Talk:List of furry comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article refers to a periodical that doesn't have its ISSN information listed. If you can, please provide it.

Concerning the note:

Many of these comic books can be found for purchase at [http://www.rabbitvalley.org Rabbit Valley Comic Shop]. <!-- Please don't remove this link, it's not spam, it's pretty much the only place where you can find most of these comics. -->

If the comment is to be believed then perhaps it should say something to that effect in the text rather than just as a comment that is invisible when not editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RJFJR (talk • contribs).

Contents 1 Redlinks? 2 webcomics or comic books 3 furry Spare Parts? 4 WikiFur links

[edit] Redlinks?

This list is creeped with redlinks for no apparent reason. Maybe we should keep them out before their actual articles are created? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 17:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The redlinks can be an encouragement to write the articles. Someone with knowledge about a subject can see right away that an article is needed. --Coyoty 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

It's also been suggested that some of these should be converted to links to WikiFur, particularly in the cases where there is very little chance of an article being created (or remaining for any length of time) on Wikipedia. GreenReaper 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] webcomics or comic books

I noticed webcomics The Suburban Jungle and Supermegatopia are both in comic book list. How about moving the items in "comic strips and webcomics" list into "comic book" sections? Notations could be added such as "The Suburban Jungle (webcomic and comic books)" (SJ started as webcomic) and "Wild Frontier (comics) (comic book and webcomic)" (WF started as comic book and is now being converted into a webcomic). --EarthFurst 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] furry Spare Parts?

Currently List of furry comics webcomics list includes Spare Parts, but Spare Parts is about an audio drama. I found a Spare Parts webcomic but it is not furry (from the strips I looked at). Is there a furry webcomic named Spare Parts? --EarthFurst 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing when Spare Parts was added to the list, the adder was confused because one of the creators of Spare Parts (Isabel Marks) also creates a furry webcomic (named Namir Deiter). --EarthFurst 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiFur links

I just axed them all, being formatted like internal links implies endorsement of accuracy and such, if the red links need to go away they should be external links to the webcomics home page or something. Wikipedia don't need to be endorsing WikiFur. Miltopia 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The same could be said of all links to articles on other wikis. Yet the ability to link to other wikis in this manner exists, so thus one would assume there are situations where it is appropriate to use such links. Does Wikipedia have a policy or guideline that governs this? --Mwalimu59 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would guess it's for discussion purposes, not for encyclopedic purposes. Even so, it should be clear that the links are external to avoid the appearance of endorsement. And a better external link would be to the website of the comic in question, yes? Miltopia 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're looking for an encyclopedic treatment of a furry comic that is deemed non-notable by Wikipedia, probably the best place is WikiFur. In many cases, Wikipedia has already decided it doesn't wish to host such an article by the action of deleting it. In that case, I think making a red link is a bad idea because it just encourages the article to be made again, only to be deleted, and provides no useful information to the user. Linking to WikiFur gives them what they were looking for, as well as the actual link to the comic. That's why we did it. GreenReaper 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're looking for an encyclopedic treatment of a furry comic that is deemed non-notable by Wikipedia, probably the best place is WikiFur.

See, that's just an opinion though, or a subjective evaluation, not like a well-documented fact. It wouldn't be neutral for Wikipedia to treat WikiFur as a credible encyclopedia in article space, any more than it would be to treat any other wiki as such. Miltopia 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's "an encyclopedic treatment of a furry comic" one is looking for, I'd be glad to look into any alternative sources besides WikiFur and make a comparison (besides Wikipedia, that is; remember, it's the ones deemed non-notable by Wikipedia we're discussing here). I'm not aware of any other sources but if you are I'm willing to be educated. While WikiFur might not be as credible as Wikipedia, if it's the most credible source available I don't see why there should be a problem with linking to it. --Mwalimu59 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It ain't a credible source. Anyone can edit it. Same reason that Wikipedia doesn't cite itself for sources. Voretus^talk 17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia seems to have acquired quite a significant amount of credibility despite this fact, given the number of people who rely on it for information. People rely on the process of editing by knowledgeable users to reduce or eliminate errors in the long run. WikiFur has fewer editors than Wikipedia, but they have more than a passing familiarity with the topics covered. GreenReaper 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)