Talk:Furry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Furry article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

dude, you are sooo right!!! I'll join you covering my ears. --GodEmperorOfHell 03:35, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

---

This article is one of those who have made me laugh the most, Chile, 7:01 17-feb-2006, local time

---

I have mostly re-written this article for humor-enhancement, and to attempt to save it from being merged. The Alternate article of Furries just doesn't seem to capture the essence of an "Awesome" encyclopedia article. I mean Furries are just Begging to be poked fun at, and that's the best we can come up with? Any comments? --SomeRandomObserver 1035HRS 02272006 (Unknown Time Zone)

So wait, you didn't like the fact that the article was slated for merging into furries . . . and so you made a new article on exactly the same topic? Wouldn't it be better to just make this a redirect and then change furries?

Uncyclopedia's stance is that such duplicity (or triplicity, quadricity, etc. - see Jesus) adds to the humorous effect. Thus, we should always strive for ambiguation of any topic which merits the attention. Honore de Ballsack 02:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think your prose is particularly good - it seems like it just rehashes a lot of the old things people have been saying about furries since . . . what, 2001? 1998? It doesn't incorporate any real knowledge of the fandom, and as a result it's not funny to me. But eh, I'm a furry. Maybe I'm just jaded. :-) GreenReaper 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As an example of what I mean by knowledge, furries has various things incorporated into it that are in fact a part of furry history, most notably The Furry Manifesto (and the fact that furries have in fact been infiltrating government agencies). And how can you diss the Yiff Cannon? GreenReaper 12:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're an idiot for making fun of furries, both in general AND using Uncyclopedia to do it. That's pretty damn pathetic. Andreus 17:37 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm a furry myself, don't be a damn tool, man. They want a reaction. If you see someone making fun of furries, ignore them, unless they threaten physical violence, in which I give you the right to deck them across the face. Oh yeah, and I think this article is incredibly better than the other, in every way. Yeah. RaphaelFaunus 05:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, Andreus, he IS a furry. 69.160.28.78 01:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting

I've been criticized for a lot of reasons in my day, my quality of writing has very rarely been one of them. I had failed a class before, on account of my writing being so good that the teacher was convinced I had plagiarized articles from magazines, as "no student in this school system could have written anything like this".

Still, your discussion is certainly valid... I guess the primary reason I would rather not rewrite or modify "furries" is that it's not a bad article, and I would prefer to refrain from re-writing someone else's hard work unless it genuinely sucks. I know that if I liked an article I had written, and someone completely obliterated it's original content or purpose I'd feel somewhat miffed. My re-writes of Lord Arthexis and Grantoc fell into that category, both eliminated by the admins. Oh well, never said I was perfect. Generally, VFD and NRD tags are usually clues I try to go by, (or if I read it and think "Holy Lord, what a pile of steaming crap!)

Also, I'm anti-furry, or at least, I enjoy pretending to be, so that would be a point of contention between our differing opinions. My article is decidedly anti-furry and heavily biased, so yeah I can certainly understand your opinion. (Not that I genuinely carry any real concern on the topic, merely a sense of relative befuddlement on the whole subject.) -somerandomobserver 23feb2006 0802hrsT

I guess my main problem was not that it was badly written, on technical merit, but that it was just like any other "oh, look at furry, isn't it horrifying?" tongue-in-cheek article on any number of websites (at least you could have tried to get God involved). The first paragraph was classic "this confuses me, so I'm going to write about it anyway" that I've seen a hundred times before.

The personal tone didn't help that impression. I liked the Psychology bit the best because:

• it wasn't written in a personal tone, and
• it actually had (more than) a grain of truth in there

I don't mind anti-furry writing per-se. I think it can be great if done well . . . but if it sounds like something I've seen before it'll get a sigh rather than a laugh. Especially since I get the feeling that everyone else is pretending as well and only writes the stuff to look cool (in the last paragraph it sounds like you're afraid furries are getting laid and you aren't, which is kinda humourous I guess, but probably not intentional :-). GreenReaper 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Didn't this page used to be better?

What happened to the "furry school" and "habitrail" pictures? Now this article is just a bunch of mismatched junk. --KUK nerd

That was furries, until this edit. GreenReaper 12:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Haha. Why am I not surprised to find GreenReaper here? Furries. Just can't let anybody poke a little fun at them without sticking their noses in... --anonymous

Well, they are such very long noses. Besides, they're often the ones doing the poking. GreenReaper 11:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Where did the furry onion entry goto?

Why two articles?

Why do we have Furry and Furries? Should they be merged? - User:Guest/sig 13:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Furries has been redirected to Furry. Furluminati 03:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm.

I'm tempted not to revert this. It seems so appropriate.

...Nah, out it goes. --Erwin Rommel 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Even if Oscar Wilde is the person to quote on Uncyclopedia, wouldn't it be funnier if the quote is actually attributed to Monty Python, since this was actually one of their sketches? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ihuv5z6nqWw

== UNJUST & DISHONORABLE ACTS ==

I think all wikifur users, and the fandom in general, should be made aware of the tactics and dirty tricks the site dictat - excuse me, ADMINISTRATORS - employ to get their way.

GREENREAPER - changing voting policy after the fact to support the underlings of his dictatorship.

There was no consensus between those debating the issue. The name will be kept, because only one of those supporting its removal is an unrelated party and a regular editor of WikiFur with a majority of their edits outside of this topic, as opposed to four of those opposing its removal. Half of those supporting removal had less than 10 edits on WikiFur. Of those who had more, none had more than 200 edits, and only one was not mainly or solely involved with this situation. Conversely, three of those opposing removal are WikiFur administrators with two-year track records and thousands of unrelated edits, and one other editor also appears otherwise uninvolved with this conflict. (These policies WERE NOT stated until AFTER voting was finished, and were used simply to gain an unfair advantage in favor of what he and his fellow controlers wanted.)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

SPIROU - removal of votes in favor of redaction, then claiming that he hadn't seen the votes and needed to "contact them to find out".

I voted to have his name removed because the recent continuation of this whole facade is becoming unreasonably reaching on the borderline of internet harasment on Mozdoc sake. Yes he may of said some things that were regrettable and I understand that you wish to protect users, but to hold someones real life information against their wishes is wrong and most probably illegal. There are websites like Fchan has a DNP list of those who wish not to have their information posted against their wishes.. Moz has told me that he only wants this page to be taken down and that he can move on from this ridiculousness. I already gave him advice to follow if this does continue on beyond Anthrocon.. I wish you luck Moz.. - Dunc (aka Duncan Wulfweards) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.166.142.24 (talk • contribs) 00:38 and 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think its a bit of an invasion of privacy to have Mozodc's real name on here for everyone to see. Hellkat9940 05:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick inquiring note has been sent to users Hellcat9940, and Duncan Wulfweards to confirm that you have their permission to add their votes to the matter at hand. Spirou 20:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC) (Duncan Wulfweards made it clear BEYOND ALL DOUBT that he was voting.... for redaction - Yet Spirou deleted his vote ANYWAY)

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

CUBIST - General harrassment & support of dishonest actions by Spirou(re: vote deletion)

Shorter 'Vladuz': "If we don't remove Mozdoc's real name from his Wikifur page, the terrorists win!" Overblown histrionics much, V-boy? I say you're a concern troll, and I say the hell with you. And my vote remains the same. Cubist 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

sez mozdoc: "I WAS AHEAD BY ONE VOTE AT THE MORNING OF JULY SEVENTH." Really? There were seven votes "in your corner" (as it were)? Who is it that cast this elusive seventh vote, please? Cubist 08:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

sez Mozdoc: "Excuse me, but KendricksRedtail shouldn't even be fucking counted in this because his declaration of opposing removal of my name came SEVEN MINUTES AFTER THE 12:01A DEADLINE THAT WE *ALL* AGREED TO." Beggin' yer pardon, Mozdoc, but for some strange reason, I think [a particular edit of Kendricks Redtail's that was timestamped 2 May 2007] just might be relevant to your argument here... Cubist 10:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC) (This voting was not in effect on May 2nd, 2007, so how can any such edit count towards offsetting Kendrick's voting AFTER the deadline?)

As for my not editing elsewhere, GREENREAPER conveniently leaves out certain facts in his desperate attempt to justify his dishonest and cowardly tactics.

As the situation now stands, wikifur itself is damaging to the reputation of the fandom.

Okay, whatever goes on on Wikifur, when you start citing stuff that actually happenned, it'll inevitably descend into flaming and we'll end up with an Encyclopedia Dramatica article on our hands. Try to concentrate on being funny rather than being accurate.

Epic flail

This article is in some pretty bad shape, foo'. Cmon, is this really the best you can come up with for the furry article? Whip this into shape or I'll do it mahself.The-Real-Syko 00:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest, human. Verp

Okay, trekkiefur. The-Real-Syko 09:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Syko can't spell "fail". :D That aside, I rewrote things playing more with that infectious disease theme someone started. This could go somewhere... like how the Furcadia Article spiraled beautifully along the "Mad Science" theme. -- Lamoxlamae 06:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That was a deliberate misepelling :P Okay, so now you have an idea. After reading the Furcadia article, I can see where it came from, so now you have a canon, which could be the basis for a series of articles. But at the minute, we just have small traces of a good idea, mixed in with a few hundred bucketfuls of crap. This article needs a steamroller before you do anything else, which is why it still fails. When rebuilding it from the rubble and crap, you could do with a) avoiding the urge to post excessive external links (if the truth is funnier than the lie, you're not lying hard enough), b) trying to keep a relatively neutral stance - this is a parody of Wikipedia after all, not a troll archive, and if furries themselves actually like article then we won't have drama on our hands - and c) we're also into stereotype territory here, and all the furry-related articles have suffered as a result. Originality is key. The-Real-Syko 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least the "science gone wrong!" slant is something I have not seen on any other site with jokes about furries on it, so it's a good start, that's for sure. Having a cannon could help keep out the crap and ego masturbation a little. As to the other concerns...

1) I didn't add any external links. If you don't like the existing one, remove it.

2) I did my best to write as if an observer to mimic the scientific tone on the parts I rewrote. Going to dink around some tonight on the parts I didn't edit much (mostly the religion area). Any other spots need some work to stay observational in feel?

3) What part was sterotypical especially? Thus far I've avoided the following stereotypes: bestiality/zoophilia, the wild sex-crazed freaks (saying that Yiffing appears to be a communication form is a joke), the freaky fetishist, the drama whores and the "we're just innocently here for toon animals, really". I did touch on the "there's no straight male furries" and "herms EVERYWHERE!" as they tend to be underused in comparison that I've seen. Besides, there being no such thing as girls on the internet is a running gag on uncyclopedia, so keeping something similar might be good. :) Would CYD's "Furry Refinery" stance be better than the Fender Scale? It has a colorful diagram!

Thanks for opinions, they help the refining. :) Furry fandom takes itself too serious anyway. --- Lamoxlamae 07:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You haven't gone down the road of stereotypes yet, I'm just giving you a warning. That is a purdy lil diagram, but you'd need to fit the article around it. Unfortunately, the article still needs a steamroller; ie. delete the lot and start from scratch. I would but I'm far too lazy right now. The-Real-Syko 16:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

@ RewriteIP

Cool, this version is much better than what was there before. I'm considering pulling the IC nomination and just letting you run with this. I've only glanced at it and seen that your concept is rather interesting, but could use some flushing out. I'm not too worried about it, all I care about is that this is much better than the previous version. Kudos for that. But please don't be too disappointed if this does eventually get colonized and we use this idea. You're free to make an account and join us if you like. Cheers! —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I was cooking my own version up to replace the pile of carp there was before, but I may just incorporate the best bits into this. Gis ym esiladnav! _LOB 18:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good advice, I did register. More then anthing this thread need to be original and writen with, like all truely great articles here, with the illusion of seriousness. I think this works rather well at that, in any case it is not the same old unfunny bashing over and over again. If someone just wants a place to bash furries we might as well go back to the baseless, unfunny, and poorly written/put together article that was there before because honestly that's all there really is to fur bashing. Oh and don't think because I just registered now i'm new here, been lurking since 2006. :) Nirny42 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well aren't we special. =) If you feel like it, you can come help out with Imperial Colonization if you're so interested in improving articles. —Sir SysRq (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Might as well, some articles I noticed read like a copy/paste straight out of 4chan, and in some cases actaully are.

Nirny42 22:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This is terrible

The article from 2-3 years ago was far superior to this one. I didn't even crack a smile at this one. Someone please revert it back to the old one.

One: please sign your posts. It's annoying when we're looking back it this talk page and we can't tell who left what. Two: Specify a verion plz. 2-3 years ago is a big ass range of articles! Gis ym esiladnav! _LOB 12:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The version at furries before redirecting was better. Plus it had catgirls! Things went downhill at the end of 2007; this is just drivel that hasn't been written with any knowledge of furries. Not funny. GreenReaper 04:21, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

The Problem With this Article

...Is that due to being such a controversial topic it's to get funny without displaying it as though it were written from the point of view of a furry trying to preserve the fandom's good name or a troll just using every opportunity he can get to bad mouth it. Speaking from the point of view of a furry himself, I don't want this to look like the page for furries in Wikifur or the page for furries in ED, neither are funny. Psycholian 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

the fandom's "good name" .... now THAT's comedy.

(Sign your posts, even if you don't have an account) Well, preserving a bad name wouldn't be useful now would it? Psycholian 21:36, September 13, 2009 (UTC)

What the page needs is an overarching theme. I suggest "international conspiracy". Furries would make a great - if incompetent - subversive organization. It captures both the sinister and silly sides of furry fandom. GreenReaper 16:18, October 8, 2009 (UTC)

There we go. A few further suggestions for expansion:

• The Decline and Fall of ConFurence (after a suspicious leadership change and the decision to change the timing of the event)
• Lapism International (see WikiFur's upcoming events for flavour)
• Sex (accusations of non-homosexual activity within the Church), leading to babyfurs (offspring of converted Lapists who may be suppressed due to their innate psychic abilities)

Enjoy! GreenReaper 06:55, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

K, that was Win. cchristian was here

I don't bring it up out-of-context but I'm a furry and this article is okay. I don't care about any offensive bits or anything because I'm just amazed that there's a furry article that doesn't suck. Way to go.--Count of Monkey Crisco 11:36, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

Redux

So I went away for a few months and look what happened. Please, people. Uncyclopedia is not just an incoherent version of ED. It has class, and it is funny.

Coming within spitting distance of the truth can be funny, but jamming an article with random facts, popular memes and images is not. People can get those elsewhere. They come here for a coherent, illustrated story.

Now, here's the good things about that version:

• The "furry as a virus" concept had promise, especially because it worked in some facts about different types of furs (but was overwhelmed by the crap)
• Some of the links were to good articles
• Some of the images are good (the "Adam and Eve" one was particularly appropriate, and could, say, illustrate an excerpt from the Book of Genesis according to Lapists)

If we can work those in over time, we'll probably have a better article. GreenReaper 06:09, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let's have a look at this sumbitch...

Right now this article is suffering from a severe case of "crap", because if it's written by furries it ends up as propaganda, and if it's written by non-furries then it ends up looking like Encyclopedia Dramatica. And anything actually funny that does find its way here is usually borrowed from CYD. So you see our quandary.

I think Furry would be a good candidate for Imperial Colonization, to which I'm going to reapply and suggest this. The-Real-Syko 14:47, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Furry article from ED is neutralized

I removed most offending material and replaced it with funny shit.--Wakkoswish123 (talk) 03:33, May 4, 2013 (UTC) Wonder why this article is so ED-like.--Wakkoswish123 (talk) 04:26, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Have you even READ what the writers before you posted above you? Either it tends to sound like ED with the anti-furry point of view, or else it ends up like propaganda with a pro-furry point of view. NEITHER is desirable. Please quit replacing the article with propaganda. Propaganda isn't funny. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 06:02, May 5, 2013 (UTC)

Furry 2: The new version

I made some self deprecating humor, mostly involving Satan. Please build on this article so Furries and non-furs alike can laugh at it.--Wakkoswish123 (talk) 11:55, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

No, despite the new tweaks, what I see happening is mostly a revert to your version before your ban, reinstating some of the crudeness and point-of-view we sought to remove from the article. I have reinstated the ban and asked the Admin who last issued it to review the case. Spıke Ѧ 12:14 5-Jun-13

Re-adding the "what you can do to help" section gives your whole (furry) point of view away, and ruins it for nonfurries. Your changes read mostly like propaganda for the furry cause, with the exception of the satanism angle, which just isn't funny enough the way it's implemented. You are continuing your edit war, Wakkoswish123, and you should not continue to edit this article when your ban is expired. You can write an alternate article in your userspace if you like, but your rewrite of the mainspace article is not authorized. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 18:43, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

You know, it would probably be funnier if it were outright furry propaganda. GreenReaper (talk) 19:03, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

It could be, but that approach tends not to work: Making fun of extreme political groups, religions, or lifestyles (or anything that has serious opponents) by exaggerating doesn't work because it reads almost the same as the stuff that comes from their opponents. Spıke Ѧ 19:07 5-Jun-13

Furries are a culture like any other.

Uncyclopedia is intended for a laugh, but in my opinion articles go too far. I am of course, guilty of bias (I haven't said this when it's harming the other party), but I believe that this article can be funny without bring hurtful. As a proud furry I stand against this. If you are a furry that has too, been insulted by this, please stand with me. Especially under Notes. UDON'TKNOWME0000 (talk) 17:21, May 27, 2017 (UTC)

No, what you mean to say is that you will not tolerate humor when it disparages you or your "community." (Have you seen what we did to Islam?) And you admit you have a double standard, or more clearly no standard at all. See my remarks above; Admins and editors have already softened this article a lot. Also see Poe's Law, which suggests that editors not take serious issue with a community's beliefs but instead mock their sillier tendencies. Clearly, humor is better when no one sees it as hurtful, but our usual standard is simply that the average reader not see it as overt advocacy. I doubt you could do it better than the editors of this article did. Spıke 🎙️18:20 27-May-17

For hurtfulness to a community, see also what I did to my beloved Tea Party movement. Spıke 🎙️18:21 27-May-17

Okay, I guess you're right, but Uncyclopedia should be slightly less merciless. UDON'TKNOWME0000 (talk) 01:56, May 29, 2017 (UTC)

If you think you can write an article that is even funnier and does not deprecate the community, then get started at, say, User:UDON'TKNOWME0000/Furry fandom. This article is protected against anonymous edits but was never voted to run on the website main page, and you could argue at Votes for Deletion that your rendition is a suitable replacement article. ((PS--But overt fanboy boosterism will not be seen here as comedy!) Spıke 🎙️02:03 29-May-17