Template talk:Furry fandom

Omissions to Furry Role-Playing Games

The listing of furry roleplaying games only lists two titles, both out of print since 2000. Mouse_Guard_Roleplaying_Game is notable enough to get its own page, complete with citations of its award-winning quality. It should be considered notable enough to be on the list of furry RPGs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanguine Games (talk • contribs) 04:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Furcadia

I'm not sure if Furcadia should be on here. There are certainly a lot of members of the furry fandom who play Furcadia, including the creators themselves, but many Furcadia users (it seems like a majority but I don't really know) don't have anything to do with the fandom. The game isn't specifically designed with the fandom in mind; furcadia.com doesn't say anything about furries, nor does the Wikipedia article itself. (Actually, I was talking to User:Kotra about this and he's going to add something about how Furcadia is not part of the furry fandom, which I think is good though I'm not sure how relevant it is.) This is what Felorin said in this thread on the Furcadia forums:

We started Furcadia as a business venture, as well as wanting to make something good for people to enjoy. We knew that the furry fandom was too small a market to make a living from. All our previous games were aimed at a larger audience, so this one was too. We also knew that a significant percentage of our players would come from the furry fandom, and that's fine too - we enjoy furry conventions, furry websites etc. ourselves. But we don't want people to think it's only for that fandom, or that furry fandom's what it's all about. It's mainly about making *anything* you want, whether it's a sci-fi setting to hang out with your friends in, or anime, fantasy, pirates, vampires, werewolves, modern day "normal" settings, (just saw a Kentucky Fried Chicken dream under construction). Whether it's to roleplay, socialize, make stuff, look at other people's stuff, keep in touch with friends, or just wander.

I guess what it comes down to is what the criteria are for having something in the template. Does just being liked by a lot of furry fans qualify it? Then Star Fox or The Lion King would be appropriate.--Teiladnam 04:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

When I made the template, I wanted to highlight games that have particular meaning or importance to members of the furry fandom, and which also had specific design elements of a furry nature within them. This is best shown by the reverse - Second Life is important to many furry fans, but the game does not specifically have furry elements within it. Furry fans are just one of the subgroups that happen to have inhabited the environment and made such elements themselves. Therefore, it should not be in the template. If it came with furry avatars as default and was advertised in furry convention books then it might be a different matter.

As hinted at above, Furcadia is designed and run by furry fans, and though (for practical reasons) it could not be made solely for the furry market, and indeed given the reputation of the fandom in some circles might deliberately avoid advertising a connection, I think it has sufficient meaning to furs and a sufficient furry content slant that it should be regarded as "part of the fandom". I personally wrote an article for WikiFur News on the recent Kitterwing update because I felt it was of general interest to furry fans. Furcadia also has its own category on WikiFur, like Tapestries MUCK and FurryMUCK. While it's not big enough to have the same treatment, I think a similar argument applies to Inherit the Earth (several people with very significant ties to the fandom were involved in its creation, including Omaha The Cat Dancer artist Reed Waller, FurryMUCK wizard Lisa Sample and generally-well-known furry artists Terrie Smith and Eric Blumrich). GreenReaper 05:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

FurryMUCK was also a direct inspiration for the game. GreenReaper 05:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. With the standards of the template you've pointed out, it does make sense to include Furcadia. I guess what I'm concerned about is that it will give people the wrong impression about Furcadia. I can see how someone would look at it and interpret it to mean that Furcadia is specifically for furries, whatever they think that means (and from my experience, most Internet users have a very limited idea of what furries are). I think what Kotra added addresses this pretty well, though I wonder if this whole issue really has any significance with Wikipedia, or if I'm just obsessing over nothing. I do that sometimes.--Teiladnam 06:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, ideally they will click the big Furry fandom header and learn a bit more. Certainly, there should be an explanation of the exact significance on the article, but I don't think editors should use reader's preconceptions as a guide to the links they draw between topics - particularly when such links may have been played down officially to avoid just this problem. Furcadia has young children and their parents probably wouldn't be entirely comfortable with the topic (though they'd likely be just as concerned about Furcadia's own Furrabian Nights). GreenReaper 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that its nonsensical to dissociate Furcadia from the Furry community. It is not 'soully' furry but that doesn't mean it isn't based on the Furry Fandom in concept. Most things that start out furry begin to outstretch to non-furry things due to the need for money to run things, or just the general desire for more users. I believe that this is what happened. ʍɪ₭Ꭵṯṭʏ 16:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Bunnies and Burrows

I added this article to the template (and just now to WP:FURRY) because it seems clear that animals are being given human traits - such as intelligence - even though they are not physically changed from their animal form. They also had furry artist Jim Groat do the interior art for the 1992 issue. I can accept that perhaps it is not a sufficiently major topic in furry fandom to include in this template, though. GreenReaper 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• B&B is based upon the novel Watership Down, which is not about anthropomorphic rabbits, but about actual rabbits. Neither the book nor the RPG make the characters humanoid, nor do they include human facial expressions, anatomy, speech, bipedalism, and the wearing of clothes (as indicated on Furry fandom). It is closer to books like The Animals of Farthing Wood and other books about animals. >Radiant< 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Watership Down is about anthropomorphic animals; a group of sapient, talking rabbits. The attribution of human-class intelligence is probably the most important feature of "furry" - which is why it is first on the list which you were reading from. Nobody says you need to exhibit all of them, but I can think of very little in the way of furry artwork or storytelling which provides human-like form without implying some level of increased intelligence as well (that'd be seriously creepy). Some furries are referred to as nonmorphic, but this relates specifically to body type (consider characters similar to those of The Lion King, which is the inspiration of countless furry MUCKs and artists).

Moreover, the characters in Watership Down do speak - just not with humans. Sure, they have different instincts, and drives, and certainly capabilities, but real rabbits are not that bright, nor do they talk to birds and involve them in detailed plans that involve manipulation, infiltration, deceit and riding across a river in a raft. While there are species that naturally do several of these things, the combination is something that, as far as we know, only humans are capable of (and even then, the birds don't normally talk back).

Perhaps most tellingly, Watership Down is both mentioned in the article and on numerous prominent furry FAQ/info pages as (at least) a strong influence on the foundation of furry fandom. At their root, furries are people who happen to be animals. The characters in Watership Down and Animals of Farthing Wood are also people who happen to be animals. The key is not how much of an animal you are, but how much of a person you are. GreenReaper 08:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"Anthropomorphic" means "human shaped". Tales about real animals are less furry than Donald Duck and the Ninja Turtles. I note that The Lion King makes no mention of its furriness either. >Radiant< 14:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that is just one example of the meaning. Anthropomorphism is "the attribution of uniquely human characteristics and qualities to nonhuman beings, inanimate objects, or natural or supernatural phenomena." The pictures in that article stress appearance, because that is what pictures are best at, but intelligence on the level displayed in the stories above is a uniquely human quality, as much as looking like a human would be. GreenReaper 18:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI, B&B won the AfD. Thank you for your group's support. Turlo Lomon 06:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalking cat

I noticed that Stalking Cat is not listed under people. Not only is he known for body modifications to make him more catlike, he also frequents furry conventions and seems to fit the basic definition of a furry lifestyler. --74.78.193.84 (talk) 23:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Added. mwalimu59 (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed additions to "related concepts" section

I propose that the following be added to the "related concepts" section:

• Otherkin because Therianthropy is already there, and the two share the same relationship with the furry fandom.
• Species dysphoria because the 2008 Gerbasi article, "Furries from A to Z" (and others?) establish a link between furries and species dysphoria.

Thanks. --Tathar (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Both mention furry on them. GreenReaper (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)