Talk:Therianthropy (subculture)

Disambig

This page was created as part of an attempt by me to disambiguate the Therianthropy article (see Talk:Therianthropy. In less than a minute, the disambiguation page I'd created was reverted, apparently auto-reverted without looking at the content. Please leave this page in existence until I've figured out whether the community is going to let there be a disambiguation page for therianthropy.

• Arguments in favor:
• 1)The vampire subculture and the vampire folklore page are two separate articles.
• 2)The otherkin subculture is a separate article from the articles on the folklore of creatures such as elves, dragons and so on.
• 3) The furry subculture is a separate article from the many types of funny animal, mythical and fictional, that inspire the furry subculture.
• Please talk about it at Talk:Therianthropy Blue Milk Mathematician 00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation page created: Therianthropy (disambiguation) as at least a temporary holding place for the disambiguation page until this is all sorted outBlue Milk Mathematician 00:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

This page was redirected because the editor did not have the consensus of those editors on the original article for this move, and in fact it was reverted multiple times and strongly opposed. Since the original article was not split into separate articles I am redirecting all these insane little pointless WP:FORK files back to the real article instead of just leaving them here. In the future, for major changes like this to contentious pages you should discuss things first and not waste your time trying out things before knowing if other editors agree. DreamGuy 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The Above is Untrue

See the therianthropy main article talk page for documentation of why the above statement is not true.Blue Milk Mathematician 03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Why in the world was this page created? Most of the content here was inapproporiate for inclusion in the Therinathropy article because it is unverifiable, unsourced original research. This is why it was removed. Simply moving this material to a new page under the guise of disambiguation is inappropriate. Until all the concerns originally addressed in the parent article are fixed I will redirect this fork back to the Therianthropy article. If that is changed I will prod this page. If the prod is removed I will AfD it and/or remove all the unsourced material (leaving it prety much blank). The appropriate place to save information that you want to hold onto until you can gather the needed things to make it qualify as an article that meets the policy is a personal sandbox in a user subpage. NeoFreak 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I un-redirected this page only because of the split template on Therianthropy, as I already said. If an imperfect article already exists, why encourage people to create a new split under yet another name? At least this way, they have some raw material to work with IF the split goes through, and they can see the possible organization and raw structure of such an article instead of just a redirect, which is confusing. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The above (by Neofreak) ("Most of the content here was inapproporiate for inclusion in the Therinathropy article because it is unverifiable, unsourced original research. This is why it was removed.") is factually incorrect, as best I can tell. The AFD discussion makes clear that the history of the fork is as follows:

1. AFD proposal for the entirety of therianthropy by Neofreak. Grounds being one sentence: an assertion that that the entire article, scholarly and subculture alike, "[f]ails the everything test, WP:OR, WP:RS per WP:V, WP:N, WP:POV, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:NEO". A further comment by Neofreak clarifying this states that he considers the entire usage "a vanity article created by a "community" of people attempting to create a scientific or legit sounding name to their...belief system is rather obvious. There are no reliable sources, no verifiable claims of notability, it is written in a POV tone, and serves as nothing more than a soapbox."
2. Responses included many concerns over RS, but overall 50-50 keep/delete, up to the point that Serpents Choice added a list of apparently valid sources as to usage. After this, there were a majority of Keep views (12 Keep/2 Delete), a comment that POV was a reason to fix but was not valid grounds for deletion, and also cites showing use of the term for some hundreds of years.
3. It is therefore incorrect to assert that there was a consensus to delete the material in its entirety from Wikipedia.
4. Neofreak's approach (AFDing the entire article on grounds of "everything", and then extrapolating from a possible consensus to split but not delete, to effectively asserting "delete it anyway"), seems to be inappropriate as well as not in accorance with AFD consensus. Especially, combined with the above statement that Neofreak will unilaterally revert the article to a redirect, and if challenged will PROD it, if that fails try AFD, and if that fails will "and/or remove all the unsourced material (leaving it prety much blank)", seems to be inappropriate, given that it is both far in extreme of AFD consensus, and also differs strongly from consensus of editors to date (few editors are this strongly against it).
5. The statement above is therefore incorrect. The content here was not deleted for the reasons given. It was deleted despite a keep vote, by the same person bringing the original AFD which was voted "keep". There was no consensus for its deletion, nor was there any consensus reached (as claimed) that it was "unverifiable, unsourced original research", nor was it split out for that reason - it was split out due to the wishes of only a few (2-3) people out of many, who suggested a split. The reasons these people gave for suggesting a split, were that they felt it was best to disambiguate the two uses, because the two subjects were felt to be sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles - not (as incorrectly claimed) because of their concerns over WP:V WP:RS and WP:OR.

I therefore add my view to User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea that this material should be reinstated, tagged appropriately as unreferenced, and left for editors to work on over time in the usual way. I also consider that if User:NeoFreak feels there should be deletion and redirect, he lists this article for AFD separately, to check consensus, rather than unilaterally blanking and redirecting as he is doing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If this page is reinstated, it should be tagged as unreferenced and the references should be worked on right away. I believe that most of the verifiable subculture-related material (about half of the article) was adapted from the book "The Magic of Shapeshifting" by Rosalyn Greene, since it is the only book that spends more than a few pages on the subject of the therianthropy subculture. Appropriate footnotes should be added to show this. The other (unreferenced) half of the material will need to go unless references can be found for it too. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)