Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Furry: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:31, 11 July 2007

The First Step...?

What should the first step here be? Identifying all the articles that should be covered under WikiProject Furry, I presume?

I also assume that we'd want to format all the articles to be relativly uniform...Bengaley 17:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started by looking up featured and good articles and listing them in the WikiProject. One problem I've faced is articles about computer games. For example, the article about the character, Sonic the Hedgehog has been included, but should the games be included as well, and if so, should all of them be mentioned.

Another problem is the Pokémon article. There are articles about some Pokémon, such as the Eevee article, which as classed as Good Articles. Should all the articles on Pokemon be included, or just species, or just the Pokémon article? ISD 08:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That brings up the question of, what exactly is 'Furry'? I consider myself Inclusionist, both as a Wikipedian and as a Furry, but I am hesitant to add Pokemon as under this WP. While I do agree that Pokemon art is rampant throughout the fandom, that in of itself is not enough, in my mind. However, a reasonbly well constructed and thought out argument can convince me, and regardless of my personal feelings, I'm going to let this one be until more of 'us' chime in. RIght now, it's just 3 of us... Bengaley 14:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This wikiproject has not even expanded enough to supprt basic work. The level of inclusion being thought of now would demand not just a huge WP but the creation of Task Forces within the project. I recommend we avoid just "staking claim" to already good content and instead focus more on the traditional furry subjects and articles that truely need the attention. I've got into more depth below. NeoFreak 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below for my more verbose reply, but in short - what I meant above was not IDing all the articles to 'lay claim', but to grab all the articles that could be classified to see what kind of job we have ahead of us. Not for 'claim', but for assesment. I certainly didn't mean including Calvin and Hobbes and Pokemon. Bengaley 20:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

The question of scope has started to be addressed above but I think a dedicated discussion is needed. While "furry fandom" is often thought to contain anything that features anthropomorphism to declare this as the scope of the project will destroy any true focus the project has. Without having a level of dedication and the number of editors that the Military History Wikiproject has this level of inclusion is counter productive. As the project grows and proves to be active the scope can be expanded without losing any of the focued benefits of a wikiproject. Already articles such as "Calvin and Hobbes", "Sonic the Hedgehog" and "Pokemon" are being brought under the scope of the Project. I have some fears that these are being brought into the project only in the interest of establishing a expansive scope and to tie the project to already established FA and GA content. This kind of content is on the periphery of the subject and already much better covered by other Projects (WP Comics and WP Video Games).

This WP needs to decide early what its scope will include and focus on articles and subjects that need attention, not just bringing already good articles "into the fold". There is a vast array of traditional "furry" material already on Wikipedia that is in desperate need of attention. Let's focus on improving lacking material before planting flags on established work. I would recommend finding sources for the hundreds of articles on furry comics, writers, conventions, fictional characters, more obscure movies, the fandom itself, etc. I'd also recommend narrowing the focus to avoid being inclusive of 90% of animtated movies and video games out there. Thoughts? NeoFreak 17:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried expanding the scope to include several articles already covered. I do think that task forces would be a good idea, but I think we should wait until more people join the project first. ISD 17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying. No offense inteneded but I think you need to reread my post. NeoFreak 20:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps what will define the topic: What, exactly, are we going to cover? What should we cover? Well, let me throw out some ideas on general topics:

Furry Conventions
Furry Culture/Lifestyle
Furry Comics, both print and online (DMFA, Surburban Jungle, Tales of the Questor, not VG Cats or Calvn and Hobbes)
Released films that play a major impact on Furry culture
Biographies on famous furries (Stalking Cat has a bio on here.)
Anthromorphism in Media (Games, Movies, Novels...)

But then, were do we stop? Should we be covering things like Lycanthropy? What about Thereinthropes(sp)? I really don't think that we should have anything officially to do with Cute and Fuzzy Seizure Monsters...

I don't think we should worry too much about 'Mainstream' entries, those have their own dedicants. What I was suggesting above is that we look for and find all the articles that we ought to work on, and say they need work on, then start getting to work. Assess the job, as it were. Bengaley 20:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last item there overreaches our intended scope. I do not think that we should be trying to cover everything that uses the device of anthropomorphism. GreenReaper 08:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck that last item in there to cover for things like Legend of Kay or Sly Cooper, not for anything and everything that we could call Anthro.Bengaley 13:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the project

I should have caught this earlier and can't believe I didn't: the name the of the project. The name of the project is basicly tied to a slang term or a group of people, "furries". This is like naming the Star Trek wikiproject "Wikiproject Trekkies". It needs to be decided if this project is going to be about the furry community or about the focus of the community: anthropomorphism. The more inclusive scope is of course anthropomorphism, both in terms of subject material and attracing other editors here, and I already see the scope of the project being shifted that way. This is something that needs to be laid out before wee really get around to incorporating material. NeoFreak 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should call it WikiProject Anthropmorphism, but this will involve moving the WikiProject. ISD 18:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going that route, at least call it WikiProject Anthropomorphism. It's still a serious pain in the tail to type, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hmm. Can't say I personally like it, but setting that aside, it's probably for the best to rename it Anthro as opposed to Furry... ...unless we're talking the culture, or the subject matter. Bengaley 20:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this change. Anthropomorphism means "human-like". This wikiproject appears to be about the furry fandom, which could be considered a subset of anthropomorphism, but isn't by any stretch of imagination the same thing. I see no mention of non-furry related anthropomorphic concepts in this wikiproject, like uncanny valley or robot or personification. Let's call it what it is: WikiProject Furry Fandom, or WikiProject Furry. Or, if the more "slang-sounding" term "furry" is unacceptable, WikiProject Anthropomorphic Animals would do in a pinch, though it is a bit wordy. The word "anthropomorphism" has been somewhat misappropriated by the furry fandom (through shortening of "anthropomorphic animal") to mean a very different thing (the very opposite sometimes) than what it means to everyone else. Let's not use a confusing fandom-specific meaning of an established word, when other, more appropriate terms would do just as well. -kotra 18:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphism is the addition of human characteristics to non-human objects. Because the furry fandom is dominated by animals in particular does not preclude the covergage of other aspects of the topic. This is not a Furry Club on wikipedia. This is a wikiproject to organize the articles and coverage of anthropomorphic topics. By covering anthro instead of just the "furry fandom" not only do you have a more fundemental scope but you will also attract a wider body of editors. Remember too that this WP is only just getting off the ground. Still, your thoughts are legit and I'd like to hear from some of the others. NeoFreak 20:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points. If this WikiProject is to be primarily about anthropomorphism, then a good place to start would be the concepts listed here. Though as it appears at the moment, it looks like the focus is overwhelmingly the furry fandom, which is of course fine if that's what this WikiProject is about. I don't think there's anything wrong with a WikiProject Furry Fandom. There are WikiProjects for anime, Star Trek, Dungeons and Dragons, and Magic: The Gathering, so I think a WikiProject for Furry would have plenty of justification in the form of precedent. But if it's not about anthropomorphism as a whole, then it probably shouldn't be called WikiProject Anthropomorphism. I see that this is still pretty new, though. -kotra 01:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropomorphism is different to furry. The former is primarily an artistic or narrative device, while the latter is a fandom and subculture built around this concept. The project was intended to cover topics directly related to the second, not the first. The name should therefore be WikiProject Furry. Anthropomorphism may be a higher-level topic, but that does not make it ideal for a project, nor does it follow that such a project would attract a wider number of editors. There are significant benefits to having a strong focus, and it's very hard to focus on (say) every single item of art or literature that has "attributed uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena". Think long and hard about exactly how many articles that would cover - for a start, almost everything produced by Disney, and most cartoons in general. Perhaps we can work up to that, but right now I think that would be biting off far more than we can chew. Such articles are likely to be better-served by other projects anyway, as anthropomorphism is often just a narrative tool. We should include such articles but only if they have particular relevance - for example, Inherit the Earth: Quest for the Orb has significant furry culture influences, and several team members were (and in some cases, are) involved in the furry community. Same for Furcadia, and Kaze Ghost Warrior. I wouldn't go so far as to say that "product"-type topics should have been created by or for the furry community, but if not then it should have a profound influence on it (perhaps The Lion King, which spawned a large number of roleplaying MUCKs that are recognized as being part of furry fandom). GreenReaper 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have to agree with GreenReaper. The majority of topics we would be covering consist of the furry fandom, and items directly peripheral to it...Bengaley 13:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's the problem with that: how do you define which media is or is not "furry"? Is Lion King furry? Is Usagi Yojimbo furry? How about Calvin and Hobbes? Are only materials that are created by furries furry material or is it anything that furries enjoy? There is no way to define what is or isn't "furry". The closest you can come is Anthropomorphism which is pretty much the focus of the fandom (but with a specific focus on animals in particular). See the problem? There is not central tenant of "Furryism" that declares what material is or isn't furry. Because the furry fandom is self-labled and grass roots there is not way to make that determination. The best this project can hope for to establish a concrete scope is Anthropomorphism. NeoFreak 15:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to define what is or is not furry is to ask furries. I was under the impression that this was part of why we were creating a WikiProject - to collect experts in the area able to make such calls (and provide evidence to back it up). In the two cases you mention, both The Lion King and Usagi Yojimbo have had demonstrated concrete effects on furry fandom. TLK I've covered above; as for Usagi, its author Stan Sakai was a guest of honor at Anthrocon 2004 (he also submitted art to Anthrocon 2007's conbook), his comic was first published in Albedo, and he has won several Ursa Major Awards. Calvin and Hobbes? Less so. While Hobbes is a good example of anthropomorphism, most of the characters are human. WikiFur does have a page on the comic, because our scope contains articles about things that furries are interested in (the Robot Chicken sketch about the comic was popular among furries), but even there it is stated as being "arguably not furry". I love the comic myself, but that doesn't mean we should be handling it. The reason to include articles in a WikiProject is to provide a service beyond that of editors who would already be there, and I don't really think that is the case for Calvin and Hobbes. At the end of the day, a slightly fuzzy scope is better than one that leads to a few people trying to place a hold over thousands of pages. There are topics which are widely accepted as directly related to furry fandom, and need help, and I think we should be getting those to a high quality first. If it gets to the point where we've done all that we can do for them, that would be when a higher-level project would be created as a superset of this project and we could start working on those as well. I don't see the need for that just yet. GreenReaper 16:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noooooooooo. Pardon the dramatics :) Wikiprojects are not places to formulate ideas or concepts about a topic of interest, they are not clubs and they are not ruling bodies of experts. Wikiprojects are places to organize and streamline wikipeida's covergage of particular topics by attracting the attention and work of interested editors and organizing articles with standardization of formatting. Wikiprojects are hubs of editing guided by the principles set down in policy and guidlines. Any reliable source that gives a definition of what the term "Furry" entails is fine (the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review?) but this is not the place to poll or an "ask the furries" forum. NeoFreak 18:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying members of the group that's interested in editing the articles should not be the ones to decide what articles fall under the WikiProject's scope? That seems a little backwards to me, since we're going to be doing the work. I'm very much not interested in editing a random article about anthropomorphism. I'm interested in editing articles on topics with a direct relation to the furry fandom, and I know others are, too - that's why I supported the creation of this group. And I honestly believe that a collective group of editors with experience of the furry fandom has a greater ability to decide what those topics are than a newspaper which has done a single article on the whole fandom. That's why we have several sources referenced in furry fandom; but even considering all of these, you're going to need to rely on collective judgment for specific borderline cases of "is this furry or not?". As for your assertion about not being a club - I would say that successful WikiProjects are clubs, just like successful wikis are clubs. They're not places - they're groups of editors interested in improving coverage in a particular area. The attached page is just a tool used to facilitate the group's work. GreenReaper 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, again, have to agree with GreenReaper. By having furries (Who would most likely be paying the most attention to sources on this subject) work on WP:Furry, then we would have a better WP. Also, like I said - I think the scope of the project defines what it's name should be about. Since the scope of the project is centered on the Furry Fandom, with other anthro stuff on the sidelines, then we should be named WP Furry. Frankly, let's not really worry overly much over what is and is not furry - lets work on the various articles we've got concerning the fandom and closely related items, then expand from there if there is a need. Bengaley 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with NeoFreak's assertation that there is no way to define what is and isn't furry. Furry is, in fact, pretty straightforward: anthropomorphized animals. Is Lion King furry? Yes. Is Usagi Yojimbo furry? Hell, yes. How about Calvin and Hobbes? Well, Hobbes is. Are only materials that are created by furries furry material or is it anything that furries enjoy? Neither. It's about anthropomorphic animals. -Ochlophobia

No, that would be like naming the Star Trek WikiProject "WikiProject Trek". This might not be the best title, but it's far better than "WikiProject Space Travel And Interaction With Alien Species", which is a far wider topic, and one that's harder to drum up support for. GreenReaper 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Funny Animals

Aside from being initially silly-sounding, 'funny animal' is the actual term used by animators and comics artists to refer to anthropomorphic cartoon animals. It's less slang than 'furry', and has a very similar meaning. It might be worth thinking about a WikiProject Funny Animals if WikiProject Furry is too slang-sounding, and WikiProject Anthropomorphism is too wide of a scope. The most major drawback in my mind, though, is that it might be a stretch if one wanted to include certain furry things like fursuit or Fur and Loathing. Just an idea I thought I'd toss indiscriminately into the pile. -kotra 07:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furry Convention discussion

Someone here mentioned, on the project page, possibly merging the AC, FC, CF and EF articles into Furry convention. I've taken a liberty to start a discussion on the talk page there to kick around if that's viable. Personally, I think that it would lead to a very unweildy page if we did the merge, but that's not for me to decide. Bengaley 21:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the notes from NeoFreak's private list o' articles. I'm not entirely sure the comments are a good idea as they stand as they reflect a personal opinion without attribution. GreenReaper 08:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was half asleep when I moved those articles. Those are, in fact, just private notes and there is no need to keep them. NeoFreak 11:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Furry WikiProject Furry!

I've restored the WikiProject to its original name (and scope) after a bait-and-switch change was made (apparently without consensus) to Anthropomorphism. I believe the intended purpose of the WikiProject was to organize articles related to furry fandom, which is about anthropomorphic animals, not anthropomorphism in general. Future edits should keep this distinction in mind to prevent further confusion.

Science Fiction has a Science Fiction WikiProject, and Anime has an Anime WikiProject. Furry Fandom has been known as Furry Fandom for a good 27 years, so it probably shouldn't be changed. -Ochlophobia

Bait and switch? I proposed it be changed and the editor that started the WP concured and made the change. This all happened while there was only three or four editors on board so you might have missed it. Please don't make changes that are under discussion without consensus first as you've already done. Chances are it will go back to being WP Furry but until some more editors come in and some points are resolved there is no reason to make changes unilaterally. NeoFreak 05:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits have since been reverted by NeoFreak to Anthropomorphism. I'd like to see the article returned to its original name and scope, but am told we now apparently need to reach consensus in order to restore it. Can someone explain why consensus is needed to restore it to its original name and scope, but not to change it from its original name and scope? -Ochlophobia

As I've already explained, the decision was made with the editors we had on board at the time. If you like to discuss changing it back there are two lengthy discusion sections right abouve this about just that. NeoFreak 05:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 70: / Line 70: @@
 ::::::::So you're saying members of the group that's interested in editing the articles should not be the ones to decide what articles fall under the WikiProject's scope? That seems a little backwards to me, since we're going to be doing the work. I'm very much ''not'' interested in editing a random article about anthropomorphism. I'm interested in editing articles on topics with a direct relation to the furry fandom, and I know others are, too - that's why I supported the creation of this group. And I honestly believe that a collective group of editors with experience of the furry fandom has a greater ability to decide what those topics are than a newspaper which has done a single article on the whole fandom. That's why we have several sources referenced in [[furry fandom]]; but even considering all of these, you're going to need to rely on collective judgment for specific borderline cases of "is this furry or not?". As for your assertion about not being a club - I would say that successful WikiProjects ''are'' clubs, just like successful wikis are clubs. They're not places - they're groups of editors interested in improving coverage in a particular area. The attached page is just a tool used to facilitate the group's work. [[User:GreenReaper|GreenReaper]] 18:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
+::::::::I, again, have to agree with GreenReaper. By having furries (Who would most likely be paying the most attention to sources on this subject) work on WP:Furry, then we would have a better WP. Also, like I said - I think the scope of the project defines what it's name should be about. Since the scope of the project is centered on the Furry Fandom, with other anthro stuff on the sidelines, then we should be named WP Furry. Frankly, let's not really worry overly much over what is and is not furry - lets work on the various articles we've got concerning the fandom and closely related items, then expand from there if there is a need. [[User:Bengaley|Bengaley]] 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 ::::::I disagree with NeoFreak's assertation that there is no way to define what is and isn't furry. Furry is, in fact, pretty straightforward: anthropomorphized animals. Is [[Lion King]] furry? Yes. Is [[Usagi Yojimbo]] furry? Hell, yes. How about [[Calvin and Hobbes]]? Well, Hobbes is. Are only materials that are created ''by'' furries furry material or is it anything that furries enjoy? Neither. It's about anthropomorphic animals. -[[User:Ochlophobia|Ochlophobia]]