Talk:Furcadia

Furry? I think not.

Many of the people discussing this on the Article for deletion page made the assumption that Furcadia is specifically for furries. In my experience, this is definitely not the case. Most of the people I know on Furcadia are not part of the fur fandom. It's certainly attractive to some furries but to assume that it's a furry-only game is incorrect. Should this be mentioned in the article?--Teiladnam 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, considering since the avatars, port.. and the "Gods" (Primes) of the games are furry (anthropomorphic). The main drive of Furcadia is for the fun, and roleplay. For meeting people as well. I see plenty of people as humans as well. But Furry is a vital part of Furcadia. Yes, it isn't furry only, but it is a big, big part. Hence the Fur in Furcadia. I am sorry, but I am putting it back until it is further proven that it shouldn't be there. Note that the other categories it is in listed in roleplay as well. It should have some more categories as well. Disinclination 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, its a moot question. A GAME is for anyone that enjoys playing it, not some sort of specific stereotype or subculture that has to be forced upon anyone. Its like saying,"baseball and football are for jocks!" Frankly, its an adolescent and juvenile point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.46.60.64 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 23 July 2007

Okay, I reread and thought about what you wrote, and after looking on Furcadia forums, I get what you're saying. I changed the category to anthropomorphism to be more specific. But in the article, it never talks about the "culture", for lack of a better word, of Furcadia. And I don't think it should, simply because it would create too many problems. Disinclination 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See also this discussion on the Furry Fandom template. User:kotra just added something to the article about how Furcadia relates to the fandom, although I'm not sure if it's relevant enough to stay in the article.--Teiladnam 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Added my own bit in there. In short, it's my opinion that Furacdia is a part of the furry fandom as much as any other game could be, because it has both meaning to and direct inspiration from the fandom. It's designed by furry fans, it has recognizably furry characters in it, it's been widely played by member of the furry fandom . . . if there was a poster child for "furry game", it'd be a strong candidate. It's not designed just for furry fans, nor are only furry fans welcome, nor is playing it a requirement of being a furry fan, but that's true of a lot of things that are generally regarded as "furry" as well.

As an aside regarding the commercial aspects: Most fursuit makers I know who are in it as an actual business don't just cater for the fandom either - they make "mascots" - but it's a significant part of their market and where a lot of their design ideas come from. Note that Dr. Cat was perfectly acceptable as a Guest of Honour at Further Confusion 2001 on the basis of his work, like WhiteyFawks, even though both probably make most of their money from people who are not members of the fandom. GreenReaper 06:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Splitting Dreams from main article

The "Dreams" section seems to be a good candidate for splitting into its own article, as similar to DragonSpeak. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yamake (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I'm leaning towards disagreement here. The "Dreams" section isn't very long, and if it was made its own article, would be difficult to find sources and prove notability for. It would probably not withstand an Articles for Deletion nomination. I would extend this judgement to the DragonsSpeak article as well, to a lesser extent (Felorin has spoken at length about DragonSpeak in interviews, so sourcing may be possible there). However, complete articles on both subjects would definitely be appropriate on FurcadiaWiki. -kotra 01:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

primates?

are there no primates or reptiles? that's too bad.--Sonjaaa (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are dragons (a pay avatar). Otherwise, no. -kotra (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Naga reptiles are to be added in the first month of Jan 2010, as part of the 'String' update. Also, reptile patches have been made that you may use in user-created maps or 'dreams' Shaki.moshrocker (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

GA failed

Sorry, not quite GA standard yet. Some notes for improvement;

• "Furcadia is the longest continuously running MMO." - needs an independant reliable source
• Infobox image should be a welcome screen or something (if it isn't)
• Gameplay section before development
• "On 16 December 2006, Furcadia became the first-ever MMORPG to celebrate ten years of continual service" - standalone, merge to a paragraph
• "Dreams" section unsourced
• "Main maps" & "Other official maps" sections are listcruft
• Is the "The Beekins" section needed?
• "Business model" section = unsourced listcruft
• "Awards" section could do with some prose

If you have questions/comments, leave a note on my talk page. If you found this review helpful, please consider reviewing another nominee. Cheers, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 05:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, it's helpful. I predicted it would fail for many of these reasons (the unsourced sections and the amount of crufty information, particularly). For the "longest continuously running MMO" claim, I think the MPOGD reference is independent and reliable enough, though. Also, I think the Beekins section (trimmed down, perhaps) is notable due to the unique and extensive nature of Furcadia's volunteer program. Everything else I agree completely with. -kotra (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest MMORPG

It's worth noting that Guinness World Records, a far more reliable source, states UO as being the longest running MMORPG. Either they are wrong, Furcadia is wrong, or something technical got in the way (such as not counting Furcadia as an RPG). - 67.166.134.243 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Guinness probably just hadn't heard of Furcadia, because Furcadia is clearly older by nearly a year. On the other hand, Ultima Online is fully aware of Furcadia (Furcadia's creator was at one point going to make UO), so they either have a particularly limited definition of MMORPG, or they just conveniently ignore Furcadia for marketing reasons. Anyway, we could mention that Guinness considers UO the longest-running while others (and common sense, but we can't cite that) say Furcadia is the longest-running. -kotra (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not seeing where Furcadia is an RPG of any kind. It's a social environment. You can layer an RPG on top of Furcadia - and indeed that is a clear intent of the creators - but it's not an integral part of things, just as Second Life isn't an RPG, and Ethernet isn't a transport protocol. GreenReaper (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The creators didn't program in any mandatory structure for how to roleplay, if that's what you mean (though one of the creators did create a voluntary system). Furcadia is, however, still primarily a role-playing game, where players come to interact as a character (if even just as their normal selves with an anthropomorphic animal shell). Perhaps Second Life could also be considered an RPG, though as far as I know, Linden hasn't introduced any formal roleplaying structure like Talzhemir did. However, this definition of RPG (a game where you roleplay) has been largely discarded by the mainstream gaming community in favor of goal-oriented treadmill-like RPGs with tight structure and very little actual roleplaying. But some people are still valiantly fighting for the old, broader definition, like this recent article. -kotra (talk) 06:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the "if only as themselves" bit that gets me. At some point, it turns into a chat channel with glorified avatars. Perhaps I'm cynical (or just mistaken), but from what I've seen that's a fair description of the majority of activity on Furcadia — well, that plus looking for tail in FurN — and it's hard for me to see a chat full of furr[e|ie]s as a role-playing game. I think that's why text-only versions like FurryMUCK call themselves "chat kingdoms". GreenReaper (talk) 08:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is original research, but from what I know of Furcadia (admittedly not as much these days) at least half of the players at any one time are doing some form of roleplaying (even if it's just "looking for tail"). Your common misconception stems from the most public areas (main maps) being mostly just normal chat. However, a great deal of the players spend all their time in private dreams, often roleplaying. I don't have any statistics, but it's more than people usually think. Original research aside, Felorin and Emerald Flame call it a MMORPG, and there are probably other sources as well. But perhaps to avoid this whole discussion, they just call it a MMOG on furcadia.com. I wouldn't mind changing it to just MMOG (or MMO*) here as well. In fact, it may be better, since Furcadia is really part MMORPG and part MMOSG, and "MMOSG/MMORPG" is kind of unwieldy. -kotra (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting, the game GemStone has been a continuously running MMORPG since 1988. -Azureth (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This may be contentious, since the different "versions" of Gemstone (Gemstone, Gemstone II, etc) could either be considered separate sequels or the same game with just a different name (the truth is probably somewhere in between); also, the only source given for that claim is an 8-year-old interview from a director of the company that owns the game. However, it's not unlikely that other MMOGs like Gemstone are older than Furcadia, so I changed the wording. Thanks for bringing this up. -kotra (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention in a local paper

I thought this might be interesting to people. Furcadia was briefly mentioned in a college newspaper: [1]

Conner's chosen character is a snow leopard (an animal he has always felt close to) named Satoshi, which he developed from a furry role-playing game called Furcadia.

Probably nothing of use there for citation purposes, but it's something. -kotra (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots

Hey, any chance you could upload the screenshots to commons so we could use them on Polish Wikipedia too? Plushy (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe anyone can re-upload sanctimonious's screenshots to Commons as long as the two licenses (CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL) and the summary info all remain intact. I noticed though that the screenshot currently being used on the Polish article (Commons:Image:Furcshotee.JPG) does not have the correct license. Since it's a screenshot of a copyrighted game, it cannot be released into the public domain (except by the game's copyright holder, Dragon's Eye Productions). So I've nominated that screenshot for deletion, because such copyrighted works aren't allowed on Commons. For the Polish Furcadia article, I recommend using the other screenshot on Commons, Commons:Image:FurcShot2007.png, since it is licensed freely. Or another of sanctimonious's screenshots could be uploaded to Commons too.

Also, good work on having a Polish article! -kotra (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess thanks? And if anyone can re-upload do you by any chance know someone who could do it? I mean I'd do it but I'm not really sure how. Plushy (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This page explains how to move an image to the Commons. Basically though, all you need to do is just upload the image to the Commons and use the same licenses and description, and link back to the original image on the English Wikipedia. If you've uploaded images to the Commons before it should be pretty easy. -kotra (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Adult content

I've removed the section about erotic content again. There are currently no sources to indicate either that it's true or that it's significant. Furthermore, although this isn't exactly a biographic article, it does link to the game's creator's page and we have to be careful to source potentially controversial content. Risking an incomplete article is far better than risking a false one in such cases. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If need be screenshots can be taken. Furcadia has a nasty underside that its creators conveniently don't mention. I can't imagine how many teenagers and children are corrupted and exposed to disgusting content by the nasty things that happen in the 'furrabian nights' area of the game. I understand, however, that unsourced content that is controversial in nature is dangerous. Hopefully sources can be found for this. I know hundreds or thousands can confirm the nature of furrabian nights. It is, by nature, an unadulterated haven for sexual immorality of all kinds that continues on without notice. This needs to be dealt with. 216.166.234.203 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to "deal with" such things. If the area contains adult content, this is something that we might note (especially if others do so in a reliable publication), but you are mistaken if you expect Wikipedia to pass judgment on the presence of such content, or on the opinions of those reporting on it. This is an encyclopedia, not the opinion page of a newspaper. GreenReaper (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I have been working with other editors on a possible revision of the "Adult content" section, at User:Twp/Furcadia. I think the text there is reasonably neutral and it is as well sourced as possible. I am happy to have that draft incorporated into Furcadia if and when other editors agree that it is appropriate. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far. But can we attest the significance of The Yiffy High School and The Vore Club. There are many dreams in Furcadia, what makes these significant examples among others? RP9 (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RP9. I'm sure we could find plenty of evidence that Windows Live Messenger is used for cybersex, but without indication of its significance compared to all the other activity that goes on, that wouldn't justify an 'Adult Content' section in its article. Olaf Davis (talk) 07:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

MSN Messenger is a program designed for communication via text, similar to Furcadia, yes. But that's where the similarity ends. Furcadia is a social video game, in which you enter a virtual world and do virtual things. The adult content in the game is not an offshoot of it's design, it is part of it's design. MSN was designed for communication. Furcadia was designed for roleplay, socializing, and entertainment. Whether it be a dream designed for children, or a dream designed for sexually promiscuous teenagers- it's part of the design of the game. It's my opinion that people need to know that this game supports a very vulgar and sexually explicit community- again if I found out the hard way that my child was delving into some virtual erotica section in this colorful and 'friendly' game, I'd be rather upset. Some sort of information (preferabley a lot more detailed than whatever rubbish warning the creators give) on this content needs to be mentioned. However I do agree that Wiki is an impersonal source of information- so if any adult content section is added, it should be presented in a purely FYI fashion.216.166.234.203 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

RP9 and Olaf: I have no opinion on whether the Yiffy High School or Vore Club are in any way representative of Furcadia's adult dreams or maps. However, the editor who has been trying very hard to add an "Adult content" section to the article seems insistent on including them. My recommendation, as a neutral third party, is that you consider accepting a draft which mentions them as examples of adult-oriented Furcadia maps without suggesting that they are somehow typical of Furcadia activity.

Another editor has suggested adding a "Content" section to the article which discusses Furcadia activity and content more generally, and also includes a brief FYI mention of adult-themed maps. That may be a solution which feels less like giving the adult material undue weight. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I like the idea of "Content". The first reference (the 10th anniversary press release) has a specific statement of intent with regards to content - "everything else people do in life besides beating up monsters". It's perhaps not surprising that this includes vulgarity and sexuality, especially as children/teens are involved (let's not forget our own childhoods :-). GreenReaper (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about my inactivity here for the past few days. As I suggested a few days ago, I'll see if I can come up with a draft "Content" section at User:Twp/Furcadia#Content, and report back here when it's ready. Shouldn't take more than a few hours, maybe by tomorrow at the latest. -kotra (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

As much as I got involved with this article in the wake of (retracted)'s attempts to POV-push on it, I'm afraid all I can do to help with the "content" section is look over it for wording, tone, and the like. I don't play mumorpurgers at all, Furcadia included, so I wouldn't know even screamsheet knowledge. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 18:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I, but it is always helpful to have one more in a discussion. :) RP9 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"which mentions them as examples of adult-oriented Furcadia maps without suggesting that they are somehow typical of Furcadia activity." Good luck with that, I think this is why we have the undue weight policy. :P I think adding a content section would be the best option. RP9 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't your soapbox. We don't include things just because we think people need to know. Passing judgment on what the developers designed the game for is also not a good idea. I think Olaf Davis makes a good point. Cybersex is possible in any chat client and in any online game. Assuming that because the existence of it in any particular instance can be proven means that it must be significant is blatant original research. RP9 (talk) 23:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not any given fact is significant enough to include in an article is purely a judgment call. It has nothing at all to do with original research. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? I was under the impression that in order to ensure a neutral point of view, the significance of statements had to be attested in reliable sources. How else would undue weight be dealt with? Perhaps I am not using the correct wording, I am using significance interchangeably with notability or prevalence. RP9 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see how that would get confusing. In English they are indeed very similar words, but "notability" has a very specific meaning here -- it's the standard by which we decide whether a subject needs to have its own entry in the encyclopedia. However, whether or not a particular fact should be included in an article (what I mean here by "significance") doesn't have to pass a notability test. The standard for significance is much lower -- roughly speaking, it tends to be something like "almost anything that an editor thinks people might be interested in knowing." Tim Pierce (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(←unindent) First draft, largely lifted from existing content in Furcadia and Twp's User:Twp/Furcadia#Adult Content section. The second paragraph is proving difficult to source, but I'm checking out this paper, which explores Furcadia in-depth. So far, it seems to be mostly about behavior, not content, but I'll keep reading.... -kotra (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. It avoids the undue weight problems with the other version, assuming DreamNova is a reliable source. The paper was very interesting! I read the whole thing but did not find much of anything about the types of dreams. RP9 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Concerning DreamNova, as a standalone source it probably wouldn't meet reliability criteria (since it doesn't have a reputation in mainstream sources), but as a supporting source, as it is used here, it should be fine. -kotra (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nice work. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The paper I linked doesn't really help for the Content section, so I've put it in a Further reading section for now. I'm not happy with the lack of citations or some of the wording in the second paragraph, so I'll keep tweaking it. -kotra (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Though there seems to be approval amongst us here, I haven't added the Content section to Furcadia yet because I'm not entirely satisfied with the sourcing. The second paragraph still is frustrating me for lack of sources, so I tried stripping it down. I'm a little worried about undue weight now, so if anyone else wants to take a crack at it, by all means go for it. Or, if you think it's good enough, feel free to add it. With my research method (mostly Google), I'm having a hard time getting it any better than this. -kotra (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article quality dropped to Start, an assessment/some suggestions

Although an assessment hasn't been requested, I noticed in passing that this article was rated B-class despite a number of obvious issues, so I've dropped the rating to Start and hope some of these suggestions might prove helpful for anyone who wants a go at improving the article further:

• The lead section should summarize the entire article in one or two paragraphs. It's difficult to do until the major aspects of the article are complete (which isn't the case here unfortunately), but really should be more representative before this could be called a B-class article.
• Laundry lists kill quality dead, this article is full of them. They should be collapsed into paragraphs and examples should be given rather than all examples listed. Once the reader has been told they can create feline/canine avatars etc. they don't need to know every variant.
• Following on from the above, sub-headings such as the vast number under the gameplay heading should be kept to an absolute minimum. They're messy, take up space and break the flow. Most game articles do not need any sub-headings at all within gameplay. Please see A Boy and His Blob (2009 video game) as an example of how the article should look and the kinds of information needed.
• Readers aren't given any kind of handle about what the heck Furcadia is. The first paragraph of gameplay should give a general overview, with the different aspects following in subsequent paragraphs. The Dreams section seems fine, and 'dream standards' can be incorporated somewhere, but pretty much everything else needs to be written.
• What's a Digo? This isn't explained until the Business Model section at the bottom of the article, long after the reader has had reams of the things shoved down their throats. The Business Model section is the kind of material needed, but again it could do with merging somewhere else rather than being isolated (aspects of it could go into gameplay and development).
• The map lists need to go as well, that there are different areas with different functions can be explained without listing a dozen of them.
• The Volunteer Program section could be integrated as well, the actual description is fine, it just needs a few examples (again) within a paragraph somewhere. External links should only be present in the external links section or as footnote references.
• There is no reception section as such, just an awards section. This is non-neutral (positively slanted) since it doesn't cover commentators' opinions, a section similar to the one in A Boy and His Blob needs composing. There's a Softpedia review here and a GameSpy article already cited in the article which can be used as sources.
• I would suggest the article remains at Start class at the very least till there are semi-complete gameplay and reception sections, written in paragraphs rather than lists. At that point it could be bumped up to C. I would suggest holding off rating the article B class until those sections (and development) are complete and well-cited.

Thanks to the editors who have worked on this article and built what's here today. If anyone wishes to discuss the article or its rating please leave me a note here or on my talk. Someoneanother 23:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

These are good and constructive pointers. If I have an hour or two free sometime I might take a whack at making these changes, but I encourage others to as well. Thanks, Someone, for taking the time to review this article. By the way, concerning the awards, they were added in response to an unsuccessful AfD, to help establish notability. But notable reviews of any type (positive and negative) would be good to add. -kotra (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wasn't in any way trying to imply that the awards were there to deliberately slant the article, just trying to highlight that it's something that will need filling out with more reception before the article can creep back up the ratings. Someoneanother 02:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for the revision. There are a group of people that may be adding content, fixing things and such in the up-coming months, just as a heads up. Although I don't agree with advertising, there are still some citations that can be added as well as various other details to clarify without creating splinter articles or adding to the page length too badly. There was discussion of adding a separate Digomarket splinter page but I for one don't agree with this. I think the current method is sufficient. ʍɪ₭Ꭵṯṭʏ 15:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Improvement to this article is certainly welcome. May I ask who this group of people are? If they are associated with DEP then they will want disclose that, and will probably find a better reception to their edits if they propose changes on this talk page, for others to make to the article itself. If the proposed changes are aren't self-serving, off-topic, or violate any of Wikipedia's policies (as I doubt would be the case), then they will be made to the article by another editor, such as myself. Sorry about this clumsy process, but it is an effective way to eliminate conflict of interest issues (perceived or otherwise), and is something we try to apply to all editors editing articles about themselves or their organizations. -kotra (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, the people who are editing it are citizens who are just clearing up things that are otherwise vague or need citation. Brass and I are the main two, the others, I'm not quite sure. I doubt Furcadia staff have the time to mantain this wiki. It's a team effort. I myself usually only correct details or remove unnecessary elaboration or things that can be labled as self-promotion. Brass usually only plays in his sandbox though. ʍɪ₭Ꭵṯṭʏ 21:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"Second Dreaming" Kickstarter

It might be a good idea to say something about the "Second Dreaming" funding drive that not only met its initial target, but ultimately raised over $100,000 for development. GreenReaper (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge from Dragon's Eye Productions and DragonSpires

As discussed on WPVG Talk, our articles on Dragon's Eye Productions and DragonSpires are lacking reliable, non-trivial, independent references. (We've got reliable but not non-trivial, non-trivial but not independent, etc.) As it stands, both articles would likely fail an AfD as they don't meet WP:N.

That being said, I suggest that we partially merge content to this article, specifically into the Development section. The reliable-but-trivial sources we do have support some basic facts about Dragon's Eye Productions, DragonSpires, and the claim that production on DragonSpires was halted in order to focus on Furcadia, but not much more than that. (Like I said, the reliable sources are terrible.) This would beef up the Development section, plus it would reference a few uncited claims that are already being made in this article. Ideas? Woodroar (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Why would you merge an unrelated game here? Both of those articles have references good enough to survive an AFD should anyone sincerely doubt they are notable and decide to start one. Dream Focus 00:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dragon's Eye Productions currently has an unreliable ref (MPOGD) and two primary refs (both to Furcadia.com). DragonSpires has a reliable-but-trivial ref about DragonSpires but with no real information (Wired), reliable-but-trivial refs about Dragon's Eye Productions but (again) with no real information (IGN, GameSpy), some primary refs (MUD Dev, Gamedev.net, Sourceforge), and miscellaneous, probably unreliable refs with no real information (austingamedevs.org, ccon.org). Neither meet WP:N because we don't have multiple sources that are reliable and non-trivial and independent. I'd prefer a merge over outright deletion since these things obviously exist, but we simply don't have sufficient references to justify standalone articles. Woodroar (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

There is an interview with a reliable source done about Dragon's Eye Productions. [2] Dream Focus 14:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Interviews aren't reliable sources as they are, by definition, subjects talking about themselves. We need sources that involve actual research and fact-checking not only to justify the articles, but to give us content to write those articles as well. Of course, we can include material taken from interviews—as long as it's not overly self-serving—as long as the majority of the article is first based on reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The website is a reliable source. If a reliable source interviews or otherwise writes an article about someone, that indicates notability. If you don't believe me, send this to the AFD, and let others explain it to you. Dream Focus 17:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Favor It's extremely obvious that these articles should be merged at the least, but when you interact in any way with articles relating to Dragon's Eye Productions, you are interacting exclusively with biased furries and shills. None of these people can be reasoned with. The articles (which are all purely self-promotion) remain and regularly revert to biased form because they aren't notable enough for anyone to notice or be bothered to clean or delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.223 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

  Rather rude of you to be making personal attacks like that. I am neither furry nor shill, having never even played these games, only finding my way here because of the Dr. Cat article. Dream Focus 20:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but the fact is you are shilling. There's simply no other explanation for why you would think a game developer that hasn't released a game since 1994 and whose only release was developed by 2 or 3 people and was played by almost nobody, deserves an article separate from their only remotely notable outcome which is Furcadia, which hasn't even been finished yet and is sourced almost exclusively by the subject itself in a blatantly self-promotional manner. Your work on Dr. Cat's article makes no sense either. It's got some of the thinnest sources I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The guy is about as notable as a grain of sand on a beach, but any time someone tries to clean it up, there you are restoring horrible references and unsourced information. What's your relationship to Dr. Cat, if you don't mind me asking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.223 (talk • contribs)

You don't believe someone who has worked on that many notable games in his career is notable? Dream Focus 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I believe is notable, all that matters is how much notability can be demonstrated by references. For Dr. Cat and Dragon's Eye Productions, the only thing that's somewhat demonstrably notable is their relationship to Furcadia. That's why the articles should be merged. Even Furcadia is poorly sourced though - almost every reference is Furcadia talking about itself. Until today the article was at least 25% self-promotion with links to the shopping carts of their online store. That's one of the most blatant disregards for reliability and rules governing self-promotion imaginable, and its been sitting there for months or years right in front of all of you and nobody's bothered to correct it. That's the kind of thing that makes it seem to me like all the material relating to this company on Wikipedia is mostly influenced by shills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.94.223 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)