Misplaced Pages

Talk:Furry fandom

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stronkler (talk | contribs) at 00:35, 18 April 2023 (Poll: Furry hater to Furry ratio: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:35, 18 April 2023 by Stronkler (talk | contribs) (Poll: Furry hater to Furry ratio: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Furry fandom article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Furry fandom. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Furry fandom at the Reference desk.

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Former good article nomineeFurry fandom was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 19, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
September 3, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconFurry Top‑importance
WikiProject iconFurry fandom is within the scope of WikiProject Furry, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to furry fandom. For more information, visit the project page.FurryWikipedia:WikiProject FurryTemplate:WikiProject Furryfurry
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
Template:WP1.0

To-do list for Furry fandom: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2019-02-16

  • Fix remaining issues highlighted in the good article review
  • Check references for suitability and consideration of bias in use (both positive and negative)
  • Obtain more high-quality images that represent the fandom, in particular its artwork
  • General polishing consistent with increased positioning in Misplaced Pages's article grading scheme and perfect article criteria
  • Create a section about "fursonas", as this is a highly important part of the fandom.
  • Archive/refactor talk page
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Misplaced Pages rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:

Archiving icon
Archives

See also:

  1. Talk:Yiff Archive


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Image replacement proposal

File:Avis Draws - Bloop (2020) (cropped variant).png
A typical furry character of an anthropomorphic felid

Hey folks, I'm here to discuss the article in the quickest possible way. I recently made a cropped version of the original (pictured) because it was "oversexualized and unrepresentative." What do y'think about replacing an existing image with a new one?

The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 05:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC); edited: 07:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why the article needs to be illustrated with artworks anyway? This is an article about a group of people, not a cartoon, and article illustrations are supposed to show the subject matter. Commons has many good photos of individuals in its 'fursuits' category and subcategories: we should be able to find one amongst that if none of the existing photos used in our article aren't suitable to go at the top of the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
There's nothing "good" about finding different photos instead of artworks where everything is just irrelevant to what you prefer. Therefore, I won't help you with improving the article anyway.
The Harvett Vault (user; talk) 21:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC); edited: 21:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I quite like the image proposed , the artstyle is more representative and feels more relevant of the fandom currently. People remember first impressions the most and that is most likely going to be the first image they see so it should be good artwork that represents the fandom in it's current state. The current picture doesn't look like a "a typical furry character" like you see online, atleast not anymore. 10fps man (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
i agree! though, if the image proposed does end up being used in the article, some credit to the artist should be provided. a link wouldn't be needed obviously, but providing their online handle and the platform the work appeared on would be a good idea. it might also be a good idea to ask the artist if they would mind their work appearing on this article. Cat-with-the-'tism (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I really like the new image! The main thing I like about it is it's a bit more "modern" in the style. I have nothing against the artist of the current one. It just gives me the vibe of 2009, not that that's bad. Also, my response to Andy would be the furry fandom is more than simply just fursuiters. I would say that when people hear the word "furry" they either think of fursuits, or furry art. @The Harvett Vault: if I see no strong objections in a few days I'll go ahead and replace it. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 04:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I do think it would be helpful to modernize the example of a furry drawing on the page, but the artist who made the anthro vixen that is currently on the page also made a modernized version of the same drawing some years ago. Lessnesslynx (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Lessnesslynx: Is that image publicly available (or released under a compatible license or already on commons)? If it isn't then we can't really use the modernized version of that image. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 23:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
It is already on commons actually. Lessnesslynx (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Lessnesslynx: Could you provide a link? ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 23:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/User:Yamavu#/media/File:Anthro_vixen_fullbody_front.svg Lessnesslynx (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
@Lessnesslynx: Apologies for the extremely late reply. I think I'll put it up to consensus as to which image we use in the lede. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 01:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Dubious tags in sexuality

So currently the article says furries are more likely to be gay/bi/lesbian by a factor of ten, which appears to be a bit of synthesis from a Gallup poll unconcerned with furry sexuality. There are dubious tags on the poll's percentage of bisexual/gay/lesbian Americans for no reason that I can find. What's dubious about it and should this seeming synthesis even be in the article? XeCyranium (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to me that the "factor of 10" claim should be considered original research. I don't, however, understand the tags placed on the statistical claims on LGBT identification, as they are directly stated in the given source. I think that the "factor of 10" claim should be removed or adequately sourced, and that the tags should be removed on the other claims. 22090912l (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Lead image

OPTION 2 AND CHANGE IMAGE PLACEMENT. Given the lack of participation in this discussion there appears to be consensus to change the image to option 2 given the previous discussion while swapping the lead image's placement with that of one depicting furries attending a furry convention. The lead image can be replaced with one that more accurately reflects the subject of the article without prior consensus if one is found. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 18:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



So in a discussion above, there was some talk about possibly changing the image used in the lead of the article. 2 images were proposed to change, so as to not show any bias towards one particular image from my personal opinion, I'll leave it up to a !vote.

If there are no comments within 7 days then I'll go ahead and use Option 2 unless there are some objections since that seems to be the one that most people preferred in the above discussion. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 20:08, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

While I think option 2 is the better image to use, I'd prefer if the first image presented in the article was of people in fursuits, as this appears to be the main focus of the article. I'm not sure where this image could be move to, though. Isabelle Belato 21:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I could probably just swap around this image with the fursuiter one. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 02:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The article is about people, not cartoon images. The lead image should represent the subject of the article. Possibly an image of an individual in a fursuit isn't truly representative of furries in general (of whom only a minority own full fursuits, according to the article), but it is certainly preferable to one that doesn't illustrate the article subject at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes I do agree, which is why I can swap around where the images are in the article. ― Blaze WolfBlaze Wolf#6545 14:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gender percentage doesn't match source

In the part "sociological aspects" there is the sentence "78–85% of furries identify as male, the remaining identify as female; while most are cisgender, 2% are transgender.:10" However, if you look at the source attached ( Plante, Courtney N.; Reysen, Stephen; Roberts, Sharon E.; Gerbasi, Kathleen C. (2016). FurScience! A summary of five years of research from the International Anthropomorphic Research Project (PDF). Waterloo, Ontario: FurScience. ISBN 978-0-9976288-0-7. Archived from the original on April 24, 2017. Retrieved December 27, 2016.) the data in that source is:

"Sex: Male 72.4% Sex: Female 27.4% Sex: Intersex 0.2%

Gender: Masculine 67.1% Gender: Feminine 23.3% Genderqueer/Non-Binary: 10.0%" Which isn't the same as what is stated in the Misplaced Pages article. I cannot seem to find where the original data came from. (The "2% are transgender" part of the sentence is consistent with the data in this source though, as they also asked people that specifically identify as transgender, and that percentage was 2%)

Furthermore, there are more recent surveys held by the IARP that should also be taken into consideration for the Misplaced Pages article. I have checked for the gender ratios and for that aspect there are more recent studies which have different data. While I have only checked for the gender ratio data thus far, I personally think that more information in the "sociological aspects" could probably be updated with more recent data, as it currently mostly cites the same data from 2017 TransDragonLira (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@TransDragonLira: I've looked through the article's history, and those numbers appear to come from an earlier research by the same group (from around 2012). The research was updated without updating the actual numbers, so it should be fine to change them to match the source. Since that research is from 2016, having more recent numbers would be very helpful, so if you have good sources, share them here so we can take a look. Thanks. Isabelle Belato 12:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
This link is the official website of the IARP, listing off their recent findings in their 2021-2022 studies, including some older data from 2017, 2018, and 2020. https://furscience.com/research-findings/demographics/1-3-sex-and-gender/
However, it seems my suspicions about more things possibly needing to be updated were incorrect, sorry about that. The rest of their findings in the 2021-2022 studies have not yet been published, so it seems it'll have to wait untill it is possible to update the rest of the socialogical aspects section https://twitter.com/furscience/status/1561104933717528577 TransDragonLira (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Classification as a Counterculture

While the fandom has become more mainstream in recent years, I think there is an argument that the furry fandom is a counterculture. Countercultures are defined as, " A culture whose values and norms of behavior deviate from those of mainstream society." I hold the belief that the fandom fits this definition. However I have yet to include this in the article due to lack of reliable sources. Neo CyberLich (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it has been referred to as counterculture in the past but, yes, we'd need cites for it. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how to research citations for something likely to be obscure? Neo CyberLich (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
You'd be looking for books & articles on counter-culture movements, as well as ones specifically about furries. I won't have time to dig into it this week, but I'll see what I can find later. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Poll: Furry hater to Furry ratio

just edit this and add +1 to these (Furry hater/non furry 1) (Furry 0) Stronkler (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Categories: