Difference between revisions of "Talk:Furry fandom"

Revision as of 01:48, 12 April 2007

Needs reverting! --JSB 20:00, 2 Oct 2005 (UTC)

to fix

• condense introduction
• organize history into a timeline
• replace examples with link to categories of examples
• create a version for public-at-large (for parents, media, and such)

Needs improving

This page could (and should) be so much better. It's linked from a lot of pages and is probably the first or second place people will look when wanting to know what furry stuff is. It should be oriented towards them and not go rambling off talking about "spare baggage". Basically, Wikipedia should not be able to write a better furry fandom page than we can. :-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 02:46, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You have some points there, although as a general introductory page oriented toward the uninitiated, I do have to think there should be some sort of advisory to the effect that Furry is going to mean different things to people, sometimes very different. And that fans can be sensitive to dropping assumptions upon them about just what it means because they're into furry, beyond the most basic definition. Heh, 'cause honestly, that appears to be one of the biggest sources of animosity within the community - people bristling at outsiders and other furries assuming because they're a furry, they're into X strange thing. -- ToyDragon^(talk)

I agree with most of the first paragraph. There needs to be some element of disambiguation, as there is on furry itself. After that it goes downhill, though - there's no clear outlining of the interests of the furry fandom, or why people want to be in it, what they do in it, or even what sort of people they are. Hints get dropped here or there that it might be about anthropomorphic characters, but other than that it's pretty impenetrable for a newcomer. --GreenReaper^(talk) 05:03, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A thought: Perhaps we could make this page a portal to the various categories on the wiki. So an overall definition, followed by sections with summaries of each main category: Members, beliefs, terms, the various arts, media attention, and so on. The idea is that while Wikipedia has one page on us, this whole wiki is about us. -- Siege 19:47, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

That could work. I think it would be good to see something with lots of sections with short summaries and links like:

For more details on this topic, see fanzine.

If nobody would object, I could do something with this page like I had started to do at Wikipedia. For some reason I feel inclined to try it, even though my nerves really got frayed at Wikipedia. So I guess what I'll do is draw up a demonstration of what I think the page should look like and see what kind of reaction it gets. If you all like what I do I'll take Green Reaper's invitation to ditch Wikipedia and work over here. If not, well, you can always revert. Perri Rhoades 12:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Less Words, More Meaning?

Granted there is a lot to say about the Furry Fandom, but its not all nessessary for someone trying to learn about it to know. If you talk to another furry, and say "I'm furry" or "I'm in the furry fandom" they know what you're talking about. Theres never a situation (at least I couldn't ever imagine any) where one furry would tell another that they're in the fandom, and then they start asking each other what they're talking about. I think the goal of the page in WikiFur is to convey that understanding between furs to someone who is not familiar with the fandom. (Such as friends or family of a fur, looking to learn more).

That would be at the very top, and below there could be catagories of debates within the fandom (if any) things that are explcitly included in the fandom (Such as furry art) and things outside the fandom, but still considered a "furry" (Bugs Bunny, Sly Cooper, etc). Then there could be a section that includes activities exclusive to the fandom "Parts of the Fandom" (Anthrocon, Mini-Meets, Yiff, etc) and things that the Fandom has become a part of; Anime, DDR, Costuming, etc... Omnibahumut 00:18, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Do we have a "what is furry?" article that might be useful for explaining this, perhaps? We could just link to it from the top of this page. --Dmuth 03:48, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Created a What is Furry? page, tried my best to define its meaning without going into details that are covered in other articals. Omnibahumut 16:44, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Merge with History?

I'm not sure that's appropriate. Some history should be a part of this article, but there's more to be said on that than can be said in one part of one article, I think. This should be a page where people can come to find out what furry fandom is now, and the history that is here should be to support that, not as a complete documentation. --GreenReaper^(talk) 21:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll go with GR on this one. Additionallly, combining the two articles would result in a monstrously huge article that would take some serious dedication to wade through!----DuncanDaHusky^(talk) 12:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation too biased.

Quote:

Many people misunderstand the fandom due to a lack of non-prejudicial information being available. In many cases, the first things outsiders see of the fandom is sensationalistic fiction on TV shows. Others may take note of the adult themed art on the net and assume this is the whole point of the fandom, never realizing what an ancient and respectable genre the fandom is built around.

This seems a little too biased. We are not based upon an ancient genre. If we were, the fandom would be far older. And yiff art is the majority of furry art, when counting Fchan (mostly porn) VCL (50/50) and Yerf (all clean). 69.160.28.78 06:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some people believe that the tradition of talking animals should be rolled into furry fandom, which is where the "ancient and respectable genre" bit comes from. I personally disagree with a lot of this, too, and I support its removal. However, I'm not sure about that 50/50 split. It seems more like 35/65 in favour of clean art to me, based on things like convention art show proportions and the like. --GreenReaper^(talk) 15:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No fandom invents its own genre. The item in question is referring to the genre that the fandom is built around. That genre is as old as art and culture, if you take into account the large percentage of furry fans who cite things as old as Aesop's Fables and Egyptian art, not to mention the Native American connection.

Furthermore, an internet community does not invent a fandom. It merely draws a fandom together. Being in the collectibles business long before there was a furry community, I encountered many furry fans. Thus, nobody knows how old furry fandom is. It's quite possible furry fandom is nearly or over 100 years old. The evidence is in the collectibles, which is something nobody ever seems to research in connection with this topic.

Besides that, another thing that needs to be understood is the concept of a metegenre. A metegenre is not an ordinary genre. It's a genre that does not exist on its own, but rather reaches into other genres and latches onto various titles, not because of story content, but because of what kinds of characters are in the story. Thus, the furry metegenre reaches into anything with talking or anthropomorphic animals in it, and there have been anthropomorphic characters as long as there has been literature.

As for the respectability of the genre, you have only to look at the titles listed as being encompassed by it. George Orwell, Felix Salten, Richard Adams and Richard Bach by themselves encompass a wall of credibility around the genre that is beyond question. Perri Rhoades 04:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)