Talk:Fursuit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 How much % of fursuits use animal products? 2 ORIGINAL RESEARCH: battery powered fans 3 Fursuits that include multiple persons 4 Fursuit as a mainstream term? 5 Music videos? 6 Reliable Sources, Original Research and POV

[edit] How much % of fursuits use animal products?

Please see my user page for more information.

PERMALINK IN CASE I GET VANDALIZED: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Arights&oldid=35061563

Arights 21:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

None, in the example you're giving. It's fake fur. You get it in a fabric store. And that's not necessarily a sex outfit, just because it's female, any more than a Lola Bunny outfit at Six Flags is a sex outfit. Gentaur 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've put a "fact" about that issue, in the trivia section. As for the sex outfit part, only one section of the article mentions this practice, and the images shown don't try to insinuate this practice. -- user:zanimum

Animal products cannot be ruled out as being part of fursuits, because real tails and claws are sometimes sold on FurBid and other furry auction sites. Most fursuit makers will use fabric for tails and Sculpey for claws, however. Gentaur 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Real fur is never used in fursuits, for various reasons. Real fur is heavy, real fur does not breathe, and natural materials have natural enemies. Artificial fur is engineered to be light and breathable, and lasts much longer. Real claws and such are unlikely to be used as they are generally not proportional to the size of a typical fursuit. Sorry PETA, find something else to protest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.237.37 (talk) 04:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] ORIGINAL RESEARCH: battery powered fans

ContiE wrote, "I personally know fursuits with battery-powered fans in them. Maybe I can get a picture showing such fans somewhere." I know everything furry-related on wikipedia is under ContiE's ownership and he is free to do what he wants, but because he added battery powered fans from his personal knowledge, this is clearly original research. Arights 07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You know nothing of the sort. Battery powered fans are standard equipment in fursuits. This is common knowledge for anyone familiar with fursuits, and does not equate to original research. "Original research" means that the writer is presenting something original that is not readily accessible to others, and this information is not original. --Coyoty 01:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I know a lot of fanboys spend years over-engineering their suits, with fans and video cameras and LCD displays, but commercial suit makers generally don't, as remaining as light as possible is much more important for extended wear. Suits are instead engineered to breath well. NFT fur is very good at this. You keep cool if you keep moving, which keeps air moving through the suit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.83.237.37 (talk) 04:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fursuits that include multiple persons

I just noticed that this article lacks information on fursuits for multiple people--such as horse and cow costumes. Also, and I don't know if it counts, the 10-30 person dragon costumes on Chinese new years. Arights 08:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, these don't count, because they are not Fursuits, but costumes to represent an animal. They are in no way associated with the furry fandom. --Conti|✉ 15:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fursuit as a mainstream term?

A non-furry friend of mine, who was the mascot at our local university, told me they called their costumes (adult tiger and cub) fursuits. While it's possible that the term was introduced into general use by a former performer, who was also a furry, isn't this term used in a non-furry contexts? --Dragon695 03:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music videos?

Honestly, how is the music video section notable? It simply sounds like a choppy attempt at relating fursuits with popular culture. Three music videos where people happen to be wearing fursuits don't make much of a correlation between the two subjects. Can I go ahead and delete it?ABigBlackMan 16:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of a "correlation" you're thinking of - the point of mentioning it here is that this is one place where people are likely to have seen them, outside of CSI and (for some) real life. Conversely, I wouldn't expect fursuit to be mentioned in music video; because most well-known music videos do not involve fursuits, they are not significant to that topic in the same way. GreenReaper 22:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that "most well-known music videos do not use fursuits" as much as it is that a small handful of obscure instances where they DO appear is hardly worth noting at all, and most definitly unworthy of an entire section, unless this article was entitled "fursuit sightings". --ABigBlackMan 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It is entitled "fursuit". Therefore, it seems to me that all verifiable facts related to fursuits should be included. It's quite easy to verify that they do indeed appear in the stated music videos - most of them are available to view on public sites. I'm sure those interested in the topic would be interested in knowing that they exist, too - I know I was - and it's not like the article is ten pages long and needs to be trimmed down. It probably should be included in a more general section on television/media appearances, however nobody's written that whole section yet, so we just have this bit of it. Feel free to write the rest if you think the music video part is being given undue prominence. GreenReaper 20:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"All" verifiable facts? Excuse me if I'm wrong, but most articles relating to furry fandom, including this one, vastly siphon out anything regarding sexuality. But back to the matter at hand... Yes, they do appear in the music videos you mentioned, no it does not deserve it's own section, yes, there should be a cumulative section on television and media in the form of a trivia-type segment.--ABigBlackMan 14:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, really. This article has a section on sexuality, and furry fandom has a whole page on it. I'd say the coverage is more than reasonable. It remains true that it is not the purpose of most fursuits, and you're welcome to come along to a convention and see these guys for yourself if you don't believe me. :-) GreenReaper 15:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I think through all the comments people have made on this discussion board, its safe to say that there is a clear difference between simply dressing up as a mascot and fursuiting. How do we know that these music videos are portraying either a furry lifestyle or that the people in costume are fursuiters (or merely just people who dressed as animals for some sort of purpose other than that of the furry fandom)? It seems that these "references" either should be removed or better soruced. I think most people who would see these instances in pop culture (outside of the CSI episode) would think that they were just people dressed up as animals and not assosciated with the furry fandom --Qaf.kinney.brian 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Sources, Original Research and POV

The first thing about this article is that deals only with the sub-culture and fetish world of furries and not the more obvious usage of the term "fursuit": the suit itself. People have been running around in "fursuits" in places like Disneyland and parades and festivals alot longer than the modern American furry movement yet there is no mention of these things. Why?

More importantly is this entire article, wether accurately or not, comes off as a furry vanity article. In addition to the concerns above it has zero sources, is entierly original research and is written from the POV of the furry community going so far as to add named vanity pictures from conventions. I have no doubt that the furry fandom is a notable subject but does this specific portion of a of subsect of a subculture really need its own article to begin with? There is nothing in this article that (pending finding actual sources) can't be merged into Furry fandom. NeoFreak 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up Fursuits with Mascots. A mascot runs around in Disneyland as Mickey Mouse or Pluto, pleasing the kids. A fursuit runs around at a furry convention just for the fun of it. That's a very generalized statement of course, but that's basically the difference between the two. The word "fursuit" is only used in relation to the furry fandom, otherwise these costumes are called "mascots", "costumes" or something similar, therefore this article only deals with the fandom aspects of it.

It would be very nice to have a section about how a fursuit is build, all the technical details and so on, but I'm afraid there aren't any "reliable" sources about this out there. I think this topic deserves its own article, simply because the media usually focuses on this aspect of the fandom when it reports about it. --Conti|✉ 16:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

An excellent distinction that I didn't realize. In this case do you think a disambiguation or at least a link to Mascots would be in order? Still, the term is very generic and ambiguous to the uninitiated and your position basicly makes "Fursuit" an unsourceable and crufty neologism. I too think that some sourced coverage of the actual usage of "Fursuits" in the Furry fandom is needed but this article fails to provide the material and Realiable Sources to warrant its own article. The rest of my concerns with the article remain unchanged and I'm not coming up with any ways to really fix those issues. Any thoughts on fixing the POV, original research and vanity portions of the article without having to resort to wholesale deletion and/or merging into Furry Fandom? NeoFreak 17:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A link to Mascot somewhere in the article, probably in the lead section, would certainly be useful. And yes, the term "Fursuit" is basically a neologism, albeit one that has been mentioned in the media quite often now. The media is usually only interested in the sexual aspects of fursuiting tho, and reducing this article to that aspect, like the media usually does, doesn't sound like a very good idea to me. See Wikifur:Category:Media coverage for a list of articles/reports about the fandom. Most of them mention fursuits somewhere, and some of them get it all wrong, mixing "furries" with "fursuiters" and so on. There are sources, it's just not that easy to find the good ones. --Conti|✉ 17:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So we have established that "Fursuit" is a neologism. I'm in no way making a mutually dependant link between fursuits and sexuality (although there is an undeniable connection for many "fursuiters"). What is it about the actual fursuit or the act of "fursuiting" that makes it notable enough to warrant an independant article outside of Furry Fandom, esp in light of the fact that it is a neologism of limited, redundant and admittedtly inaccurate pure media sources? What is it that makes the "Fursuit" of enough general interest to the public to warrant such attention? Could this possibly just be the result of a POV or vanity fork from a specific community? NeoFreak 19:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that you were making such a link between fursuits and sexuality, sorry if it seemed that way. I was saying that the media - our so called reliable sources - make this link all the time. So if we would base this article solely on the media sources, we'd have a problem. I think this topic is notable enough because most, if not all media reports about the furry fandom usually mention fursuits. This makes the topic kinda notable, in my opinion. You're free to start an AFD of course, maybe I'm just in a minority here. --Conti|✉ 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I considered an AfD but I figured if some kind of consensus could be reached with the most interested editors on a merge than that would be thre prefered method instead of just deleting it all. If I understand you the only sources that you have to use you yourself find to fail WP:RS? With those gone what is left? I back your second point, that when mention of fursuits can be found it is always in connection with, almost as a footnote to, the Furry Fandom movement as a whole, an aspect of it. Which, along with poor sources, POV, vanity, neologism-ishness and original reaserch are the reasons why I recommended a merge with Furry Fandom in the first place. NeoFreak 19:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the results of an AFD can also be a merge, if that's the consensus. I'm not saying there aren't any reliable sources on this topic, just that they usually deal with a small subsection of it. Going through Wikifur:Category:Media coverage, I easily find reliable sources that talk about having sex in a fursuit [1] [2] [3], but it's harder to find sources when it's not about sex. Hmm, I did find this tho, which talks more about the financial aspects of fursuiting, what a nice surprise. I'm not sure how a merge would help with this problem, we'd still need some good, neutral sources, whether we write about it here or at Furry fandom. --Conti|✉ 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A blog does not meet the conditions of WP:RS. I was hoping for a "community based" merge so as to avoid fighting over what should and shouldn't go. I ws thinking a merge of the meat of the intro paragrpah minus the OR details on the inner workings of the suit, a small portion of the sexuality portion ie yiffing (esp since it is the easiest to source), really hoping the charity portion could be included in the conventions section with a source and the triva and video portions. The rest should go, IMO. NeoFreak 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The website I linked to is just a mirror of the actual article, the Financial Times Weekend Edition, where the article was orginially published, certainly is a reliable source. I still think we should keep the article in this place, but I'm not the whole community, so some more input from others would be nice. --Conti|✉ 20:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah! My mistake. I think we should quit chattering too and give this some time for others to weigh in with their thoughts...ok, waiting on you "others" :) NeoFreak 21:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the entire "Reasons for fursuiting" section? Where are the sources for this?--Crossmr 16:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

One of my points: there aren't any. NeoFreak 17:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

At the very least I'd recommend the removal of some or all of that section unless some appropriate sources can be found for it.--Crossmr 20:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. The problem is that section is the meat of the article. After removal all that is left is the introduction, trivia and "music video appearences". NeoFreak 20:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Then it may be appropriate to merge this into Furry Fandom, and only keep the necessary bits, or find some reliable sources for those opinions put forth.--Crossmr 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There actually are references to back up the facts in this article. I think the article should be expanded and improved rather than continuing the recent dubious trend of singling out furry-related articles to be merged/deleted. —Xydexx 15:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. NeoFreak 16:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)