Talk:Furvert

Suggested merge

The old text of this article actually suggested visiting furry fandom for more information. This article could possibly be expanded with a better explanation of "furry fetish," or it could be merged with furry fandom (with the information on this page now, the only useful part is the term's definition, which could easily be mentioned at "Sex and Furry Fandom" on furry fandom). --Krishva 09:08, July 16, 2005 (

animated graphic

I don't think the animated graphic is neccesary, and should be replaced with a still of the same, or a different picture entirely. --Guyjin 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)guyjin

I've seen a ten minute animated graphic about biology and evolution (had some part of sperm and gamites) in an article. Would you consider this unnecessary? Guess what! The article was featured on the front page of wikipedia. The graphic is basically illustrating a truth that only animation can provide, people can use fursuits in an erotic manner. This graphic is more informative than a still or two images together because it shows how to have sex in a fursuit. When I come to wikipedia I want to find information and don't want to be confused because someone censored an animated graphic. I hope you see the importance of this now. Arights 11:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't really agree that a two-frame choppy animation conveys the stated message better than would a still image. It seems more like a method to ridicule the concept of fursuiters and erotic actions in fursuits. As such, I don't just find the image unnecessary, but also skirting on inappropriate. I think it should be replaced with a still. After all, the Wikipedia is not here as a tool for mockery. --Mickel 12:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Furries is not intrested of att have a sexual thing in the fandom. Furry Fandom is an livstyle, and I am wery thanksful and pride of to a member into the Furry Fandom and I have friends in this. Peoples will destroy the Furry Fandom and autpainted us just like perverse gays. But Furry Fandom is an subculture. Yes thats finds YIFFY on the net, but that is an litle litle werry litle piece of wath the Furry Fandom stay for.... Best Regards Smirre.

Well it's just that I'm fearful that if it was made a still-frame, that no one would realize that they are moving. It would look like they were just sitting there--and would loose meaning. Maybe the gif needs 10 frames for a smoother animation? Also, I think it should be compared with the main page of http://www.fursuitsex.com Just take a look please and compare that with the one of two furries in suits? The animated gif on the article now seems so mild and tame in comparrison. Arights 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But I still don't think it even needs to be there. Especially not with the caption, which comes across as very pejorative at the moment. "Behaving in a lewd manner" is pretty judgemental. The rest of the caption is inappropriate as well... They're doing this to "identify themselves as furry"? Where did that come from? It seems like a strange way to achieve that effect. Is that the stated purpouse of the participants? And "identify themselves as furry" is inaccurate as well. This is an article about fursuiters, not furries. The people in the picture are, if anything, fursuiters, but that doesn't mean they are furries. The whole caption apparently wants to cast fursuiters as perverted, and to stick that to furries in general as well, and I am beginning to think the pictures were inserted only for shock value. It's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. --Mickel 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1) The caption is a copy and paste of the article's first sentence.

2) The image came from a documentary on furries. The documentary has been a link on furry fandom article for a long time. Arights 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the images. This and his general contributions on encyclopedia damatica should make it clear that we are dealing with a troll here. --Conti|✉ 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view, does an animated screen capture of TV class as fair use? Surely not. That is my reasoning for why it should be removed. I think the non-animated one should stay in place. Thoughts? Computerjoe's talk 07:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an animated screen capture may constitute a derivative work and therefore have iffy copyright issues. Even a still image from a TV show might not be fair use, because it's being used to illustrate a particular act and not the TV show. As for the non-animated picture that was on this page, copyright issues aside, I've nominated it for deletion as it's cropped beyond recognition. I couldn't make out what it was from the thumbnail, and it even took me several seconds of staring at the full-size version before I figured out what it was supposed to be. —Psychonaut 07:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image is too poor to recognize. I restored the images because it's easier for someone to judge for the deletion article. I think again that maybe the article could use a screenshot from that website mentioned in here (the porn one--I didn't look) because it's easy to prove its legitimacy as fair use. SnowConeYellow 07:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

fursuitsex

I'm not going to look there. Can someone else visit http://www.fursuitsex.com and see if it should go here as a link or some picture off it? I'm about to eat my lunch. SnowConeYellow 07:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SnowConeYellow is an obvious sockpuppet in my opinion. Just look at their contributions, he started editing about an hour after User:Arights stopped editing and asked Jimbo Wales right on to remove the block, tries to readd the images, etc. Just so you know. :) --Conti|✉ 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Readers and editors of this article may wish to vote on deletion of the following images, which are or were recently used on this article:

• Image:FursuitAttachment.jpg (Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_10)
• Image:Skunki Squibb yiff.jpg (Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_11)
• Image:Fursuitact.gif (Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_11)

(I also need to post this here because at least one of the uploaders' talk pages has been protected.) —Psychonaut 11:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wikitionary entry

This defines a term. It can't really describe furverts, since most people don't reffer to themselves as such. Transwiki or merge to furry fandom? One of those. Thoughts? Lotusduck 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge

The old text of this article actually suggested visiting furry fandom for more information. This article could possibly be expanded with a better explanation of "furry fetish," or it could be merged with furry fandom (with the information on this page now, the only useful part is the term's definition, which could easily be mentioned at "Sex and Furry Fandom" on furry fandom). --Krishva 09:08, July 16, 2005 (

animated graphic

I don't think the animated graphic is neccesary, and should be replaced with a still of the same, or a different picture entirely. --Guyjin 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)guyjin

I've seen a ten minute animated graphic about biology and evolution (had some part of sperm and gamites) in an article. Would you consider this unnecessary? Guess what! The article was featured on the front page of wikipedia. The graphic is basically illustrating a truth that only animation can provide, people can use fursuits in an erotic manner. This graphic is more informative than a still or two images together because it shows how to have sex in a fursuit. When I come to wikipedia I want to find information and don't want to be confused because someone censored an animated graphic. I hope you see the importance of this now. Arights 11:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't really agree that a two-frame choppy animation conveys the stated message better than would a still image. It seems more like a method to ridicule the concept of fursuiters and erotic actions in fursuits. As such, I don't just find the image unnecessary, but also skirting on inappropriate. I think it should be replaced with a still. After all, the Wikipedia is not here as a tool for mockery. --Mickel 12:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Al Furries is not intrested of att have a sexual thing in the fandom. Furry Fandom is an livstyle, and I am wery thanksful and pride of to a member into the Furry Fandom and I have friends in this. Peoples will destroy the Furry Fandom and autpainted us just like perverse gays. But Furry Fandom is an subculture. Yes thats finds YIFFY on the net, but that is an litle litle werry litle piece of wath the Furry Fandom stay for.... Best Regards Smirre.

Well it's just that I'm fearful that if it was made a still-frame, that no one would realize that they are moving. It would look like they were just sitting there--and would loose meaning. Maybe the gif needs 10 frames for a smoother animation? Also, I think it should be compared with the main page of http://www.fursuitsex.com Just take a look please and compare that with the one of two furries in suits? The animated gif on the article now seems so mild and tame in comparrison. Arights 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But I still don't think it even needs to be there. Especially not with the caption, which comes across as very pejorative at the moment. "Behaving in a lewd manner" is pretty judgemental. The rest of the caption is inappropriate as well... They're doing this to "identify themselves as furry"? Where did that come from? It seems like a strange way to achieve that effect. Is that the stated purpouse of the participants? And "identify themselves as furry" is inaccurate as well. This is an article about fursuiters, not furries. The people in the picture are, if anything, fursuiters, but that doesn't mean they are furries. The whole caption apparently wants to cast fursuiters as perverted, and to stick that to furries in general as well, and I am beginning to think the pictures were inserted only for shock value. It's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. --Mickel 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1) The caption is a copy and paste of the article's first sentence.

2) The image came from a documentary on furries. The documentary has been a link on furry fandom article for a long time. Arights 01:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the images. This and his general contributions on encyclopedia damatica should make it clear that we are dealing with a troll here. --Conti|✉ 04:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view, does an animated screen capture of TV class as fair use? Surely not. That is my reasoning for why it should be removed. I think the non-animated one should stay in place. Thoughts? Computerjoe's talk 07:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an animated screen capture may constitute a derivative work and therefore have iffy copyright issues. Even a still image from a TV show might not be fair use, because it's being used to illustrate a particular act and not the TV show. As for the non-animated picture that was on this page, copyright issues aside, I've nominated it for deletion as it's cropped beyond recognition. I couldn't make out what it was from the thumbnail, and it even took me several seconds of staring at the full-size version before I figured out what it was supposed to be. —Psychonaut 07:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the image is too poor to recognize. I restored the images because it's easier for someone to judge for the deletion article. I think again that maybe the article could use a screenshot from that website mentioned in here (the porn one--I didn't look) because it's easy to prove its legitimacy as fair use. SnowConeYellow 07:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

fursuitsex

I'm not going to look there. Can someone else visit http://www.fursuitsex.com and see if it should go here as a link or some picture off it? I'm about to eat my lunch. SnowConeYellow 07:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

User:SnowConeYellow is an obvious sockpuppet in my opinion. Just look at their contributions, he started editing about an hour after User:Arights stopped editing and asked Jimbo Wales right on to remove the block, tries to readd the images, etc. Just so you know. :) --Conti|✉ 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Readers and editors of this article may wish to vote on deletion of the following images, which are or were recently used on this article:

• Image:FursuitAttachment.jpg (Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_10)
• Image:Skunki Squibb yiff.jpg (Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_11)
• Image:Fursuitact.gif (Wikipedia:Images_for_deletion#April_11)

(I also need to post this here because at least one of the uploaders' talk pages has been protected.) —Psychonaut 11:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wikitionary entry

This defines a term. It can't really describe furverts, since most people don't reffer to themselves as such. Transwiki or merge to furry fandom? One of those. Thoughts? Lotusduck 20:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)