Talk:Furcadia/Archive 1

What was wrong with the long article? - Stoph 02:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Explanation for major edit: Too much information

The original article included far too much irrelevent information. The "underlying principles" section just outlined the game's basic conduct rules, which are not unique to this game and are in fact widely referred to as "common courtesy." Therefore that section was unnecessary. Anyone who cares enough about the game's rules to want to read them all specifically will visit the Furcadia website.

Too much detail was written about the Digos. The kind of detail provided would only be necessary to people who already use the game and would like to pay for Digos.

Other minor edits were made for clarity or to better condense the article into something more concise and less overly verbose. As it was, it sounded like it was advertising the game's features instead of simply explaining it. -- Krishva 03:10, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was quite ruthless, but I was worried about the whole section of the article you removed being a copyvio anyway; it sure looked like one. The article has become a bit loose now, though... but that will probably be fixed with time. --Sn0wflake 03:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I like unnecessary detail, provided by employees of DEP, to advertise Furcadia, on Wikipedia! :(

Really, though, I'd considered editing out a great deal of the "principles" and digo stuff as well, as it was extraordinarily opinionated and clearly not from a neutral point-of-view. But I was fairly certain that those who are constantly watching this page would've simply reversed my edits. Seeing how someone else edited that stuff out, I commend you, as well as whoever added the fact that Furcadia is Furry game. Because Wikipedia is neither a soapbox, nor advertising space. Otherwise, every company that exists, could post long articles about it's "principles" (and what company wouldn't claim to advocate basic principles of virtue, such as kindness and tolerance, and claim to practice them? as you said, it's common courtesy), as well as posting product information. But this is an encyclopedia, not advertising or a soapbox. I mean, it's rather ridiculous to go on for paragraphs about Furcadia's "principles", but then leave its clearly strong ties with the furry fandom, to be described by an indescriptive link at the bottom of the page. I mean, the repeated mention of furry convention and all of its founders being furries, it should be mentioned. Unless, of course, those doing the editing are doing it for advertising purposes, and claiming to have a wider demographic is beneficial.

It's outrageous, that not just employees of DEP, but its founders would edit this wiki. Obviously, regardless of the case, or their personal feelings, that causes the page to be advocating a positive opinion, rather than remaining a neutral description. Essentially, what I'm trying to say, is that this article was about as neutral as if Bin Laden wrote an article about Al-Qaeda or if Bill Gates wrote an article about Microsoft. I'm sure they'd claim to support and practice your common sense "principles", that the founders hold dear, with a "brilliant community spirit", as well. Nathyn 19:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the actual founders

Just for the record - I'm one of the two people that made Furcadia back in 1996. I saw this article when it was first submitted to Wikipedia, it was written by one of our more enthusiastic members of our volunteer program. (Also one of our brighter and more talented ones.) I have to say I agree that it was longer than is called for here, and went into more details than most people would want to know - especially people who don't play the game. It doesn't bother me in the least that the article was edited and shortened. I think it makes us look better, actually, to have something that's much more concise. Let people know basically what it is, then they can go to the game's website if they want to know more, or get one with their lives if they don't! Anyway I wanted to clear up any misunderstanding, since someone suggested the original article had been written by Dragon's Eye staff. I do think the original author's article was well written, but that level of detail might be more appropriate for a game review website than for an encyclopedia. Good show, editing people.  :)

  -- Felorin / Dr. Cat

mp3 support

I mentioned that mp3 format audio files were supported as sound files (not music) because I had read that they were now. (the furcadia website has many legacy pages, one of which does not list mp3s among the supported file types). I read this on the furcadia forums in a thread by Carrie O'Caye (sp?), however, the furcadia forums are currently down so I can't verify it. could someone could verify that mp3s are supported officially or not? I know from personal experience that mp3s can be played in dreams as both music and sound files (by changing the file extension or simply leaving it as is), but I don't know if mp3s are officially supported.

I agree that mp3s should be left off the list if they aren't officially supported, but I think they are (at least as sound files). does anybody know?

--kotra 04:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

forums are back up, here's the thread I was talking about. To make sure that Carrie O'Kaye was still correct (it's a pretty old thread), I verified that mp3s are supported music (not sound, my mistake) files in a test dream I made in Furcadia. But, since they're not officially supported, I'll leave it off the list of supported music files, although they are supported unofficially. --kotra 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Proxy client section

I suggest a short proxy client section describing what proxies are and what features they contribute to Furcadia. since Furcadia has gained enough of a community for its users to actively create software specifically for it, I think they deserve mentioning. only a short section, mind you. this could also incorporate links to Wikipedia entries of the 3 most popular proxies (there already is an article on Furnarchy).

Possibly the Proxies section could go between Dreams and Technical Information. --kotra 03:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

also, a Proxies section would alleviate the problems I'm having with the external links (there should be a link to the existing Furnarchy page, but it doesn't work (obviously) inside an external link. --kotra 03:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

since the addition of mFurc to the external links, maybe the section should instead be about third-party software related to furc. now that I think about it again, though, such a section may not be appropriate within the Furcadia article. maybe a separate article listing proxies and other software would be more appropriate, if anything at all. --kotra 10:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I added the mFurc link because it seemed relevant--I admit I may be a little biased about it. I don't think additional software deserves its own wiki page. Jonathan Grynspan 04:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that mFurc is relevant. I guess the links to software are okay for now. If a bunch more links are added though then a subcategory of links would be in order. -kotra 05:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to WTWiki does not belong here

WTWiki, while related tangentially to Furcadia, does not belong in this article. To quote from WP:EL, some examples of links to normally avoid are:

1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)

...
3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
...
9. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

NOTE relating to items #3 and #9:

Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other - neutral - wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included.

If you wish to promote your wiki, a better place to do it would be on Furcadia itself, on the Furcadia forums (as one of you already did, although you can still add more information about it on the forums), or even on Furcadia Wiki if they allow it. Be creative. -kotra 21:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What you say is true. However, the wtwiki is not only a wiki concerning the populance of the wisdom tree, but it also documents furnarchy, as these two go hand in hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.212.86.209 (talk • contribs)

Furthermore, #9 shouldn't apply, considering Ghost Tiger is a maintainer of this wikipage and makes no concessions for the fact that his site is linked. To that extent, his linking could also be construed as "promotional". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.169.221 (talk • contribs)

In regards to 80.212's statement, even if wtwiki talks about both "the populace of the wisdom tree" and furnarchy, it still wouldn't be "a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view". It might come close to it if this article described or had a link to an opposite point of view from those given on wtwiki. But as this article stands now, there are no points of view - positive or negative - about Furnarchy or "the populace of the wisdom tree."

As for Ghost Tiger's linking his own software, it is true that it violates rule 9. However, if we removed the link and then he linked it on this discussion page, someone else (probably me) would re-add the link to the article, because it's relevant and would comply with the guidelines. So there isn't really a point of going through that process because the outcome would be the same as it is already.

Note: if there was an article about The Wisdom Tree or Wisdom Tree Wiki then the link would be perfectly appropriate for it, because it would be directly relevant. However, it would probably get deleted as a non-notable article, and someone outside your group would have to create it and add the link. -kotra 23:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok so wikirules aren't set in stone like you acted and its really arbitrary as to what is appropriate. Gotcha. I'm glad your credibility is as shaky as your integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.178.24 (talk • contribs)

"However, if we removed the link and then he linked it on this discussion page, someone else (probably me) would re-add the link to the article, because it's relevant and would comply with the guidelines"

From what I see, "the guidelines" just refers to your interpretation of the rules, not what they mean universally. #9 wouldn't apply if one of you added Ghost Tiger's link after he posted it on the discussion page-- by the same token, we could easily have a neutral party add our link. You do not make the wiki page, nor do you constitute the sole voice in the wiki's maintaining. If majority rules, then we could easily have a war for majority -- this would be immature and baseless, but at least your "guidelines" would be followed.

What I see is simply that you don't find our link relevent; by that measure, since you're so concerned with bias, I would say that you're unfit to make this judgment call. Don't flout the "guidelines" in one breath and explain how to loophole them immediately afterwards if you really want to be taken seriously.

Do I really need to throw an NPOV tag on the page to top it off? No. Don't make it come down to that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.169.221 (talk • contribs)

This is Ghost Tiger, in Wikipedia form. I added the link to my page while consulting with people on the talk page (here) -- there was no opposition. I'm not going to re-add it if it's removed, since it is technically a violation of rule 9. I only added it because it's an alternate client for Mac OS X that's condoned (or tolerated?) by DEP.

That said, the wiki link that keeps getting added is a POV link with unverifiable information (e.g. the page on Felorin) Wikipedia wouldn't quote Something Awful as a source, and nor is it reasonable to reference WTWiki. Jonathan Grynspan 16:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Before I address your points, I want to remind you that personal attacks aren't allowed here. Also it would be helpful if you sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~ to make the discussion easier to read. And if you registered a name some editors would take you a bit more seriously too. Just some suggestions.

"by the same token, we could easily have a neutral party add our link."

I agree, and I never said you couldn't do that. Please do not put words in my mouth. If you do get a neutral third party to add the link though, it would be best if they have a registered name on Wikipedia and not someone who could be mistaken as a sockpuppet. Nevertheless, even if the link was added by a neutral third party, it probably would still be removed because it falls under condition 1, and it isn't as directly related to the subject of the article (Furcadia) as the other external links. And yes, I understand that my claims that WTWiki is original research, inaccurate information, etc. are completely my own biased opinion, but I feel that it's an opinion that would be shared by all or most other editors (including you if you stepped back and looked at it objectively, I'd hazard).

As for a war for majority, that would solve nothing because Wikipedia usually works on consensus, not majority. And if no consensus can be reached, then usually the original edit is reverted. I am not making a "judgement call", my word is not law of course. Nice straw man though.

And I don't know how you came up with "loophole". If you were referring to my explanation of the mFurc link, please read it again. There is no loophole; the reason why the mFurc link is different from yours is that it doesn't fall under condition 1. In addition, it is more directly related to the Furcadia article. Again, my opinion. And also because I'm not interested in going through the process of removing the mFurc link and then re-adding it just to make a point. That would be a waste of everyone's time.

And if you want to put a NPOV tag on it, go ahead. It's not much of a threat. Note that if you're being sarcastic I have no idea because Wikipedia editors have no sense of humor. -kotra 05:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you really know what we're getting at here; first of all you're using various underhanded tactics to try to sound more like an authority on the subject, and that's unfair -- if Wikipedia is truly a consensus, then trying to make us out to be clueless of the 'guidelines' by citing various things we've done wrong on the talk page is really not helping anything but your own ego. Second of all, we've thus argued you down to having thrown two of your rule violations out of the window. Not only does this reflect poorly on the fact that you accused us of them in the first place, but also on the state of your argument in general.

Primarily, what bugs me about this "tangentially" modifier is that you stated several times that "the wiki is about Furcadia, not the WT." That's fine, but the article is also about Furcadia, not about proxies. Tangentially related information seem to be the keywords when a wiki article is formulated, and I'll prove it. Go to the World of Warcraft entry; chosen because it bears a resemblence to the style of game we're discussing here. Not only is there -- in an internal wiki link, no doubt -- a link to a "popular meme", but there are links to character databases specific to certain areas. Furthermore, there's a very important section right at the end entitled "Criticisms". This is an important distinction, considering from what I've read in the edit history, a lot of effort has been taken so that these "criticisms" about Furcadia are not made known. Other, more edited and patrolled entries seem to think that alternate viewpoints, humour, and criticism are a part of Wikipedia. Now who's objective?

You keep throwing this word around, 'objectivity'. You use it as if you know what it means and place faith in that you follow the definition to the letter. Frankly, I have seen no evidence that this is the case. Your version of 'objectivity' appears simply to be a patchwork of rehashes of the phrase 'what we believe is correct as a group is therefore correct', which is undeniably false. I would argue that all of you have something in common-- you all belong to a certain demographic on Furcadia. Otherwise, you would not be here trying to protect an article from someone's alternate viewpoint. You accuse me of using a 'straw man' in calling what you're doing a judgment call, but you haven't provided any evidence that it's anything else. A bunch of people are sitting around with different opinions on the same matter. You believe that since your people have seniority, you should have the final say. You can quote guidelines all you want, but to be honest, I haven't seen you explain the guidelines that you've quoted in any way that makes any sense. Subsequently, you've decided that while we may have violated those rules, so did you, and therefore that particular argument is moot. You keep bringing up "original research", and explaining that since the WTWiki is written by people who lived the history, it is unverifiable and therefore not fit to be posted.

I argue that since the people that write, edit, and guard this entry are all Furcadians, the editing process is essentially just more of your "original research", and that if you are to accuse us of altering or censoring our particular history, I can do the same for all of you. This is an external link, remember, and not an entire wiki article.

Thus, I call into question all of your originally posted links, all of the edited information you have added to the wiki page since the beginning, and the fact that you consider yourselves the foremost authority. When more frequented articles allow what you won't allow, you have to figure that something's wrong with your little group's way of doing things. -72.136.169.221 14:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are still misunderstanding me. This is probably my fault for not explaining well.

"first of all you're using various underhanded tactics to try to sound more like an authority on the subject, and that's unfair -- if Wikipedia is truly a consensus, then trying to make us out to be clueless of the 'guidelines' by citing various things we've done wrong on the talk page is really not helping anything but your own ego."

I was not trying to make myself sound like an authority, nor was I trying to make you seem clueless. I was genuinely trying to be helpful, and I'm sorry that it was taken as a petty personal attack.

"we've thus argued you down to having thrown two of your rule violations out of the window."

I don't understand how you've come to this conclusion. Conditions 3 and 9 are still valid and apply to your link. I agreed with you that condition 9 (and possibly 3) applied also to the mFurc link. My response, however, was that if the mFurc link was removed, someone else not involved with mFurc would reinstate it. I didn't go through the actual process of removing and reinstating the link because it's bad practice to use Wikipedia to prove a point, and because it would be pointless. Later, I agreed that your link, too, could follow this process, as long as the person who reinstated your link could be reasonably understood to be not involved with your wiki. So the two conditions in question are still there and never left, I've only explained how to have your link not meet them.

"Primarily, what bugs me about this "tangentially" modifier is that you stated several times that "the wiki is about Furcadia, not the WT." That's fine, but the article is also about Furcadia, not about proxies."

Actually I only mentioned the word once and it wasn't a real argument. While you are right that the subject of proxies is similarly distanced from the article's subject, they are generally factually accurate (with the possible exception of the Heroinpuppy link, but it's necessary to maintain NPOV in the external links), and I would argue very useful resources for those who are interested in the Furcadia article. We all know that WTWiki is a satirical wiki occasionally sprinkled with real facts, like Uncyclopedia or Encyclopædia Dramatica. But while inaccurate information isn't by itself reason for excluding a link, it also has to be in contrast to an opposing viewpoint, and lastly it has to be notable. While I understand my opinion is not fact, I feel safe to say that your wiki is generally only useful/interesting to those within your group. This is not meant as an insult to your wiki in any way. Only, the subject of the wiki is very specialized to the point that most visitors to the Furcadia article won't find it notable (again, my opinion, but a RfC could be conducted). These, combined with it being added by those associated with the wiki, continue to present a strong argument for removal, and I'm surprised this discussion is persisting while these points are still valid.

"Not only is there -- in an internal wiki link, no doubt -- a link to a "popular meme", but there are links to character databases specific to certain areas."

The "popular meme" link is provided as an example of memes and phenomena in World of Warcraft. If there was a section in the Furcadia article that talked about various groups in Furcadia, then the link would be appropriate in it. However, Furcadia isn't nearly as notable as World of Warcraft, so it probably doesn't deserve such a section. As for the character databases, these are databases of thousands or tens of thousands of characters, not a small group that mentions a dozen or two people. Comparing the character databases to your wiki is unrealistic.

"Furthermore, there's a very important section right at the end entitled "Criticisms". This is an important distinction, considering from what I've read in the edit history, a lot of effort has been taken so that these "criticisms" about Furcadia are not made known. Other, more edited and patrolled entries seem to think that alternate viewpoints, humour, and criticism are a part of Wikipedia."

There is a difference between serious, thoughtful criticism and unencyclopedic rantings, jokes, and other vandalism. No, humor is generally not a part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Humor is better suited for Uncylopedia or Encyclopædia Dramatica. The only places where overserious, humorless Wikipedia editors allow even a little bit of humor is in articles related to humor, like Conan O'Brien or The Onion. Humor doesn't exist in Wikipedia for its own sake, it's there only when it helps to clarify the subject in a NPOV way. That's why the "criticisms" as you call them were reverted. If the "criticisms" you mention weren't reverted in any article, Wikipedia would soon lose whatever credibility it has and would devolve into a steaming pit of chaos. If you think the reverts are unique to the Furcadia article, take a look at the histories of other articles.

"Your version of 'objectivity' appears simply to be a patchwork of rehashes of the phrase 'what we believe is correct as a group is therefore correct', which is undeniably false."

I agree that ultimately objectivity is impossible, because each person has a different and limited perspective of the world. We try to be as objective as possible, however, much in the same way that we try to be as accurate as possible, without ever achieving absolute Truth. When I say that other editors will agree with me, that's not a statement that my opinion is better or more correct than yours, it's simply an indication that consensus on keeping the link will probably never be achieved.

"I would argue that all of you have something in common-- you all belong to a certain demographic on Furcadia. Otherwise, you would not be here trying to protect an article from someone's alternate viewpoint."

I'm not sure what demographic you're talking about, but I think the only thing we have in common as a group is that we use Furcadia and edit Wikipedia. And I'd like to remind you that an alternate viewpoint can only exist if there's an original viewpoint to begin with. I don't see any viewpoint about the Wisdom Tree, Furnarchy, or any of the people mentioned in your wiki, so adding the wtwiki link would be POV because there's nothing to contrast it with.

"You believe that since your people have seniority, you should have the final say."

I don't get how you came to that conclusion. All I'm doing is explaining my position and citing from the Wikipedia guidelines to make my point. I honestly don't know if I have "seniority", if such a concept even exists on Wikipedia. And the only person who has final say on a subject is Jimbo Wales, and perhaps to some extent the administrators, and I'm neither. I never tried to insinuate that I have final say, and if you interpreted my words that way, then all I can say is that it wasn't my intention.

"You can quote guidelines all you want, but to be honest, I haven't seen you explain the guidelines that you've quoted in any way that makes any sense."

I didn't explain the guidelines at the beginning because I assumed you would take it to be an insult to your intelligence. I have tried to explained them earlier in this post, though, so I won't repeat it at this time. If my explanation is still unclear, however (which would be my fault, because I tend to explain things in a convoluted and unclear way), please mention it again.

"Subsequently, you've decided that while we may have violated those rules, so did you, and therefore that particular argument is moot."

I don't think I violated the rules anywhere but I'm sure you'll tell me where I did.

"I argue that since the people that write, edit, and guard this entry are all Furcadians..."

This is not entirely true, there have been editors who hadn't ever heard of Furcadia, and made edits while passing through.

"...the editing process is essentially just more of your "original research", and that if you are to accuse us of altering or censoring our particular history, I can do the same for all of you. This is an external link, remember, and not an entire wiki article."

The information on the Furcadia article is all from either the official Furcadia website (which is referenced) or is common knowledge that could be easily verified by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge. I don't think any of the article falls under original research. And yes, it is an external link, but external links have rules as well (as I mentioned at the very beginning), one of which gives original research as one of its criteria for exclusion, unless other criteria are met, which aren't in this case.

Sorry for being so long-winded. I think this may be the longest post I've made on Wikipedia. Hope I didn't bore you. -kotra 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're still assuming that the majority of our wiki is falsified, which we've proven to be untrue. The reason I brought up the "criticisms" section is because you (and Felorin apparently, as evident by his post here) seem to think that NPOV means that no viewpoint can be considered other than that of the creators. "Original research" is a great way to say that nobody can post anything that isn't on another site, but it's also a great way to make this page not into an informative link, but rather into an advertisement. You're all really good at sales, but you're pretty terrible at explaining yourselves after the fact. -72.136.169.221 01:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember you proving it to be untrue, but perhaps I missed it. As for no viewpoint being allowed besides the original creator's, that is of course absurd. However, if a subject is deserving of one viewpoint, then all other major viewpoints should be presented as well. That is the purpose of NPOV. You may notice on Criticism of World of Warcraft that criticisms are expressed as objectively and factually as possible, including opposing viewpoints where needed. You seem to be drawing conclusions from my posts and Felorin's (year-old) post that simply aren't there. The link advertising issue I'll address below in response to 71.114.178.24. -kotra 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A year ago, in response to someone claiming Dragon's Eye staff wrote the original article, and I replied no, none of us did, one of our players did, and I thought the editors here did the right thing in deleting a bunch of stuff to make the article shorter. And you take this to indicate I was saying "only the creators viewpoints should be considered"? How do you get that out of what I said? The article was written by non-creators and edited by non-creators, the only thing a creator of Furcadia ever did was to post that comment a year ago (and this one now). But for the record, to make it 1000% clear - my personal opinion is that Wikipedia articles like this one SHOULD consider viewpoints other than that of the creators. And as far as I can tell, that's what it's been doing, being entirely written and entirely edited by non-creators of the game. -- Felorin 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick question: External links are required to consist of a NPOV. A NPOV and a business page are generally mutualy exclusive as the page exists to create interest and revenue and as such such will present the subject matter with a skewed sensibility. Is this just another exception to the rules? --00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. WP:EL explains that POV links are okay as long as they are either the subject of the article (for example, eBay), or are directly related to the article and are balanced with an opposing viewpoint. -kotra 03:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the WTwiki link doesn't belong here. It's quite non-notable and self-promoting. It's a personal group wiki for a few dozen players out of tens of thousands. -Neesha 23:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Its one section in question, not the article. Fixed to removed strawman edit.--71.114.178.24 14:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why new image? (also continuation of above discussion)

What was wrong with the old screenshot? I don't mind the new one but in my opinion it's not quite as attractive as the old one. It's also slightly worse quality than the old one, being a jpg. Is there a reason for replacing it? -kotra 04:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Both use the fucking ugly font. --71.114.178.24 01:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Both use the fucking ugly font." Not only is that a very stupid thing to say, it's not even true, since both screenshots use a different font. Hooray, I get to feel superior.

Ok, pedASAntic. Both use a fucking ugly font. --71.114.178.24 22:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, it still doesn't answer my question. -kotra 04:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: quoting from a livejournal entry is confusing for other editors who do not know where the quote came from. This is a public discussion, not just for the benefit of two parties. If you want to comment on a journal entry, it would be appropriate to do it there. -kotra 04:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate for criticisms of the discussion to be placed directly on the discussion page rather than a self-righteous LJ entry that serves more to kiss the ass of kotra and less to add anything meaningful to that which is present here. --71.114.178.24 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If it serves "more to kiss the ass of kotra and less to add anything meaningful to that which is present here" then wouldn't it be more appropriate elsewhere than here?

By the way, I'd like to note that we have a policy of civility on Wikipedia. Profanity and personal attacks aren't necessary when one's arguments are thoughtful and well-constructed.

Regardless, I've reverted the image switch now on the grounds that it is more attractive (my opinion) and slightly better quality, and because there have been no reasons given for the switch. -kotra 09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on attractiveness is overruled by majority, and the quality is of no discernable difference considering the resolution of the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystical Melody (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. We work towards consensus, not majority (perceived or real). I will add that there still haven't been any reasons given in support of the switch.

I am again reverting the edit because there have been no reasons given for it. I urge against turning this into a petty edit war. -kotra 10:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This "not a democracy" link seems like just another pawn in your efforts to try and twist the meaning of 'consensus' around in your favour. If, indeed, Wikipedia is based on a consensus, it's clear that the entire article has thus been called into question; if it is not a democracy, then what would you plan on doing about the fact that several people have made it obvious that they disagree with the one-sided opinion being thrust upon the wikipedia community? Wouldn't you rather have an informative Wiki rather than an advertisement thinly veiled as one? The rules make this very clear. Essentially, what you've created in the eyes of many of the guests here is just a long-winded attempt to get people to download Furcadia disguised as an informative history. What should be here is an article highlighting not only the history of not only the game designers, but also the criticisms that abound about the game (as there are several) as well as access to information about the community itself. -72.136.169.221 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is any "advertising" or biased information on this article, please address it. I see none. This is an article about Furcadia, and I think we can agree that a link to furcadia.com is appropriate. If you take the stance that this article is advertising Furcadia, then you'd have to apply that stance to any computer game article on Wikipedia. A section about criticisms, however, is perfectly welcome as long as it's presented in a NPOV and civil way, like Criticisms of World of Warcraft. There are no objections to criticisms if they're encyclopedic. As for "information about the community", if you're speaking about the WT Wiki link, I still maintain that does not belong here. My reasons were given in the section above, and (in my opinion) have yet to be addressed effectively. If you're speaking about the new image, I don't see how it's any more relevant to the community; in fact, the original is probably more relevant because more people from the community are present and speaking in it.

If you're calling the entire article into question, please explain your stance so that we may discuss it. You may be right for all I know. -kotra 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been through the edit history, and I've seen information removed that could have been better put to use in a "criticisms" section. Rather than edit the information to be stated in "a NPOV and civil way", the information was removed entirely. I think that anyone looking for information about Furcadia would should be privy to the fact that some consider its roleplaying community to be fairly diluted, and by all rights I think that some should know that the majority of Furcadia's users are housed in the 18+ maps, regardless of their age. I'm certainly not going to add the information, because I've seen what your clique does when confronted with a dissenting viewpoint.

Essentially, what my assertion boils down to is that there's a control on the information that can be posted in this article, and your 'consensus' argument is simply a way of locking it. Your impression of consensus is that our link doesn't belong -- thus, it doesn't belong. Our impression of consensus is that the article is not fair and balanced, and to be honest, is a sham in the fact of other MMO articles (even though you don't consider them to be comparable, Felorin has often compared the two). Our consensus doesn't particularly matter, apparently, because I highly doubt you're willing to change anything that was here before we called it into question.

What I'd like to see is a complete overhaul of the article from a truly NPOV; if you abide by the rules you apparently represent, then you can try to hold us to them -- otherwise, I don't truly believe that you have a case at all. - 72.136.169.221 03:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point here. The Furcadia article doesn't have a Controversy/Criticisms section, and perhaps it should. However, the way I see the article right now, is it's neither pro-Furcadia or anti-Furcadia, it just describes Furcadia in an objective and factual way. Not every article needs a Controversy/Criticisms section, obviously. A Controversy or Criticisms section is only necessary when the subject (Furcadia in this case) is controversial. I don't know if Furcadia is that controversial. Obviously there are people with dissenting opinions about it, but that's true for any subject, even something as mundane as Coke vs. Pepsi. Sometimes criticisms aren't notable. People's opinions of the amount of roleplaying on Furcadia, for example, I don't think is encyclopedic. As for the majority of Furcadia users being in 18+ maps, that probably isn't true. The misconception is probably from three or four of the most popular maps being adult-oriented, including FurN (which technically is 16+, not 18+). But the majority of users are in small maps of fewer than 4 people. These are more often not 18+ only, or even adult in nature... But this is an irrelevant tangent.

My point is that Controversy/Criticisms sections are very difficult to keep NPOV so I'd rather not start one unless it's really necessary.

And yes I feel that as this article stands right now, it is NPOV. Simply excluding negative views does not make it POV; we are not including positive views either. You can't have one without the other and retain NPOV.

small note: This line of discussion doesn't have much to do with the new image, so I'm amending the heading of this section. -kotra 10:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you do not want an edit war, then I suggest you refrain from reverting it. Regardless, if a majority does not count, then you'll have to settle with ME feeling that the current picture is more appropriate and attractive. If you need a reason, it's there. I also feel that it's more relevant to furcadia, and thus feel that it is superior to the old picture.

It's kinda silly to fight over a pic just because you like the one with your name in it more. But anyways, the article is big enough for two screenshots. And the image description is quite wrong, especially the tag. The image can't be in the public domain, it's a screenshot of a copyrighted game, so it's fair use. And what does "The file is not available online" mean? It is, right here. So that alone might be a good reason to use the other pic, which is a little nicer anyways, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 11:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't count it as edit warring if I'm discussing my revert in good faith on the talk page. There was no reason given in support of the edit, so I reverted it. I think this is reasonable. You've given reasons in support of it now though, and I respect that. I disagree, but that's neither here nor there. Although I don't against the new image and don't see any reason for a second screenshot, I'm willing to compromise as per Conti's suggestion. -kotra 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The description as far as I know has not been changed. If you have a problem, I wouldn't blame Mystical Melody and the screenshot that now occupies that space, but rather the person who first uploaded the screenshot -- GhostTiger. -72.136.169.221 20:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Conti wasn't referring to the caption on the Furcadia article, but the image's description and copyright information. It's easily fixed. Done. -kotra 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow, an edit war on this page that I'm not involved in. I agree with Conti. It's a fairly long article, so let's just put one of the screenshots further down the page and be done with it. Yeesh. Jonathan Grynspan 11:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

MMOSG

"Furcadia is an MMOG (Massively Multiplayer Online Game), set in a fantasy world inhabited by anthropomorphic animals. The game is based on user-created content, socializing and free-form roleplaying. It is not a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in the strictest sense; the game has no built in RPG continuity or a combat simulation system. However, these components of MMORPGs that the game itself does not provide are very often added by the players through the powerful customization system."

Isn't Furcadia best described as an MMOSG because it focuses on socializing rather than any actual goals in the game? Beno1000 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, however MMOSG is a very rarely used word, only a few games actually use it to my knowledge. That's why it hasn't been changed until now, I think. It would be more specific and appropriate though. I'm changing it to MMOSG, though if it's a too rarely used word, people are welcome to change it back. -kotra 04:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Feedback section

Really just a mangled mix of compliments features and complaints criticisms (which should be balanced with counter-arguments per WP:NPOV). I am also disputing factual accuracy of this section. How is this verifiable? Invitatious 12:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not. I'm removing it as per WP:V and WP:NOR. To the original poster: Your points, while many of them have an element of truth, aren't encyclopedic. If you really think it's useful (and factual) information, you might try adding it to WikiFur's Furcadia article. They're slightly more lax over there. -kotra 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Element of truth? From what I saw they were all 100% accurate.. With stuff that could be easily proved just by stepping foot on this game, asking any of the players, linking to threads on the forums, or linking to some fansites. If a game draws in people like that who hang out in Furn, Vinca, and the HP Forums; I think it's safe to say that the Feedback section for members of the game to post their complaints, or compliments was very much needed. I'm surprised this artical itself hasn't been marked for deletion yet. It's completly biased, and one sided. With anything shedding some light on the shaddy areas being covered up. -Anonymous 04:10, 18 July 2006 (GFYS)

Of course you believe those points are all 100% accurate; you were the one who wrote them. However, not everyone agrees with you. I would even venture to say that most Furcadians probably disagree with many of your points. This is why Wikipedia has a policy against original research.

As for the article being biased and one-sided, notice I deleted both your complaints and your compliments, equally. The only bias you see in the article now is a bias for factual information, without any qualitative judgements. I don't think that Furcadia is a notable enough subject to merit a Criticisms section yet, because there are no reliable sources to back up such criticisms. -kotra 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Do actual players of a game have the right to create a compliments/complaints section or delete it? Of course they are going to be bias to one side or the other(The origonal creator leaned more towards complaints possibly an ex-player, and Kotra clearly a full time fanatic of Furcadia makes sure nothing bad is said about this game with constant trolling.). I suggest an unbias proffessional third party who has no previous experience with this game does some scouting, and then comes back with proper proof to back up an equal ammount of claims for each section. -Wikitrue 07:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC-8)

If actual players of the game have no right to create a compliments/complaints section or delete it, then who does? Someone who has never played the game and has no first-hand experience with it? There are very few published resources to cite when writing about Furcadia. Everything that cannot by cited must be common knowledge, or easily verified. Most of the "compliments" and complaints are NOT easily verifiable common knowledge. That's why I consider the compliments/complaints ("Feedback") section to be simply original research.

This was not my bias showing through; this is standard Wikipedia fact checking. That I happen to be one who often responds first to edits in this article is not "constant trolling" in any way you look at it... I don't shy away from criticising Furcadia, and I criticise it quite a lot, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it, as I'm sure you'll agree if you follow Wikipedia policies. Assuming that I'm a "full time fanatic" because I want to conform to the relatively high standards of Wikipedia is fallacious. -kotra 09:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Feedback section could be re-added if it was given the sectOR tag. Wikitrue 11:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: npov links?

Why is there an npov tag on the external links section? That seems like an odd place for one - did it end up there by accident? I'm too lazy to trace back all the history, but someone who edits this article regularly should think about whether it is needed there. Brianyoumans 05:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• It was added here: [1] after a minor edit war over which links could be included. There's been no followup so it's probably safe to remove. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm removing it now. -kotra 05:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. -72.136.169.221

Care to explain, 72.136.169.221? -kotra 02:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The link in question is not suitable. A personal wiki of a group of players is not close to meeting the criteria for external links. It should not be replaced. -- sannse (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Falador, Runescape?

Instead of linking to a Runescape location, could someone please cite a website where it mentions Faladors? I'm pretty sure that they record all public congregations in Furcadia, and that its mentioned somewhere. Well, IF it is true. Until then, I am taking off the link to the Runescape location, and putting a citation needed. Disinclination 00:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Either it's vandalism as usual or someone was confused; Falador is of course a location in Runescape, not a playable race in Furcadia, even a future one. I'm removing it, but if it wasn't in error or vandalism, the contributor should feel free to re-add it, with an explanation. -kotra 07:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Kotra. Disinclination 01:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitterfly

Can we get a cite on this, please, like a public log or a news report from Furcadia? Disinclination 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The name for the upcoming digo is "Kitterwings" (I fixed it), and it's a fairy-furre avatar. A google search turned up some forum posts from DEP members that confirm it [2] [3] [4] though I'm not sure if they would qualify in accordance with WP:RS. The 2005 Town Meeting log mentions that "The next avatars we're considering right now are ursines (bears) and possibly bovines (cows) for free ones, and the next pay-for avatar will probably be little kitterwings," though it doesn't sound very definitive there (that was over a year ago). So, yes, it's true, although a citation might be difficult... I don't really know what the acceptability would be for forum posts. I'll cite it, though, and see if anyone objects. -kotra 03:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)