Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Furry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

WikiProject Funny Animals is a fine name, but it would be one for a different project. As I understand it, 'funny animal' is a term specific to the professional cartooning and animation community, and so that WikiProject would strictly cover the material within that genre. The term is not widely used outside of that context, and I suspect (perhaps unfortunately) the reaction of a lot of furry fans to hearing it would likely be "what's a funny animal?" GreenReaper 20:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny animals are a subset of furries. The term is used to describe more "cartoony" characters, but it's also considered outdated as it hasn't been used as much as furry in recent years. The shift toward furry occurred back in the 1980s, and these days news reports use the term furries when talking about anthropomorphic animals (or fans thereof). One could almost say "funny animal" is a slang term itself considering the limited use it gets. -Ochlophobia

As per GreenReaper and Ochlo. 'Funny Animal' is an industry term for things like Garfield or Mikey, and only really applies to the furry fandom in the first paragraphs of "WHat is the furry fandom?" Bengaley 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points. -kotra 05:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

IMHO, merging the AC, FC, CF, and EF articles into Furry Convention (and then merging Furry Convention into Furry Fandom) always reminded me of the Grover Nordquist quote about reducing the size of the government to the point where they could drown it in the bathtub. Such actions seem counterproductive to a WikiProject. -Ochlophobia

[edit] 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)

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)

Neofreak, should we do a vote of people for what we call the project? Sounds like it's 4 to 2 right now, but I'm not too certain of my count, nor of anyone else who hasn't weighed in on the discussion yet. Bengaley 13:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to lose my mind if it's changed back. "Voting" is always counter productive, after all wikipdia is not a democracy. Things should always be done within the policies and common sense regardless of numbers. I think instead we should wait for some others to join the discussion and then make a desicion after they weigh in. I know that there are alot more editors interested in the subject matter than we have on hand right now and I don't want another move to be made with only a few of those editors present (as happened with the first move). If the general consensus is to change it back after that then I'd support that move. Either way there is nothing to keep everyone from putting some work into the project right now, at least until it's decided. Fair enough? NeoFreak 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At this point, if we keep argueing over it, I'm changing it to WP Cream Cheesecicles. Bengaley 16:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you do plan on that, read WP:POINT first.

Now. . .I know I said I didn't want to become involved, and I still don't, but this whole name thing is rather ridiculous. I put out the concept of a WikiProject Furry to cover things related to the article furry fandom and its eponymous navbox. I don't think any one of the original 'founders' thought we'd be covering anything else. Octane ^{[improve me]} 13.07.07 0508 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "founder" in any authoritative sense. Everyone has equal say. If everyone is under agreement that Furry (antropomorphic animals) is the only way to go then so be it. I was just hoping to get a wider base of editors to discuss it first. NeoFreak 05:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to suggest that there is an elite core. Or corps. Whatever. That's why I 'quoted' the word.

Just. . .forget I replied at all, I guess. Octane ^{[improve me]} 13.07.07 0539 (UTC)

Octan - I put that in as a signal I thought the arguement was approaching high levels of sillyness. I'm not really planning on changing the name to Cream Cheesesicles. Laugh. ^^ Bengaley 15:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's unfortunate that the original WikiProject was hijacked without any attempt at discussion or consensus (the name/scope change was made only 35 minutes after the suggestion, coincidentally while many prospective editors were busy attending the world's largest furry convention), it is particularly disturbing that it's been so difficult to get it restored to its originally intended purpose. It's still unclear why these changes weren't discussed with anyone else, and why the apparent selective enforcement of the rules currently puts the unnecessary burden of changing it back on the editors who were interested in the original project to begin with. -Ochlophobia

Conspiracy and fursecution right? Give it a rest, your put on, and hysterical, indignation is getting old. It's already been explained to you why what happened happened and all the "facts" as you've presented them above are wrong. I'm not quite sure why you insist on taking this attitude (below in the Requested move section as well). What's your problem? NeoFreak 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Neofreak? Please do relax. He has a valid point and he's gettig frustated as well. I don't think Ochlo is saying there's a conspiracy or persecution, just two really stubborn editors who made a decision that, as it turned out, some of us didn't agree with. There's no need to be asking "What's your problem."

MEANWHILE! Ochlo! Please, let the matter rest for a half a week, as per Moving On, below - and lets get to the business of working. All this arguing over what we call ourselves, it's like a Southpark Episode. ...actually, it was... Bengaley 15:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I'm not upset. I'm just getting tired of having to deal with someone throwing a tantrum like he's been personally and purposley wronged. It's really ridiculous and I'm tired of sounding like a broken record. NeoFreak 16:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, NeoFreak. I'm not accusing anyone of "conspiracy" or "fursecution" as you're implying. I am simply stating the facts: a) The name/scope was changed without discussion (35 minutes after you suggested it) and b) the name/scope was changed without consensus as many of the editors interested in the original project were likely not available for comment. A major change was made that effects the project. Despite your accusations I'm not hysterical or indignant, nor do I want to get into an edit war with you since you've already reverted an attempt to return the article to its original name and scope once already.

I'm not sure what other options are available to me at this point except discussion, which is what you yourself wanted. So, okay, let's discuss: Please explain the inconsistency in why we need to wait and wait and wait now, but discussion and consensus was not necessary then. You commented on my Talk Page not make major changes to Wikiprojects without consensus, especially if those changes are under discussion, yet as far as I can tell you had no problem with User:ISD when he did exactly that. What's with the double-standard? -Ochlophobia

[edit] Requested move

The name and scope of this project were changed without discussion or consensus. The original project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry, was proposed in order to to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to Furry-related topics. -Ochlophobia

I've tried changing it back, but because it was already moved from the article Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry, I cannot do it myself. It can only be done by admin. ISD 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two editors that disagee with the move so it would behove us to wait for some more editors to give their input first. Then again all of this has already been said above, not quite sure why we needed a new section. NeoFreak 14:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest NeoFreak? There were only three editors (Out of the five or six that said they'd work on the project, and however many would show up once the project started) when the decision to change the name was made... By you and, erm, I forgot who the other was. The third editor (Me) was hesistant about changing... I have to say that your arguement on waiting NOW to change BACK to the ORIGINAL PROPOSAL (Caps for emphasis, not shouting) when you did not wait on more input in the begining... Bengaley 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I made a suggestion and asked for input. After that you went ahead and made the change. NeoFreak 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Neo? I don't have a fraking clue how in the seven hells to change the project name. It certainly wasn't me that made the change. Not only do I not have a clue to go about making a change, I felt.. hesistant about it, at best. Bengaley 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The new section was added because I am exercising due diligence in following Wikipedia policy in regards to moving a page. (Interestingly, this is policy that wasn't followed when the original name change was made—controversial edits are supposed to have a discussion period.) Under normal circumstances this should have been reverted to its original name because no opportunity for discussion was provided.

I don't think an admin is required to change it back to the original name and scope. I've already done it once, but it was changed back by NeoFreak 7 minutes later. As I'm not willing to get into an edit war with NeoFreak, the only option left is for me to follow the instructions on WikiPedia:Requested Moves. It's unfortunate that the project has gotten bogged down like this, but if policy were followed in the beginning we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we? -Ochlophobia

[The following comments were copied from WP:RM, with the outline of the request included for clarity.]

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropomorphism → Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry —(Discuss)— The name and scope of this project were changed without discussion or consensus. The original project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry, was proposed in order to to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to Furry-related topics. —Ochlophobia 05:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The above assertions are incorrect. The move was made with a majority consensus of the editors present at the time. Discussion of changing it back to the original project wasa already underway at the project talk page. Not sure why it's been listed here. NeoFreak 14:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The project is being listed here because the original project was moved with complete disregard for Wikipedia policy for requested moves. The project was approved as Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry. Shortly afterward, the name and scope of this project were changed without any opportunity for discussion or consensus, and an attempt to restore it to its original name and scope has been unsuccessful. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, the project has been listed here in compliance with Wikipedia's policy on requested moves. -Ochlophobia

[End of copied section --Stemonitis 15:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Moving On, Please

In any case, let us agree to stop ARGUEING about the whole name thing, and start getting to work. There's new stuff on Anthrocon out, I'm going to link it on the talk page - I bet there's more stuff to be done on the articles. Let's all agree that we'll grab a consensus in a few days for a name change? Meanwhile, I request that all people not campaign for one name over another - we ARE getting distracted from the whole purpose here, and if we're still arguing about it by, say, 0800 Pacific Standard Time on Wednesday the 18th of July, I will change the name to "Wikiproject Furry and Anthropomorphics" or "Wikiproject Orange Creamsicles", depending on my mood and how badly the arguing has gotten. Bengaley 15:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. NeoFreak 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If people are tired of arguing, we should just return the project to its original name and scope which is probably what should have been done in the first place. Alternately, we could add the original WikiProject:Furry to Proposed WikiProjects again, but it seems a little unfair we should have to go through that step again as the original name and scope of the WikiProject was already approved. Beginning work on the project when the scope is unclear would be counterproductive and would mean that much more work when the name changes back. -Ochlophobia

Ochlo, please respect the spirit and wording of the statement and drop it like a two ton brick for a few more days. Bengaley 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's in a name?

I've been sitting back and quietly watching the discussion here regarding the name, and wanted to weigh in. Looking at the original proposal, the target for the project was indeed to work on furry-related articles, as it mentioned the large volume of such articles and the need for work to take place on many of them. The scope and goals of this project as it stands on the project page still encompass that target, even if under a different name. That's the important thing - this project will be to improve those articles; if we throw in others under the "anthropomorphism" banner, then that's fine; maybe it gives those editors interested in the project something more to do, and perhaps draws others in to help out. Fine by me, either way.

As for me, I do tend to use "furry" and "anthropomorphism" interchangably - mostly "furry," since it's easier and people don't go "huh?" when I do say it - so, the name, to me, isn't a big deal. If we're counting, I sort of prefer WikiProject:Furry, but wouldn't have a problem either way. If it stays Anthropomorphism, that's fine too - I'm comfortable with it. The main thing is that our goal remains to improve the articles under this scope, and I'll try and help with that no matter what the name is. (But I don't like orange creamsicles all that much, so none of that, Bengaley.)

Ha ha. I must be a real geek. When I saw "furry" I went, "Huh?" But when I saw "anthropomorphism" I said, "Oh!" Merond e 10:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So - let's get this cleared up, and get some good articles flowing, hm? Tony Fox (arf!) review? 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Names are important because they imply direction, but you have a fair point. I've cleared up all the unknown-importance furry articles. GreenReaper 02:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article drive

The number of furry-related articles which can be realistically become featured articles is limited due mostly to lack of reliable sources. However, I think we can make some good articles out of the material we have to hand right now, with just a bit of polishing. Potential targets include all B-class articles, but I had a mind to focus on Anthrocon, furry convention and furry fandom itself. All three of these could quite realistically be featured articles in the future, but they can be good articles almost immediately.

Sources appropriate for Anthrocon are likely to useful for the other two articles, and it has had significant media coverage in the last two years. As it is also the one that needs the most work quality-wise, it seems like the best place to start. GreenReaper 03:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Samuel Conway could also be thrown in there as a related topic. While it's unlikely to get much longer and so will probably never be a featured article, it could become a good article. GreenReaper 05:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

So, we should start concentrating on improving Furry Convention, Furry Fandom, and Anthrocon? Sounds like a plan. Bengaley 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhere to start, at least! Discussions for exactly how these articles can be improved should probably take place on their talk pages (though most edits will require no discussion). GreenReaper 16:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

God willing, you guys will never get a featured article.71.56.155.117 05:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And why not? I certainly would support Jerry Falwel, Jack Thompson or Rush Limbagh articles for FA, if the article's quality met FA standards - regardless of my viewpoint about the subject matter of the articles. Release your hatred, it's not good for you. And I think that God doesn't really have any more say on Wikipedia than any other editor. ^^ Bengaley 14:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:DFTT Tony Fox (arf!) review? 15:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. ^_^; Bengaley 16:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy keep on wheels!

Readers here might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FurryMUCK, which I consider to have the best close summary ever (picture from Wikinews:Anthrocon 2007 draws thousands to Pittsburgh for furry weekend :-) GreenReaper 09:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since some admins apparently feel that images are inappropriate, let me rephrase that: the best original close summary ever. GreenReaper 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the name of this project

There has been a long-standing request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page for this WikiProject back to its original title. Following another comment today to the effect that "it only took 35 minutes to change the name and scope by not following policy, but Good Faith efforts to follow policy and get the original name and scope restored have taken almost three weeks?", I have decided to move the page back. This move is not an endorsement of the original title or necessarily of the statement above, but it is an acknowledgement that the original move was not an uncontroversial one; in such cases, the default title should be the stable one. If you would like to move the project to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropomorphism, please lodge a full request here and list it at WP:RM. Thank you. Dekimasuよ! 09:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fortunate timing - I'm about to announce WikiFur's second anniversary, and with the name issue fixed (for now?) I can add this as something people might be interested in contributing to. GreenReaper 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will also invite the existing Furry Wikipedians to join us. GreenReaper 03:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC) - done 00:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would much rather it be WikiProject Furry than any of the other names suggested. Bushytails 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the Bushy-Tailed One, this should be called WikiProject Furry. Anthropomorphism includes things like Talkie Toaster and Thomas the Tank Engine as well as this guy, are those supposed to be covered? - ∅ (∅), 19:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Talkie Toaster and Thomas the Tank Engine would not be included as the project was intended to focus specifically on anthropomorphic animals. I've made the appropriate changes to reflect this. –Ochlophobia

Thanks. - ∅ (∅), 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope again

Now, I was invited to join this project through the "furry wikipedian" userbox I put on my profile, so I'm new to all of this, but I do know that there's been discussion about scope creep in wikiprojects for a while now - things like "Famous person X was born in Kansas, so they're under wikiproject Kansas even though they moved to LA when they were 3". I don't think you should be claiming Lion King or Pokemon or other cartoon animals unless they're significant to the furry fandom - for instance, if some group someplace has Felix the Cat as their mascot, and the group is notable, then Felix would be under this project. I don't know much about the furry community at large, I'm sort of a... I guess you'd say softcore furry, and outside of my group of friends in my hometown I don't partake in furry culture, but honestly, claiming anything with fur seems to be a definite scope issue. Kuronue 17:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a furry art archive? ;-) There's so much Lion King fanart out there (or at least there was in my day), sometimes I think the "artists" should be shot on sight. Even when they're not literally doing Lion King fanart, they still copy the style. I don't know what's more depressing, that or all the shitting dicknipples. (j/k :-p) - ∅ (∅), 18:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat conflicted on the scope issue. Things like Fritz the Cat were created before "furry" was an established word . . . but they would probably be called furry nowadays. They deal with the characters normally considered to be funny animals in a mature way (and by mature I don't mean that it was X-rated, but as people with grown-up issues rather than one-dimensional cartoon characters). I think the whole of anthropomorphism is definitely too great a scope. I also think that if we confine ourselves to the general topics of furry culture and community without considering works by "outsiders" that have influenced the fandom then we may be missing something, too - but the furry stuff should be the main thrust of our work. GreenReaper 20:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Felix the Cat falls within the scope of this project by simple virtue of being an anthropomorphic animal. –Ochlophobia

Addendum: I found a webpage with a comprehensive list covering the entire furry spectrum! It might be useful to incorporate into an article somewhere:

Any of the following could be called furries:

a. Cartoon animals such as Bugs Bunny, Roger Rabbit, Road Rovers, Kimba the White Lion and Wile E Coyote.

b. Animals given fable qualities such as Aesop's talking animals, Watership Down, the Peter Rabbit books.

c. More "serious" cartoons without childlike qualities such as Steve Gallacci's Albedo Anthropomorphics and Nelvana's Rock and Rule.

d. Adults only cartoons using animal characters such as Fritz the Cat and Omaha the Cat-Dancer.

e. Genetically engineered or "uplifted" animals such as Olaf Stapledon's Sirius, S. Andrew Swann's The Forests of the Night, and the bioengineered animals in the Island of Dr. Moreau

f. Animals evolved to sapience such as The Furkindred, Steven Boyett's the Architect of Sleep, the mice in the Redwall series of novels and Mudge the Otter from the Spellsinger series of novels.

g. Real animals with intelligence such as the rabbits from the novel Watership Down, Darwin the Dolphin from the TV show Seaquest DSV, and the animals in Orwell's Animal Farm.

h. Aliens with obvious animal-like qualities such as Larry Niven's Kzinti and C.J. Cherryh's The Pride of Chanur as well as the Wookiees and Ewoks of Star Wars.

i. Corporate, promotional, and sports mascots such as Tony the Tiger, Sonic Hedgehog and Two Tails, Chuck E. Cheese Crunch Timberwolf.

j. Mythological creatures such as centaurs, satyrs and the Minotaur.

–Ochlophobia

I would say there's quite a bit more to furry than that list, and it doesn't even mention anything about what type of people might be furs, either... Bushytails 16:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

My fault, I should have clarified: It's a list of the different types of furries (i.e., anthropomorphic animals), not furry fans themselves. They are just examples of things that would be within the scope of the project, by no means an exhaustive list. –Ochlophobia

[edit] Furry Tales going up shortly on Did you know?

This article has been nominated by ISD and is currently set as the top item. If anyone has anything to contribute, now's the time. Please watch for vandalism there, and also on furry convention, furry fandom and Anthrocon. GreenReaper 23:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently a Nomination for deletion. Let's try and keep this article on Wikipedia! ISD 08:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Furs really, really need to lay off the "it's the furry haters!" comments in discussions like this. It's not "us against the world," folks, it's all about the guidelines and policies. We need to assume good faith when it comes to these kinds of discussions - immediately going into "they want to get rid of furry articles" mode doesn't help at all. If it's got more media mentions (outside of the furry sphere, which would qualify them as "independent") than just the one listed already, then someone should really bring them forward. I would, but I couldn't find anything at a quick glance. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I assume we should all assume good faith. ISD 18:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see the article stay around, but to be honest, I'm as biased as the next guy on WikiProject Furry. Looking at it objectively, how many stage musicals get written and get no more than a few performances before never being seen again? Should all of those have Wikipedia articles, or should there be some minimum standard of notoriety?

Related to that, how many times did Furry Tales get performed, and does anyone know if we can expect to see more performances of it? Obviously if it eventually becomes a big hit playing to many audiences, it deserves an article, but it doesn't sound like that's happened yet. --Mwalimu59 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the final version has yet to be released. That is why it has the "future" template at the top. It was performed once, as a staged reading (think: beta version) and they gave out review forms at the end and everyone commented. The Anthrocon board also commented the morning after. The implication is that they will be revising it and releasing a changed version at a later date. I don't know what that date will be. GreenReaper 23:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Archie cast

I've noticed that while the mainstream Sonic characters are included in this project, many of the characters from the Archie series are not. These characters include Princess Sally Acorn, Rotor the Walrus, Antoine D'Coolette, Bunnie Rabbot, Julie-Su, Mina Mongoose, Lara-Su, Scourge the Hedgehog, Fiona Fox, Dimitri the Echidna, Mammoth Mogul, Lien-Da, and Doctor Finitevus. Please include these characters in the WikiProject Furry! --Luigifan 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zig Zag

Keep this "closing statement" in mind, people:

It was never a good article to begin with. Good articles must be verifiable (and cite reliable sources, not the author's website or WikiFur), and although not expressly stated in the good article criteria, must be about a notable subject (or they shouldn't have been created in the first place). This article seemed more like an attempt to sneak furcruft into Wikipedia than anything else. And we shouldn't do that; we have GreenReaper's excellent WikiFur for that sort of thing. Furry articles on Wikipedia must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (subjects must be notable outside the fandom); for everything else, there's WikiFur. - ∅ (∅), 13:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think the whole current obsession with references is a bad thing for Wikipedia, and have no intention to ever start using them... As soon as we really start only adding content that is already discussed elsewhere, unable to add anything new or interesting, Wikipedia will be no better than a human-edited search engine, with mindless, bored editors simply reading sources and adding facts, neither fun to work on nor useful for people to use. And I'm not about to follow a policy that'll result in the death of something I'm putting effort into.

As to the article itself, while I agree it might not have needed to be its own article on wikipedia, the number of references has absolutely nothing to do with why I didn't care for it. And, while I try to AGF, it is very hard to do so with Xoloz's closing comment above, so I'll keep my muzzle shut about my opinion of anyone capable of spouting something like that... Bushytails 16:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never allowed content that hasn't already been discussed elsewhere :-/ And I'd like to know exactly what in Xoloz's comment suggests bad faith? - ∅ (∅), 19:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a point to note, when I first wrote the core of the Zig Zag article in 18 Dec 2004, Wikifur had yet to come into existence. It would be an entire six months before Wikifur would appear and articles concerning the Fur Fandom would find a proper place to stay.

I am by no means an active wikipedian, I wrote one furry article and did other things. I thus did not notice the Wikifur movement. And by the time I did notice, Zig Zag already had her own article there. And no matter what has been said, I feel Zig Zag does deserve her own article (in Wikifur). When I first notice Zig Zag, I noted something very few other imaginary characters have done, she crossed fandoms. The list of webcomic Zig Zag has made guest appearances is a testament to that.

Pick any fandom-made character and see how many times that character appears in works by other authors. Most fandom characters will only every appear in the works of the person who created it.The notability of Zig Zag is thus not based on how many fans she has in the Sabrinafandom or how popular she is in the original story setting of Max Backrabbit, but rather how many fans she has outside of those two fandoms who will go the extra distance to draw and write stories about that character in setting all of their own. Fanfiction of a fanfiction of fiction.

And lastly a point to make about Zig Zag’s inability to leave the ‘furry fandom’. By the nature of the all encompassing ‘Furry fandom’ definition, anybody who likes Zig Zag, automatically becomes a “Furry”. As such Zig Zag can not leave the furry fandom. Even if she appeared in her own animated motion picture, she would still be in the furry fandom.

18 December 2004 - 7 September 2007

A Good article award (although undeserving)

I would say not a bad run.

Perneseblue 12:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Does anybody know of any websites that actually contain reliable sources related to the furry fandom. The whole issue of reliable sources seems to be the biggest problem for furry articles on Wikipedia (that and notablity). ISD 09:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Most convention websites are reliable primary sources on their own activities. The same goes to a lesser extent to the personal pages of artists and those of publishers and other companies. However I am not sure any organization is viewed as sufficiently reliable to be a general-purpose secondary source for the fandom as a whole. There are certain credentialed individuals that you might look to as reliable sources, such as Fred Patten and Samuel Conway. They can sometimes be found in edited, published works such as Anthro and Gallery.

There is no one definitive authority of furry fandom, though, just a thousand islands. This is one reason the very definition is hazy - it is beyond the point where any one person can draw a firm the line between what is or is not "furry", just as you cannot normally put strict bounds on music or art genres. GreenReaper 20:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a link to the Furry Media LiveJournal community, which I suggest people interested in reliable sources sign up to. Right now they have some good sources for Eurofurence 13, some of which might apply to Samuel Conway and Steve Gallacci (translation). GreenReaper 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just found something that could be rather useful as a reference: a paper in a peer-reviewed journal (in the field of critical geography): Loving . . . .Whatever: Alienation, Neoliberalism and Pet-Love in the Twenty-First Century. Manages to quote WikiFur, PeterCat's Infopage and various details of AAE/Further Confusion, along with several other sources. GreenReaper 04:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've found a website called Disjointed Ramblings that reviews some furry webcomics, these being Kevin and Kell, Ozy and Millie, Freefall and Sabrina Online. This appears to be useful. ISD (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Bunnies & Burrows furry?

Active discussion at Talk:Bunnies & Burrows. Consider prior discussion at Template talk:Furry fandom. Experience from those who have played it might be useful. GreenReaper 16:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Members

Hi all, I'm new and I thought I'd add a new members list to make it easy for anyone new joining. Here it is:

1. And here I am. I'll try to contribute where I can. I am often busy though. :) Merond e 10:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bounties on Wikiproject Furry

These offers are listed on the reward board.

I'll offer a bounty of 150 dollars for bringing an article in Wikiproject Furry to featured article status.

Rules:

• It has to be an article about something in the furry community, not something furries are fans of. Feel free to ask about borderline cases.
• It's not a reward for nominating, or voting for an article. It's a bounty for any edit that helps an article match the featured article criteria.
• It's possible that multiple people worked on bringing an article to featured status. I'll provide a place for contributors to provide diffs showing how much they contributed to bringing the article to featured status and divide the bounty proportionally. Editors will have 14 days to show what their proportion is, after that, the entire bounty will be paid according to the diffs provided, and no further claims will be accepted.
• If you don't need the money or want to stay completely anonymous, I could donate your proportion to a charity if you prefer.
• Expires December 31, 2008

--Rat at WikiFur 22:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I will offer a $50 bounty under similar conditions for raising an article to good article status under the appropriate criteria, with a initial limit of ten articles. GreenReaper 22:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I accept your offer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Furry convention is now a good article. $50 awarded to User:Zscout370. GreenReaper 05:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it me, or is this Wikilobbying? Sounds like the furry fandom has become a commodity. ISD 07:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it is perfectly legal. There is another form of this, but instead of me getting the cash, the offerer can chose to donate it to Wikimedia, the organization that manages Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyways, I am working on fursuit now. I called for a copyedit from another group, I have began to add sources to the article (trying to use wikifur last, so GAC would not be an issue) and just hoping it passes. I know the backlog is great and the wait is long, but we can do this. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as wikilobbying. It's explicitly not a reward for nominating or voting for the article. It's not an attempt to get in any bias towards one side either. If the article isn't in Neutral Point Of View, it won't meet the featured article criteria, so it's in the best interest of everyone who wants the bounty to work toward NPOV. --Rat at WikiFur 12:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I might as well get in on the act. I am nominating Jack for GA. ISD 10:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not wikilobyying, because we're not trying to get articles to say anything specific ("Edit furry fandom articles to make the furry fandom sound better"), but to meet a specific target of quality as denoted by Wikipedia - which is good, right? They cannot meet that target if they are not valid subjects, or if they include information that is inaccurate, which are the two biggest complaints. Certainly, several editors had concerns, but the result has not been as they feared. All that happens is that a) experienced editors help improve a specific area of the encyclopedia that they might have anyway, or b) furry editors get more experience in building articles to Wikipedia's quality standards. In both cases, they get something tangible for their trouble. The end result is something that would be praised if it was done without money involved, so I don't see why it should be any different when there is. :-) GreenReaper 18:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Fursuit is now a good article. $50 awarded to User:Zscout370. GreenReaper (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've done it - Jack is a good article! ISD 12:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Noted. Payment will be made when it's clear it will stay listed as a good article, as I noticed a few objections on the talk page. GreenReaper 14:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK then. How long will it have to stay as a good article for? (By the way, the speedy deletion tag has since been removed by one of the administators) ISD 15:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I would think that it should stay as a good article for at least a month, otherwise it is clear that it should not have been made a good article in the first place. However, I have no intention of delaying the payment that long, just until it is clear User:Emperor or another user is not going to immediately bring it up at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If they do, payment will be delayed until that is resolved one way or the other. GreenReaper 18:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I certainly won't :-P Unlike Zig Zag, this actually seems to be a good article. I don't list things for deletion because I'm evil. - ∅ (∅), 08:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack (webcomic) has remained a good article. $50 awarded to User:ISD. GreenReaper 06:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put another article up for GA status - Kevin and Kell. ISD (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Kevin and Kell has become a good article! ISD 15:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

$50 awarded to User:ISD. GreenReaper 22:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ISD 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've put yet another article up for GA. This time it's Ozy and Millie. ISD (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done it again! Ozy and Millie has been promoted to GA! ISD (talk) 09:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed. $50 awarded to User:ISD. GreenReaper (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list

I will also award $50 to any person(s) who raises list of furry conventions to featured list status by the end of 2008. GreenReaper (talk) 05:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What about other lists? Will these be given bounties if promoted to FL status? ISD (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If they appear to be sufficiently related to furry fandom, sure. If you would like to be more specific about the list(s), I can be as well. Attempts to split lists from articles and then claim both a GA and FL will probably not get two awards, unless it is clear to me that significant content was added to both the list and the article. (This should not stop you from performing such a split if it is the right thing to do, as otherwise the article might fail the GA review.) GreenReaper (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm currently editing the article on the Ursa Major Awards, would you say it is more of a list or article? ISD (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an article with a list that provides additional information to the reader. Would it make sense having the list separate from the article? Perhaps, if the article itself had more significant content. However, I get the feeling there's a limit to how much could be said about the UMAs in comparison with other topics (at least for a while), so separation might not ever become necessary in the way that it did for, say, furry convention. One other argument for that separation was that allowed for further expansion, while it is unlikely that the UMA award list would be similarly developed - unless the nominations were added, but that's arguably getting into non-notable material. GreenReaper (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further improvement of Jack

I've put the Jack article up for peer review to see how I can get it up to featured article status. Please comment on it to see how the article can be improved. ISD 08:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

My personal belief is that it will not be possible to get it up to featured status because the sources are insufficient (i.e. there are not enough reliable third-party sources reviewing and otherwise discussing the comic to draw sufficient material about public opinon of its impact). This is one reason why the GA process exists - because with the best will in the world, comprehensive coverage may currently be impossible for some topics. Certainly, stranger topics have made it to FA, but they have been stranger topics with copious references. You are likely to have better luck with a larger topic which has had significant news and media coverage, such as furry convention, fursuit or furry fandom as a whole. GreenReaper 14:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userbox and User categories

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry/Userbox

It categorises anyone who uses it in a related user category. You can use this category in addition to, or instead of, your list of participants. Use it, or not, your choice. - jc37 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

We have one of those at User:ISD/Userboxes/WikiProject Furry as noted on the main page. I didn't add a category because I saw no need to duplicate the list. Aren't userboxes supposed to be in userspace anymore? GreenReaper 22:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Userboxes (which follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Userboxes may be in template space, unless they involve social issue or philosophies (such as politics or religion), in which case they should be in userspace. WikiProjects have placed their userboxes as subpages of the project, which is what I did. However, if you prefer the one you pointed to, I can delete the project subpage, and move that one in its place, or leave it where it is, at the discretion of the WikiProject. - jc37 22:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the box above, as it was unused. I'll be happy to restore it should someone have an interest in it. - jc37 01:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Filthy Animals (comic)

This article is up for deletion. Any experts with references that could demonstrate notability? I must admit the sample on the linked website does not fill me with confidence. GreenReaper 07:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need a ruling from someone...

...on whether cartoon animals such as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck are to be included or not. An IP address is disputing the presence of the tag in those articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind the tag being removed from such articles, if only on the basis that they have not had significant action on them from this WikiProject (if I'm wrong, please speak up). Certainly, furry fans are interested in them, but they are not creations of the community or the fandom, nor were they specifically marketed to it - as opposed to (say) Albedo, Rowrbrazzle or World Tree.

However, I do have a problem with the IP address concerned, as it is a web proxy, www.dutysite.info, and should be blocked. GreenReaper (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP is proxy-blocked now. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that mainstream cartoon animals do not have to be created by or marketed to furry fans in order to be included. That would be like saying Star Wars or Star Trek isn't science fiction because they're mainstream. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals, not just ones created by/marketed to fans. It's ludicrous to assume cartoon animals Warner Brothers/Disney characters shouldn't be included. —Ochlophobia (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between science fiction and science fiction fandom. Star Wars and Star Trek are part of science fiction. Wookieepedia - a fan website about Star Wars - is part of science fiction fandom. The question is, what sort of project are we running - one which is about the topic, or one which is about the fandom activity surrounding the topic (which may include fan creations)? The scope section of our project page suggests the former, but the lede (and Template:Furry fandom) suggests the latter. GreenReaper (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're splitting hairs (hares?) here. You're talking about a trivial difference between Furry (the genre dedicated to anthropomorphic animals) and Furry Fandom (the fans of the genre). The scope of this project is "All topics relevant to the furry fandom and anthropomorphic animals: animation, artwork, comics, conventions, computer games, films, stories, television and radio programs, lifestyles, webcomics, etc." It doesn't matter whether they are mainstream or fan-based, just like furry fans do not limit themselves to one or the other. You're setting up a false dichotomy where the project is either about the genre or the fandom, and never the twain shall meet. I was under the impression the project was about both. To say otherwise would be like writing about science fiction fandom but never mentioning Star Wars or Star Trek. —Ochlophobia (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

There would be nothing wrong with mentioning Star Wars or Star Trek in the context of the fandom that surrounds them. For example, it would be hard to talk about Wookieepedia without talking about Star Wars, at least in passing. But the theoretical Science Fiction fandom WikiProject would be focussed on improving the Wookieepiedia article, not the Star Wars article (except the section that covered fandom activity in Star Wars), because that was the particular area that needed improvement. That is what I am trying to get across - the purpose of this project was to improve our fandom coverage, not coverage of the thousands of mainstream cartoon characters out there. There is also already a WikiProject dedicated to mainstream American animation, and one for anime and manga. They have people looking out for them. Furry fandom and Category:Furry do not - and I should perhaps note that my view of the topics Category:Furry should contain does not quite match up with those that you ([1], [2], [3] and Xydexx ([4], [5], [6]) appear to share. GreenReaper (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Ckatz has now unilaterally decided to remove Bugs and Daffy from the project list. If anyone disagrees, take it up with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the project to the pages in question. At the risk of stuffing beans up my nose, claiming mainstream anthropomorphic animal characters aren't part of furry fandom is a favorite tactic of people just trying to stir up the pot, and we really shouldn't be giving them the attention they're looking for. —Ochlophobia (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed - you're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, There have been several good points raised on this page as to why such characters should not be included; I agree with those opinions. Making baseless, unjustified accusations about "trying to stir up the pot" doesn't help anyone. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

These characters should be included because they are within the stated goals and scope of the project. The observation that people like to stir up the pot by claiming "Bugs Bunny isn't furry" and such was based on previous experience so it is neither baseless nor unjustified, but I'm not really interested in having you drag me into an edit war as that would just prove my point, wouldn't it? :) —Ochlophobia (talk)

What the anonymous user actually said was that they were outside of the scope of this project. I agree with you that mainstream anthropomorphic animal characters are part of the topic of interest to members of the furry fandom. However, it is hard to argue that they are actually part of furry fandom itself; they are clearly not fanac, but the topics and subject areas on which fanac is based.

If this is a project attempting to improve coverage of the furry fandom (as our project page lede suggests), then unless the topic has significant fan activity, it is not a part of our mission, and therefore we should not have our project page banner upon its talk page. On that basis, the only one of the removals I have a problem with is that from Talk:The Lion King, because there has been significant fan activity (large amounts of fan art and fan fiction, and many multiplayer worlds based around TLK) and it would be reasonable to call on members of this project to improve this area of the subject. GreenReaper (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression this is a project attempting to improve coverage of both furry fandom and anthropomorphic animals, as our goals and scope suggest. I'm not sure I follow your contradictory rationale why Bugs Bunny wouldn't be included but The Lion King would. What defines "significant" fan activity? Who decides what "significant" is? Do you think there's a dearth of people who like Bugs Bunny in furry fandom? I'm a Wile E. Coyote guy myself, but c'mon. —Ochlophobia (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As stated at various points on this talk page, I've felt right from the beginning that this goal is too wide to be of much use (and it was not that wide to start with). Heck, you complained about the scope change yourself, and the proposer felt similarly that it was to do with the type of material covered in Template:Furry fandom. There are likely thousands of articles about anthropomorphic characters, the works of fiction that they are in, and other anthropomophic-related topics on Wikipedia. I don't think we can make a measurable impact on all of them, nor do I think we should set that as our goal. I think we should concentrate on the areas that are unquestionably furry - the fan activity that coalesced into the creation of the term "furry fandom" - because that most in need of attention (in terms of a shortage of good references and people who know about it to write about it) and so it is an area in which we can make concrete improvements.

I'm sure plenty of people like Bugs Bunny. But do they do more than that? Is there a fandom around him that we can write about? I am not aware of a large number of people who write Bugs Bunny fan fiction, or create artwork around the character, or roleplay as characters from Looney Tunes (perhaps with the exception of Pepe Le Pew). The fan websites I have seen seem to be most interested in the existing material, as opposed to discussing the creation of new material. Perhaps you can correct me on that, but other topics (e.g. The Lion King) seem to be far more popular subjects for fan activity. I do not know why this is, but I suspect it is because the world has more of a defined character to it - it's not "just" a cartoon.

The thing that determines significance would be the same thing that determines significance everywhere on Wikipedia - can you find references on it? Gargoyles, for example, has an organized convention, the Gathering of the Gargoyles (WikiFur), and numerous fan websites. That would seem to fall under the definition of fan activity relating to anthropomorphic animals, and that would justify the placement of the template on the article about it - because it's quite likely that at least some people from this project know something useful about it that isn't already there.

In fact, their website offers a perfect example of the point that I'm trying to make about fandom:

It was much more than your typical animated series.
It was deeper, more mature and dynamic, weaving a
tapestry of stories and characters in a world that
almost seemed real.  As a result it developed a large
fan base. Fans of all backgrounds, genders, ages.

I doubt Bugs Bunny really has that kind of fandom, because it does not have that defined character - and without that, I'm not convinced it is relevant to a project revolving around furry fandom. A large part of our fandom is about creating our own stories - indeed, I'd say that's the essence of what most fandom members do, whether in words, artwork, roleplay, costume and performance, or some other medium. Such stories benefit greatly from a lifelike world, even if it's very different to our own - it's a key aspect that keeps it believable and interesting to adults. If that aspect doesn't exist for a particular topic, I think it's pushing it to include it in this project, no matter how much you might want furry fandom to be involved with it. Forcing such a work's fans to be listed as "furry" is like trying to force on a shoe that does not fit, just because it looks similar, or because you don't like the ones that do fit.

I'm open to proof that I'm wrong about Bugs, and that might also give a reason for others to keep the WP:FURRY banner up on Talk:Bugs Bunny. Right now, it's saying we have or are likely to make a contribution to that article when that view appears unfounded, and that is why people have been removing it. GreenReaper (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wall of text, LOL. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll concede you make a good point about focusing our attention on the non-mainstream furry articles, but I still don't see how an interest in existing material or creation of new material is at all relevant. Furries are furries are furries. This isn't about forcing anything; it's what the genre and fandom, for better or worse, are about. —Ochlophobia (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the wall of text is mostly irrelevant to the reason people remove the project tags, which is the real issue at hand. :-) I think people get annoyed because of the idea that something that has been around for decades can be appropriated by a group that didn't exist at the time. Whether or not the style fits the current definition of "furry", they weren't called "furry" then; nor, I think, would most of their fans really associate that word with them now. It's like someone made up a name for a particular area of sci-fi and then went back and reclassified all of the old works under that new name. There are some who won't agree with that.

While the project certainly has room for works beyond those specifically made by or for fandom, I suggest being cautious about adding project tags to them, particularly those that predate the late 1970s/1980s (which Fred Patten indicates was about the time people starting calling such things "furry"). If doing so, it might be best to demonstrate the relevance of the project to that topic by making edits to the actual article at the same time - for example, the addition of a section showing how it influenced future works in the furry genre (assuming there are references available that demonstrate this). GreenReaper (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct that an organized fandom didn't exist at the time (I don't think anyone is claiming otherwise), but it would be inaccurate to claim anything is being "appropriated" or "reclassified" by anyone. The only reason they weren't called "furry" back then is because an organized fandom for anthropomorphic animals didn't exist. They're called "furry" now because one does. —Ochlophobia (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm not part of this Wikiproject, nor am I a furry, but I've been reading over this talk page and just wanted to provide my insight as to why people may be disputing the project tags on articles like Bugs Bunny. While anthropomorphic animals like Bugs Bunny may be one of the interests of the furry fandom, there are many fans of anthropomorphic cartoons who do not want to be labeled furries because of the strong social stigma attached to it. If people say to their friends that they're furry fans, their friends are likely to reply "Oh? So you're one of those people who has sex in animal costumes?" And there is a very strong element of truth to this, considering all of the "yiff" art that can be found on the internet. And even if not for the fetish connotations that the word furry brings up, than it could also be the nerd/geek connotation of being somebody who goes to conventions wearing tails and fursuits. Most people who like Bugs Bunny and many other fans of anthropomorphic cartoons don't do either of these things, which is why they probably take offense to their favorite cartoon, and by proxy themselves, being associated with such activities. Héous (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, most furry fans don't have sex in animal costumes or wear tails and fursuits, either, so it seems the only difference between fans of anthropomorphic animals and furry fans is that the latter are honest about what they like. :) Thanks for sharing your opinions. —Ochlophobia (talk) 16:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Doemain of Our Own

Good news - a fact from A Doemain of Our Own made it into the "Did You Know?" section of the main page! Now the article needs to be expanded with some more reliable sources included in it. If you can find them, please add them. ISD (talk) 08:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! Now all we need is a featured article. ;-) Maybe we can expand furry convention a bit more and polish it, it's already at GA (and had DYK, for that matter). GreenReaper (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin and Kell - Request for Copyedit

The article for Kevin and Kell has just had it's peer review complete. I have solved just about all of the problems with this article. The main issue with webcomic articles such as Kevin and Kell is lack of reliable sources. However, I have manage to find what I believe to be enough sources for an FA rank. Out of 41 references, 20 of them are not from Kevin and Kell itself, or from the sites FAQ. So that makes around 49% of the sources reliable (if you found anouther one, then it would be exactly half.) If you compare this to Megatokyo, the only webcomic article on Wikipedia to be of FA status, it has 30 out of 72 reliable sources, which in terms of a percentage is 42%. That means the article on Kevin and Kell is 7% more reliable.

The one thing left to do with this article I think is to give the article a copyedit. I think it will need one because I am a British writer, and this is an American article, so the spelling will need to be checked, as well as grammar etc. I would normally take this to the League of Copyeditors, but I perfer to get someone from here to check it for two reasons:

1) As people here are more likley to have read the article and the comic itself, they will have more expert knowledge on the subject.

2) The League of Copyeditors has a VERY large backlog. It goes back as far as March 2007. This way will be much quicker.

Once I and other people in this WikiProject think the article is finally perfect, I'll put it forward for FA rank. If you think the article is of A-Class, then please update the WikiProject class. ISD (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a British editor, but I've had a go at what's there. Still, I don't believe it's A-class yet, let alone, FA-class. I will leave some further comments on the talk page. GreenReaper (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have carried out some of the measures you asked. The article has since been expanded, with the plot moved into it's own seperate section away from the history section. ISD (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created a WikiFur article containing the storyline section that was deleted from Wikipedia. I haven't included a link to the article on the Kevin and Kell page because WP:EL says that links that are normally to be avoided include, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map."

The article is probably not of A-Class, but the article has been expanded and been given extra references. I do plan to try and get the article FA-class soon. ISD (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiFur is already in the interwiki map, as you just demonstrated, and has been for some time. Perhaps surprisingly, given the topic, we do have a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of active editors - at least, enough to be on the toplist of wikia:Most active communities. Still not sure if it counts as a useful link, but those specific barriers should not be a problem for the external links section.

As for FA - it can take time. But it's a worthwhile goal. GreenReaper (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I might as well give FA a try. ISD (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Does Werewolf fall under the scope of this wikiproject?

'nuff said. I was thinking of getting this to FAC at some stage - it is an archetypal article and covers from antiquity to modern fiction. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it falls more under the idea of the "Were" community rather than the "Furry" community, so I would probably say no. ISD (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go with ISD on this one, at least if you had a mind of trying to claim one of the awards noted above for it. It is a worthy project, and there are links there (indeed, that page has an image that is used in WikiFur's current featured article) but it's not something I'd consider a core part of the furry movement/subculture/genre. One issue is that werewolves are, in fact, humans with non-human aspects, as opposed to non-humans with human aspects. Another is that, as you noted, the topic dates from antiquity. There are some topics in this are that come close - the Transformation Story Archive springs to mind, as would an article on SCABS in The Blind Pig (but note that this latter article was deleted). However, both of these sprung up well after the 70s and were associated with the nascent furry fandom. Werewolves in general have about as much to do with furry fandom as comics in general, or science fiction, or mascots - they're influences. GreenReaper (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usagi Yojimbo

I was wondering if Usagi Yojimbo fell under this WikiProject. It would appear to be a furry project, and I also believe it has won more Ursa Major Awards than any other publication? I just want to check. ISD (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, considering that its creator appears at many furry conventions. --Cubbi (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. ISD (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin and Kell FAC

I would like to request that some people from this WikiProject could please review the Kevin and Kell article, which is currently up for featured article status. There have only been four reviews of it, and so far only GreenReaper has contributed to it. ISD (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is now half-way down the list, and still no-one from this WikiProject has reviewed it. Could some please do so. ISD (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Furry Sexuality Survey

The first survey dedicated to furry sexuality has been published in The Furtean Times and no doubt it will be worth including in the furry fandom article. I would add it myself, but seeing as I was the one who created the poll, it may be seen as a conflict of interest if I referenced my own work. You may want to consider creating an article about The Furtean Times if you want. ISD (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually have quite significant doubts about including it there, and about the viability of that article:

• In what way is The Furtean Times a reliable source? Has it been mentioned in other reliable sources; does it have verifiable sources writing about it from which facts could be drawn to start an article?
• As noted in the article about the survey, there were apparent attempts made to enter junk data (e.g. the "pope" fursona); were these filtered out, or included in the results?
• How and where were people polled (or the poll advertised), and was any bias potentially provided by the means of polling (selection bias/biased sample)? An editorial comment in the article itself highlights this possibility.
• Was any method of excluding ballot-box stuffing attempted - such as linking submissions with real life identities, as has been done with other surveys?
• Is 192 a reasonable sample size? The relatively unscientific Rust survey was almost twice this size; more recent studies by UC Davis and Gerbasi had 600+ furry and 400+ furry/60+ non-furry respectively.
• Given that over half of the participants were from the UK (while probably less than 1/10th of furries live there), does the survey truly represent furry fandom as a whole, or just UK furry fandom?
• Were the results statistically significant? There are a lot of percentages thrown around but no null hypotheses stated or tested; this may result in overemphasis of significance. For example, how confident are you that bisexuals outnumber heterosexuals in the actual population? A more complete survey analysis might say something like "bisexuals outnumber homosexuals at a 95% confidence level", based on tests that show this level of certainty (the numbers given do show this, but only just; a sample size of more than 1500 would be needed to make the given bisexual/heterosexual difference significant at the 95% level).
• The article does not link the original survey, nor to the article which publicised it (where I notice the result of one prior survey on the question of sexuality is mentioned, which might bias the people taking it)
• In the survey, "yiff" is ill-defined; I believe the intention is to have it mean "furry pornography", but survey participants might well associate it with sexual activity in general - it is an overloaded term
• The person taking the survey cites Maths and Further Maths A-Levels as their qualifications; I've taken those myself, and in my opinion they do not sufficiently prepare you for the administration or analysis of statistical surveys, nor for the construction of questionnaires. These are university-level topics (indeed, the Open University lists such research as a postgraduate course).

I am not saying that the indications of the survey are incorrect. They seem roughly in line with what might be expected. However, I find it hard to trust the results or the conclusions drawn to the level required for a Wikipedia reference, particularly because of the limited audience combined with the means of participation. I have similar concerns about the Rust survey, but at least that was administered largely in person, and to significantly more people. GreenReaper (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Carole Curtis and Genus (comic book)

Concerns about notability have been flagged on these entries and the former has been PRODed and the latter is still lacking anything that addresses WP:N. As I don't know anything about either I was hoping that I could someone here might have more information to hand that can fix these two up as my gut feeling tells me they can be improved but that isn't good enough. Thanks. (Emperor (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] WikiFur

I have reason to suspect that WikiFur will be targeted for AfD again soon if it does not get more references that satisfy WP:NOTE and WP:WEB. What can we do to improve the references to head off such an attempt, or at least improve its chances of being kept if such an attempt is made?

If you know of examples of Wikifur being referenced in mainstream press articles or other reputable external sources, please add mention of them to the article. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WikiFur (3rd nomination) has been created. GreenReaper (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First WP:COI, now WP:CANVASS? Xihr (talk) 22:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article had not yet been AfD'ed at the time of my original post and I had no way of knowing how soon that might happen. There is nothing wrong with asking the community to help improve an article to make it better under Wikipedia guidelines, which is all I was doing. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the WikiProject dedicated to improving articles on the furry fandom. WikiFur is an article on the furry fandom that is apparently in need of improvement. What is your point? GreenReaper (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Article was deleted. The outcome was more or less expected after the first couple of days of AfD review, and to be honest I was hard-pressed to find a good argument to keep it after my attempt to find more non-primary references. We can still hope that WikiFur will one day be notable enough to stand up well to Wikipedia guidelines, but it's not there yet. I consider it a moral victory that the admin who closed the AfD did not go along with salting the article as some had suggested.

I asked the same admin if it would be okay to recreate it as a redirect to furry fandom and he agreed. I've done that and created a talk page asking anyone thinking of recreating it (as a "real" article) to discuss it here first and get consensus. --Mwalimu59 (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One possibility is to make a separate list of furry websites, but I see that running into notability concerns fairly quickly. It worked well enough for furry conventions . . . but then there is a parent article for that with many secondary sources, while it's unclear that "furry website" is a valid topic. See related deletion discussions on Yerf, Fur Affinity, Furtopia, the VCL (1, 2) and Yiffstar. Maybe a list for websites and other online communities in the furry fandom article, since some have had been internally significant, but do not have the external coverage to justify an article of their own (and in some cases probably never will, since they're defunct)? GreenReaper (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)