism and trolling is because they get a response. The reason they do it is because people go nuts about it. Don't go nuts, and they tend to lose interest in causing trouble, and the ones with any worth might actually stick around and do something useful, as has happened.

If you want another reason, I'd rather they stayed on their pages than were out causing trouble on those made by other people. Extra pages are cheap, and they're even funny, sometimes. :-)

Despite possible appearances, I'm not so concerned about page count as I am as making a healthy community here. I would suggest that it's more important to focus on all the articles that people are creating that you agree with than worry about the ones other people are creating that you don't agree with, unless they impinge directly on your own.

Third (yes, third of two comments, it's an afterthought): You really need to start making an archive of old conversations on this page.  ;) -- Almafeta 04:42, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps so. I've been too busy trying to formulate policy and deal with trouble, though! :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:15, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Blacksad

Hi! I noticed on the recent changes page that you deleted the Blacksad article as vandalism of some kind. I am not sure of the original content of the page (I didn't see it before it was deleted), but Blacksad is a French comic book featuring exclusively humanoid animal characters, so I would guess it is of interest to the furry fandom based on its content alone. Would you be opposed to the recreation of this article? Also, is mentioning Sibe in an article against the rules of the site? That seemed to be your implication in your deletion comment, and I hope you can clarify that for me. Thanks! --Krishva 05:32, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Blacksad is indeed a french comic book. What had happened was that the creator of the article here had copied the entire text of the Wikipedia article and moved it here, and then added a comment about Sibe. The problem was not that the comment was about Sibe per se, but it was that the objective was purely to make a note about Sibe's activities (which they didn't back up with any kind of evidence). They had not fixed up any of the redlinks that were previously to Wikipedia articles, which indicated to me that they were creating the page to try to make a point rather than make a good article page (the edit line I don't see how pointing out Sibe's activities is irrelevant, I thought he was furry also suggested that they had an axe to grind).

I also considered the context - the creator of the article had previously been copying unrelated articles over with no addition of information, and they had also been making edits that could be viewed as "troublesome" - I encourage you to review the list yourself and make your own decision.

There is certainly room for an article on the book here, quite possibly based off that article. I certainly didn't think that was a good start for it, though, so I deleted it. If you wish for the article to exist again, it should be easy enough to copy it again. Please make sure it has fewer red links when you do it! :-)

I should probably change the footer of the front page. It's good for people to know that they can copy from Wikipedia, but some of them tend to be doing so indiscriminately. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:54, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

1000 Articles

Heya :) Sorry about any cock-ups this morning on the front page, I had four hours sleep and got woken up by my PC complaining cause it couldn't get online due to our router crashing and I had forgotten to turn the speakers off. ;) Got it fixed, checked the site and it said 995 articles and well.. "Aii!! Gotta do something for the 1000!!" so made the little graphic and made that special template which we can use when we want to put an extra picture on the front page like for holidays and such. :) I then sat there with the counter on 999, an image upload, the new template page and the edit to the front page all sitting on ready to save as I didn't want anyone to see it early. And then.. the counter stuck and no one updated for a good hour. @_@ I even tried pushing it over myself with an article on Dragon Tails but it was clearly lacking a few characters and didn't budge. c_c Finally I fell asleep and got woken up about an hour later by a house mate. "Wha? Argh.." *refresh main page* '1000' "Yay!" *click-click-click* "Woo!" :D *collapses dead asleep again* x.z

Lets prepare a little more next time for 2000. ^^; I'll do some work tonight anyway on a possible new front page, give it a look maybe akin to WP with that nice little category bar and use expanding space where ever I can for size issues. :) --Nidonocu - talk 17:17, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

It's OK, I was just as annoyed at myself for missing out the link on the featured article to the actual featured article! The reason the counter didn't update is because the main page didn't update, and nor did any of the templates that use it - if you change the main page by a space or something and then preview it, you can see what it'll look like if you safe. Or, you can add &action=purge at the end of the URL for it.

And yes, we probably should be more prepared for 2000. Right now most of my time has been spent formulating policy, and I still have to write that article about WikiFur . . . it never ends! :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 17:28, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

One day it might. But then.. that would be boring. XD --Nidonocu - talk 17:37, 28 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Deleted?

WHY WAS MY PAGE DELETED? --ashi_moto

Because people thought it should be. See Talk:Ashi_Moto. --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:15, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think all of their pages should be deleted. If I get a bunch of my friends to agree with me, then do I have permission to delete their pages, too? --ashi_moto

I will join this noble campaign. --NotoriousRAE

I knew I could count on you. --ashi_moto

Blanking other people's pages like that is against policy, not to mention an offense which could result in a ban if it persists. The page in question was blanked specifically because the general consensus agreed about the matter and it's content was considered "inappropriate and offensive" presumably by multiple people. --Markus 08:15, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

"Inappropriate and offensive" is subjective. Like I said, would I have permission to delete all of their pages if I managed to get five other people in here who agreed that all of their pages were offensive? Because that's basically what happened. --ashi_moto

If they were five admins and nobody disagreed with you, maybe. If you don't like it, don't write stupid pages in the main namespace. This isn't ED. :-) If you really must, use your User page for non-factual stuff. --GreenReaper^(talk) 13:44, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Mock Up complete! ^_^

Hey :) Phoning in to say I've completed my redesign. You can find the new pages at WikiFur:WikiFur Central Version 2 and WikiFur:WikiFur Central Version 2 (Simple). Following the instruction to have a 800x600 nice version. I found that while my new layout does 'work' on 800x600, that is it doesn't force horizontal scrollbars. It does look ugly as sin and hard to read, so I've provided a Simple design as well, much like Wikipedia's table free main page. The two pages will share templates so it won't be double work to update them. The new version features moving about of content, more links to useful information, extra sections to give a home for information and announcements about the wiki, though placed at the bottom to not detract from the purpose of wiki to read and write information. There are a few more Notes on the talk page. I look forward to your comments and thoughts. :) --Nidonocu - talk 01:38, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Where do they come from?

I'm wondering if it would be ok and within wikicity policy if we were to place a tracker of sorts on the front page. The only reason is cause I'm kind of curious about which pages on the net some of our trolls are coming from and where we are being talked about. ;) Aware there might be a few issues regarding this though. o.o; --Nidonocu - talk 02:46, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we already have that - the Webalizer stats include referrer stats, which I've used on several occasions. They're actually better than a tracker on the front page, as sites often deep-link to particular pages (most of those at the top of the popular pages were linked from elsewhere). --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:34, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

*returns from reading and grins* You need an award of some sort for the amusing panic you caused PA and the retorts on a certain someone's LiveJournal. ^_^ --Nidonocu - talk 04:20, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Problem with ArtPlz page

You might want to have a look at the ArtPlz page. It rather blatantly violates the "neutral stance" guidelines.

Indeed? I'm afraid I don't know much about the topic, and therefore I'm not sure exactly what the problem is, although things like "purported immaturity" could do with attribution (who's purporting it?). You're welcome to edit the page yourself to fix this! If people disagree with you, then you can work together on the discussion page to find a way to make an article which you're both satisfied with. --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:53, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

WikiFur:Today's featured article/September 9, 2005

Please change this to an appropriate topic. Almafeta 01:21, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd made this clear after Verix? I know your feelings, but as mentioned on WikiFur:Featured articles, the main critera for featured status is the quality of the article. Something Awful is an article that has had many contributors and recieved a lot of attention already, having more editors than most pages. It's not perfect, but most of the other articles I consider candidates have already been featured - indeed, the only one I'd have chosen before it, Furcadia, hasn't been chosen yet becuase I don't yet have permission for the picture I was hoping to use for it, and I want to save it for when there's a big promotion and we need a really good article on the front page. Other articles are either too short or just huge blocks of text, and they rarely have pictures.

Really, though - saying we should be filtering featured articles on topic is like saying Wikipedia shouldn't have had menstruation on the front page because you don't think it's something that should be talked about . . . or that we shouldn't have featured babyfur because it's something that people make fun of the fandom for.

Ultimately, the featured article is just another page, and you can change it yourself, but please do so based on quality of the article rather than personal preference. I would suggest the best way to ensure that the topics featured are those you would prefer is to write good articles on them (as you have been doing with such topics as Werewolf: the Apocalypse and Brutal: Paws of Fury, both of which I was glad to feature), or to encourage others to do so. --GreenReaper^(talk) 03:39, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'd side with Almafeta on this one. If the function of the Featured Article is to act as an example of what the wiki's community would like to see more of, then quality is certainly a preeminent criterion, but shouldn't be the sole one. Relevance to the wiki's theme is another criterion that the example should be encouraging. I'd personally prefer to see a wiki with more articles about creators than critics. Lots of creator material will attract critics anyway. Lots of critic material might even drive creator material away. --Sebkha 04:21, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I said it was the main one, not the only one. However, I think it is covered by the others as well. Let me explain at excessive length:

Specifically, I'd challenge your assertion that the Something Awful article is not relevant. Have you read it? It's not a general article about the website - almost all of it is about the furry fandom's involvment with Something Awful and their users. It contains much interesting information about the history of the fandom, including such interesting tidbits as the fact that Sibe did not do some things that others claimed he did. Such information is useful.

WikiFur is for furries, by furries, and about furries - and the furry fandom . . . but critics exist both outside and inside the fandom. Many so-called goons are critics, but that does not necessarily disqualify them from being fans, or topics about them and their sites being relevant to the fandom. Surely Burned Furs is relevant? Or Nothingkat.com? If we fail to give their point of view, or to cover their stories, then we're excluding a part of our culture, and only giving people half the story. And, yes, that includes featuring those articles when they are the best around. I also want WikiFur to end up as a source of good information even by those who think poorly of the furry fandom in general. If they see that only positive articles get featured, they're going to think that we're just another blinkered fan-site - and they'll be right.

Frankly I would like to see more articles like Something Awful - not necessarily as prime candidates for featuring, but because they are of significant historical interest. The interaction of their users with the fandom has had an important part to play in shaping our views of "outsiders", and has doubtless helped to form many people's concepts of the fandom (indeed, I just realised it should really be in Category:Media coverage, as SA is used by many as a quasi-news site).

If I am trying to make a point (and if I am, it's not been consciously), it's that it can serve as a lesson to the fandom that spazzing out against people in search of drama is not the best way to deal with it - history, as shown in the featured articles, suggests the vitriol that's a common response just fuels the flames. And I think this is an example of that - the moment anything critical of the fandom comes up, I get notes on my user page saying how this is an inappropriate topic, and that we shouldn't be promoting this sort of thing. Well, that's all well and good, but a featured article is just that - about the article, not the topic. Heck, it's not even a particularly positive article, so I don't see that it's exactly promoting critics. :-)

If you think that something like "furry-of-the-day" that promotes worthy people (or topics) would be useful, by all means, go for it. I think that might actually be a nice idea, although it might be tricky deciding who goes first. But that's not what the featured article is about. It is about good articles about aspects of or topics related to the furry fandom, especially if they still have relevance today.

Finally, of the 24 featured articles already posted, maybe three or four are about those critical of the fandom, and the main reason for that is that there were several experienced wiki users among the SA crowd who knew how to write a good article. I don't see that as a particularly significant quantity, certainly not "lots". I fully expect to see more "creators" showing up there as the articles about them mature, but right now a lot of the best articles (including those about critical groups and websites) have been group efforts, while most articles about people (of which we have hundreds already) have only had one or two editors and are frankly too short to be worth featuring. Again, we come back to quality rather than quantity.

This is getting too long, so I'll stop now. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:33, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Another irony is that SA supporters think the article's biased *against* them. %-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:41, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

I uploaded images of link buttons for several Articles today, mostly comics. I'm assuming here that link buttons qualify as "fair use" images. It makes the articles look a little nicer than when they were just plain text, and hopefully is a step in the right direction toward making them future candidates for featured articles. Many websites, comics, and artist's webpages have link buttons that could be added to their entries. --mwalimu 18:50, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

That's useful, thanks! :-) And yes, we generally assume that it's fine to use buttons or logos to represent the associated article - we have {{button|[[link text]]}} and {{logo}} templates that can be used indicate that on the image descriptions. Ideally everyone who writes an article should include an image if one's available, but often they don't (especially for new users who don't know how to link/upload images), so adding one can make a difference. --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:31, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)