Jump to content

Talk:FurryMUCK

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability???

[edit]

How is it NOT notable???

this is an encyclopedia, if people want to know what something is, they look it up. this is a term that is commonly used in the roleplay community and similar areas.

ESPECIALLY this MUCK article, as there are a few MUCKs. it's notable. CchristianTehWazzit

Yeah, it is notable. It might sound on the small side just looking at the number 450, but this is a notable place. It's existence and place in fur and even internet RP history seems to be pronounced. Sethmandelbrot 04:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strange as this may seem, Wikipedia actually demands that multiple reliable independant third party articles be provided as proof. Just saying 'this is notable' doesn't cut it. The Kinslayer 12:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sampling of media articles about Furry, ranging from Wired to Time to various (large) newspapers. FurryMUCK is mentioned in nearly every one: [1] The most infamous mentions of FurryMUCK (as part of furry fandom) included an episode of CSI (#406, "Fur and Loathing"), the Wired magazine from March 1994 ("Johnny Manhattan Meets the Furry MUCKERS"), and even an article in Vanity Fair and a mini-documentary on MTV. All of these focused on the more lurid aspects of Furry -- and they all mentioned FurryMUCK. --09:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a good start, but for the article to avoid a delete nomination, they need to be listed in the article itself, not the talk page. For best results, link directly to the articles and not to that listing. The Kinslayer 09:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. References in mainstream media added to article. Samboy 22:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no arguements here, and I have to say good find! The Kinslayer 00:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very notable; back in the late 1990s I had a girlfriend involved with the Furry movement, and spent a lot of time talking about the Furry MUCK. Samboy 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locations

[edit]

The listing of places within FurryMuck leaves much to be desired. You wouldn't know that guests emerged into the WCotP if I hadn't added that just now. It doesn't even mention the Purple Nurple! I don't know 'Daycare' myself, but can't imagine why it would be mentioned when the Giants' Club, Hermaphrodite Haven, Vanilla Club, or Libertyville Nude Beach weren't... Wyvern 02:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've just seen that the Daycare entry was removed and then the change reverted by Bittergrey today. So, Bittergrey, where IS Daycare, and why doesn't it seem to show up on the wa list? (By your user page, I'm guessing that you have an interest in that place, which is okay, but that doesn't mean that the place is notable for the Wikipedia article.) It seems to me that any listing of notable locations within FurryMuck should include those which are frequently inhabited; anyplace which doesn't show up on the wa list often is very unlikely to be 'notable' in any meaningful sense. Wyvern 09:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Daycare can be reached using 't daycare' or 't #128989,e,n'. More presently, 147.126.95.167's change came to my attention because he or she removed references to babyfurs in multiple articles within one minute's time. Granted, this probably was not an attempt to anonymously erase a demographic group from Wikipedia. However, l Let's avoid such broader contexts by making specific changes to specific articles. (Preferably after discussion.) BitterGrey 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(Could someone check this search result? [2] If it is correct, 147.126.95.167's changes would have had the effect of erasing all references to babyfurs in Wikipedia articles. The word would remain only in archives, talk, and user pages. The FurryMUCK article is still on the list, so it apparently hasn't updated since 147.126.95.167 re-deleted the reference.)BitterGrey 03:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the directions are T Daycare, E but this does indeed take you to the daycare, the daycare (like all other locations on the Muck) will only show up if there are people there. 90.242.70.198 06:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Fionacat[reply]
I think that's the point - if there aren't even enough people there for it to show up (and as I recall it takes about two), is it really notable within the topic of FurryMUCK? It might well be mentioned at babyfur, if that topic were itself considered notable. Assertions made within Wikipedia articles should rest on reliable published sources, so ideally there would be some mention of it in news articles, otherwise we could just be making this stuff up. GreenReaper 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to understand how the WhereIs command works, it only shows up if there's people there you can do a whereis and find only one location at some times where as at others there will be a sizeable list. The Daycare appears on the WhereIs list at least once every 8 hours when there are people there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.240.131 (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand how WhereIs works. :-) My point is that if it's not regularly occupied to the extent that it usually shows up (say, 50% of the total time, or 75% of the time during the MUCK's most active 12-hour period), it's probably not a sufficiently important part of the MUCK to mention. Perhaps there are other places that should be removed, too.
It is quite possible that there are only one or two places that have sufficient population to be mentioned - or none at all, if we're going to be strict about sources. This is because, unlike most websites, Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of personal knowledge (referred to as "original research"), but relies on established figures such as news reporters and scientists/researchers who have has been published in a reputable publication, either online or offline. If there is no published source to back up a fact - like a Wired news story about FurryMUCK that says "The MUCK contains an area called 'Daycare' which is used by 'babyfurs' who enjoy roleplaying as young anthropomorphic creatures ..." then it is probably not something that we should be saying here. I don't necessarily agree with this myself (and that's not how WikiFur works), but it is site policy here. GreenReaper 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is great to see a discussion of the value of the particular section, as opposed to the previous rapid deletion of every section in every Wikipedia article that mentions babyfurs. If the babyfurs weren't so frequently marginalized (eg in WCoTP[3]) this would be a simpler discussion. Of course, without that marginalization, there might not have ever been a need for the word "babyfur." On the topic of locations, WhereIs might not be the best measure of significance. Sunday night, 10:58 Pacific, Purple Nurple had 16 present and 5 active, the Vanilla Club 9 and 3. WCOTP had 11 present with 0 active. Equating WhereIs numbers with significance would place the Purple Nurple first, with the Vanilla club and WCoTP dividing second. (Of course, not being able to remember visiting the Nurple or Vanilla Club, I can't comment on their significance.) BitterGrey 06:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The best measure of significance (and the only one that is anything like a guarantee for keeping information on Wikipedia) is third-party reporting from reliable sources. Anything else is just the opinion of random people. That said, the WCOTP (and bandstand) is probably worth mentioning for being the first place people come out - heck, it has a comic named after it. WikiFur:Category:FurryMUCK locations might be useful; if someone's bothered to write an article about it there, it's at least worth considering for mention here (though it's worth actually taking a look on-MUCK, they're not all that impressive). As for the Rabbi, he respects babyfurs as long as they own weapons of mass destruction.
Really, though, there are lots of things like that which come under the "umbrella of furry" but aren't really about furry fandom, such as unbirthing, inflatable animals, macro characters, rubberfurs and the like. The problem is that people who know significant amounts about such areas tend to be the people involved in them, which makes it hard to write good objective encyclopedia articles about it. From my point of view they're not being marginalized any more than furries are marginalized in the general population - particular activities are on the fringe of things, even if the individuals participating are all furries, along with lots of other groups who mix "furry" with "X" (whatever X is).
That's my personal view of furry in general, though. For this article in particular? I could see the Daycare area potentially being mentioned - I looked and it's been around for at least half a decade and did have some people in there, though they were sleeping (information like founding date is important, as it gives some indication as to the area's worthiness for inclusion). However, the current mention of it in a listing of just three places on the MUCK gives it undue weight. I doubt many FurryMUCK regulars would rate it as one of the top three locations, and so this violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Since the article is very short right now, I would suggest adding in summaries of several important areas on FurryMUCK, rather than just the one that you are interested in. That way it does not look like you are attempting to promote a minority area over more popular ones, but are instead helping to build the encyclopedia. GreenReaper 23:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with other furry-sub groups seems reasonable, but let's take a second look at that first comic. The term "inflatable animal" isn't used. Xydexx is mentioned by name, along with what he enjoys doing. Similarly, impregnating or even eating the reindeer is acceptable. They are something that welcome regulars to the comic do annually. These regulars are referenced as characters, not by their demographic. This is in stark contrast to the babyfurs. Since they are so often discussed by their demographic, the name of that demographic should be present and defined on Wikipedia.
As for balance, I'd like to join GreenReaper in urging those familiar with the several other significant places of interest on FurryMUCK to add brief descriptions of them. BitterGrey 13:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're discussed within their demographic. But you know how much of an in-joke WCOTP is. Even your average furry fan might not get half the jokes because they do not know the individuals concerned. Xydexx was mentioned by name because he is both a public figure and someone known by the primary author . . . who also has/had well-known (but again, only within the fandom) issues with the babyfur subgroup that, perhaps, colours and magnifies their presence in the comic. These are both examples of why web comics are not generally seen as reliable sources except on themselves - because it is not possible to judge them without knowledge of the creator, and such judging is itself done by unreliable people (like you and me). Even WikiFur, where it mentions such coverage, limits itself to describing the way in which it has represented subgroups rather than endorsing that view. It's just not on the map for commentators like the New York Times, or (more realistically) The Register, for whom the idea of roleplaying as an anthropomorphic creature at all is novel (Wired had a mention a while back, and even they didn't get it). It is evidence primarily from such sources - outside the demographic - which is used to construct Wikipedia articles, because only they are considered to have sufficient separation from the thing they are describing. This may be hard to obtain, as most babyfurs have more sense than to bring the attention of the public media to their story. GreenReaper 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the definition question, I broadly agree with Guy/JzG's initial reasoning in the AFD for the term "babyfur". Conditions have not changed. That does not necessarily mean it should not be present in articles, but it does mean a separate article is inappropriate, just as having separate articles for every furry convention would be inappropriate - there's not enough data out there in trusted publications. While a certain amount of paraphrasing is expected, Wikipedia is not a place to make up definitions out of whole cloth; it is a place that collects and presents the definitions of published reliable sources in a coherent manner. Without those sources there is nothing to present. GreenReaper 18:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misunderstand. I'm not proposing a separate article for babyfurs. I simply reverted a mass deletion: The pattern and timing is consistent with running a search for the word "babyfur" and then deleting all the article sections that resulted[4][5]. Within one minute, an anonymous user deleted every reference in every Wikipedia article to this demographic. (An anonymous user who apparently isn't taking part in this discussion, I might add.) BitterGrey 14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably because they thought it didn't deserve to be in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, it's up to you to prove them wrong with reliable sources. If there are none, then . . . well, according to Wikipedia's policies they were right to do so. It happens quite often for furry-related topics - comics are a popular target, when contributors decide to take out one and then go for four or five others. GreenReaper 17:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that there is little need for an entire sub-topic of notable places, when we're only listing WCotP and then 3 other locations. Since we have a link to the WikiFur entry, which is much more informative and better laid out, I see no reason to keep the section. Also, if we are listing fetish specific areas, we need more than one entry in that category. I would question the wisdom of doing so here instead of on WikiFur, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.56.23 (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

Hi! I'm starting on an expansion of the article - I never visited FurryMUCK much, but still have fond memories of the times when I did (well over 10 years ago now), and I'd like to see the article expanded. I've added an initial history section - it is a bit light, I think, but I'm limited to reliable sources, and while I think it is ok to use Tina Smith's (Jahangiri's) article, I only really want to rely on that for uncontroversial claims. I plan to add a bit about the CDA issue to History, as it seems worth mentioning, but otherwise I'm not sure where else to go in that section. At this stage I'm also thinking of adding "Audence", "Design" and "Influence and reception" sections. The last is fairly clear, as I have a pile of sources which can be used to build it. The second probably needs to be limited to design elements covered in various reliable sources, but that still gives a pile to work on - I have a fair bit on transport, some on communication, and a couple of the better known areas. Audience I'm less sure about, as I planned to discuss Furry fandom's connection to FurryMUCK there, but I can also see a case for simply including that in "Infulences and reception".

At any rate, I'm planning to leave the lead to one side for a bit, as each section will take a while to write. Any help, advice or opinions would be much appreciated. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FurryMUCK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:FurryMUCK&oldid=1207331371"