Talk:Fur Affinity

Fur Affinity is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the WikiFur community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

As discussed a while back by Green Reaper, internal redirects to Wikifur would be under "See also," while external ones (Like to the Wikipedia website,) would be set under "External Links." Has this been changed recently?. Spirou 22:35, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to 'See Also' because it deals with the same subject, albeit on another site - but you're probably right - it is an external link after all. Though, I should mention that I have seen quite a few other articles here at WikiFur that enlists its wikipedian counterpart under 'See Also' instead of 'External Links', so I've got no clue as for what's really the correct way to do this. :) --MKerris 22:54, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I've just been writing the Furry Book of Style for this exact purpose, and others like it. My view is actually that links to Wikipeida and other wikis should be in See also, as they are essentially the same as other article links, just on a different wiki site. Likewise, I typically put links from Wikipedia to WikiFur in these sections - I've seen this done in the past for links to WikiWikiWeb and Meatball. --GreenReaper^(talk) 00:18, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Alright then. Will need to change a couple of my own entries then. Spirou 00:21, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of Corrosive

Regarding the removal of Corrosive from the article, I noticed that it's impossible to verify who the admins of FurAffinity really are. There are no obvious links on the website, and bth the "Account" and "Help Desk" link are 404 at this time. --Dmuth 23:45, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit (forgot to log in). As one of the admins and communitiy representatives of the site, I can assure you personally that Corrosive is not an admin. And that's all there is to it.

--Preyfar

Fur Affinity URL edit

Oh man. I need not edit anything when deprived of two days of sleep (while stuck at work on nightshift no less). =| I can't beleive I made such as stupid error. HA! I am such a plebe! Thanks for the fix, Green. Red Bull only keeps me going so long. =P --Preyfar 07:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Just remember that Red Bull may give you wings, but that doesn't mean you're qualified to fly quite that long. ;-) --GreenReaper^(talk) 11:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Staff listing

JSharp - Did a little checking: Fur Affinity's Staff Page. Uncia's listed as a moderator. --DataBank 03:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. This is twice that Damaratus has been moved back to admins, but the staff page says Moderator. I get the idea one page or the other is in error... question is which one? --DataBank 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently promoted Damaratus to the status of administrator but as have not yet had a chance to update the staff roster on the site. If you need proof you can check the promotion statement here. --Preyfar 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected and artist listings

Why is this article locked? It's not drama to report the facts, whither or not it's liked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honeymane (talk • contribs) .

I will try to make this brief, but I'm not so sure how brief it will be. For that, I apologize in advance.

The intent behind adding a list of users who are leaving FurAffinity is moot, and does not have any worthwhile informational value behind it. The fact that numerous people plan on or have left FurAffinity is not relevant to FurAffinity's history. That is relevant to the individual's history. If one wishes to write in the individual's article, "In 2006, [he/she] left FurAffinity," that is fine, because it is relevant to the individual. However, the fact that they left the FA community is not relevant to FA's global history.

What I will contest is relevant, however, is that this had become such a scandal to the FurAffinity community, and thus, deserves historical notation. (I understand how pretentious it is to say "historical notation" on a Wiki, but you get my point :) So, I have decided to protect this article to prevent others from adding in this information, since the influx of people adding things to the Wiki will be great, I'm sure.

I know I don't come around here very often to flex my administrative muscle, but seeing this drama explode and expand onto other places is just too much. I'd like to nip it in the bud where I can. Verix 06:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected this article (before seeing this, I might add). People should be free to add and remove sections as they see fit. If there is a disagreement here over whether or not there should be a list of people leaving, they should argue that here and get consensus from WikiFur editors first.

Protection is appropriate in cases of vandalism. This is not, it is a disagreement on content. I appreciate your motives, verix, and I agree with your view in part, but I would ask you not to use your administrative powers to preserve your point of view. Contest it all you like, but on an equal footing. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You've a point. However, I'd like to warn you that I believe there's going to be a rather large influx of edit battles soon to arise out of all of this-- people adding the list, deleting it, back and fourth, etc.-- so I admit I jumped the gun and protected it before I believed it got started. The polarization of FurAffinity is certainly causing its current drama to expand to other parts.

I agree with you, GreenReaper, and apologize for jumping the gun (and, essentially, using my own logic before consensus). But, again, I feel I must warn you that a rather large edit battle may arise, and we may have to protect the article again. Verix 06:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not the first time we've had such things happen. What normally happens is there's lots of adding (and some removing), then a few days later people get bored, and then a week or so later someone comes around and cleans up, and we end up with an article with more useful information than we started with.

My personal view is that numerous people leaving Fur Affinity over this decision is worth mentioning, but that it's not particularly relevant who the artists are, except for those of particular prominence in the fandom. We could say something like "around 50 artists left over the new policy, including X and Y".

For reference, I was looking at Wikipedia's protection policy when unprotecting, which is quite clear on people not using protection to enforce a particular edit they made. Of course, we're not Wikipedia, but I think it's good advice in general. --GreenReaper^(talk) 06:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Again, I agree, the list is irrelevant, which is why I deleted it, but also agree that the statistic of people leaving is relevant as well. It was overkill to protect it. (Most of this is just reiterating what you've said already, but I'd still just like to make my point clear.)

Hopefully, though, this will be the catalyst to bring me back to this thing so I can actually do my job as an admin, instead of just doing what I did here tonight when I find it relevant. Sorry for the knee-jerk. I'll make sure not to let it happen again. :) Verix 06:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

where should the list be posted? here? it maybe useful because alot of artist proflies are going to be in need of editting. and I forgot to sign again--142.177.139.173 07:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm not sure. Perhaps in an article dedicated to the actual event itself? (Although, in that regard, I'm not sure if the event even deserves it's own article. Perhaps it does, though, since its informative reach has even gone to the likes of Encyclopedia Dramatica.) I just don't really see a point to maintaining a list of artists who've left, since the intent seems more to document a counter-offensive and make a mountain out a molehill, rather than inform. But on my judgement, if one were to post the list of artists who left, it'd certainly be in an article about the situation itself, rather than the site. Verix 07:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that a list of the artists that have left would be overkill; I think the article would be better off with a notation of how many people have left, with maybe one or two "big guns" mentioned. I don't think the situation merits its own entry; it's pretty much confined to Fur Affinity itself. Carl Fox 08:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But really, how would you get those numbers with any sort of accuracy? How many artists have declared their intent to leave but never actually did. How many artists left the site quietly? There is no way to really get an accurate number which would be more speculation, especially if those artists decided to comeback after cooling down from their initial reaction.

I understand your reasoning, but there's just no way to have solid numbers -- and even as lead admin for FA, I don't have those numbers on hand. There are too many variables to consider, and even if I did have them I would not release them because all they would do is further the drama. At some point, the drama needs to stop, people need to let go and move on.

--Preyfar 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)