Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Furry/Book

Possible work

This book could use quite some work. A dedicated Wikipedia article on the History of furry fandom would be nice, for instance; Vootie should definitely be mentioned there along with Rowrbrazzle, too. I'm not sure about whether FurryMUCK is really important enough anymore to be featured so prominently in the "Furry culture" chapter, but it did play an important role historically at the very least. An article on furry sexuality would be nice for the "Furry culture" chapter, too, especially if it provides a neutral and balanced look and neither claims that sexuality is everything that furry fandom is about nor insinuates that it doesn't exist in the fandom at all. Similarly, if we could write a dedicated article on Furry lifestylers, that'd be great for the "Important concepts" chapter. -- Schneelocke (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded it quite a bit and split FurryMUCK into a "Games and social spaces" section. Arguably "Furry comics" could be a separate book in itself, but then ideally List of furry comics would be a better summary, similar to List of furry conventions. You're right that we need that history article; it's finding the references for it that's going to be tricky; a lot of the early history is not in a published work. GreenReaper (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Expanded quite a bit" sure sums it up rather well. :) I actually tried making this a reasonably narrow book that would provide an overview without getting lost in excessive detail, but you're right, there's some articles I definitely missed, such as ConFurence for the "Furry history" chapter and so on.

Having a "major conventions" chapter also seems like a good idea, and the same goes for "People"; I'm less sure all the comics that are currently in the "Comics" chapter there really need to be included. (Sabrina Online seems notable and important enough, as do Freefall, Kevin and Kell, and Ozy and Millie; I'm less sure about the rest, but I don't even know most of them, so I don't feel qualified to make a judgement call there: I'll have to leave it to someone else to decide which of these are really major parts of furry fandom, subjects that someone who doesn't know much (if anything) about furry fandom yet but who wants to learn more really needs to learn about in detail). Actually, how about a "Furry media" chapter that would contain both important comics as well as other things, like the Funday PawPet Show? I'm not happy with the latter being in "Related topics", given that it definitely IS furry (as opposed to merely related); a "Furry media" chapter would be natural, but once we have that, it seems to make little sense to retain a separate "Comics" chapter.

I still think a dedicated "Important concepts" chapter would be a good idea, too: we cannot assume that a reader will actually be familiar with furry fandom, so introducing things like anthropomorphism right away is a good idea, although you're right that Fanzine probably doesn't belong there. I'll go ahead and restore the chapter.

As for "Games and social spaces", I thought about including Second Life and TinyMUCK (which, rightly or wrongly, is what MUCK redirects to) in the "Related topics" section earlier, but ultimately decided against it for the above reason (trying to create a reasonably narrow book). If we do have a "Games and social spaces" chapter, though, they might be worth being mentioned there; MUCKs are obviously very popular amongst furries, and Second Life also has a sizeable furry population. On the other hand, they really might be straying from the book's topic too much. Thoughts?

I also moved "Funny animal" to the "History of furry fandom" chapter. That chapter's probably a better fit than either "Related topics" or "Important concepts".

-- Schneelocke (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I included all the ones that I thought might be either sufficiently important or sufficiently good to be included. It only costs a little more to print a bigger book, and it won't be easy for readers to look up "missing" information without the net.

Having said that, I think we don't need anthropomorphism at all; it's a) superfluous and b) isn't any good. The concept of anthropomorphism as it relates to furry is relatively simple and should be sufficiently explained in furry fandom:

Furry fandom (also known as furrydom, fur fandom or furdom) refers to the fandom for fictional anthropomorphic animal characters with human personalities and characteristics. Examples of anthropomorphic attributes include exhibiting human intelligence and facial expressions, the ability to speak, walk on two legs, and wear clothes.

In fact, all important concepts should be summarized in that article – that's what it's there for. Only those specific to furry fandom, such as fursuit and furry convention, need to be included as separate articles. GreenReaper (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As for MUCKs . . . FurryMUCK has something of an explanation within it, although it could be better. Furcadia has recently been criticized for lacking a good explanation of exactly what it is, so I suspect it will at some point gain that. The presence of furries within Second Life is noted (very briefly) within furry fandom. It could have more, but I don't think it needs the whole article. GreenReaper (talk)

Ah, I hadn't considered that people might actually print this book: good point, although I still don't think every last furry comic (or generally furry fandom-related article) needs to be included.

As for anthropomorphics: the fact that the article sucks is not a reason not to include it; rather, it's a reason to improve the article. :) I very much think it's relevant, too. At the same time, you're right that basic definitions of all important topics should be present in the Furry fandom article already.

Yeah, I agree about Second Life; let's leave that out, especially if the focus is more on creating a printable book, or one intended for printing (if among other things).

-- Schneelocke (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)