Unclear Description: Furry Fandom

The description isn't unclear, it's just downright wrong and even a little insulting. Who wants to be forced into a specific fandom, especially one they are turned off by or just don't like for whatever reason? I personally don't want to be associated with any fandom because I don't like the very concept of a fandom as opposed to just people who are fans of this or that work. But that's exactly what the Furry Fandom page does. Specifically, this paragraph, emphasis mine:

"Because of this, it's understandable that quite a few people who should be in this big tent don't consider themselves to be (a phenomenon called furry denial). For example, most Werewolf The Apocalypse players, especially the more hardcore ones, would get along great with just about any furry fan — doubly so after s/he drew the W:TA player's character. And posting monster girls on various online forums is just fine... until you post Werewolf-tan, when the riots begin."

I love Watership Down (the book more than the film), Blacksad, Usagi Yojimbo, and a few other works featuring anthropomorphic animals. But I certainly don't identify myself with the furry fandom, at all. So I don't like the fact that the page is forcing people into the fandom.

The concept of furry denial is just as absurd. You can use your imagination to fill in the Godwin's Law implications there, but either way it's a ludicrous term and is basically saying "you don't actually know what you like or what you want to be, because you're ashamed of it. Don't worry, we'll tell you what fandom to be a part of. We know."

Bottom line, I want to rework the description so that there isn't the sense of forced classification, a sliding scale of furry fans, and all that other nonsense. None of it is necessary or helpful. What do the rest of you think?

edited 22nd Mar '12 10:18:48 AM by Martello

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

Wow, this page is really bad. The entire page nees to be stripped of everything but a simple, neutral defintion of the term.

While I agree, as a "furry", that it does need some help (and has been on a loooooong list of "things to do when I have a surplus of round tuits"*

), I think that making it definition-only is a bit excessive, without less extreme measures like paring down the trope and example descriptions being tried first.

edited 22nd Mar '12 10:20:51 AM by Nohbody

All your safe space are belong to Trump

While furry denial is an actual phenomenon, I've never heard*

it outside furries using it as an argument to include more people for the sake of feeling more normal, or as a type of Ad Hominem (used to discredit but not devalue the other person). Now, the point on who's a furry or not can be argued until Hitler shows up, but I don't think the article here should point out anyone as belonging to a group they don't wish to belong to just because they have some similar preferences.

This is not the way to portray furries in a positive light, and I believe it should be neutral on the side of positive. A clean, interesting description with everything on the page following that is what's neeeded, but other than that I don't see much of a problem with the page itself.

edited 22nd Mar '12 1:05:40 PM by Feather7603

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

The article is also using the phrase Furry Denial (admittedly!) differently than it's used on this wiki.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Right. I think that needs to be renamed also, but apparently that's not going to fly.

edited 22nd Mar '12 1:37:46 PM by Martello

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

It's possible you could make a case for it being a term used for what it's used on this page, which means it's used wrongly on Furry Denial. Google says TV Tropes is the second hit (among many), and it's mostly used descriptively rather than as a term, so I'm not sure it'd work.

edited 22nd Mar '12 2:27:35 PM by Feather7603

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

Perhaps. But we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Anybody else have any opinions on cleaning up the description here?

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

Use a chain trencher?

Fight smart, not fair.

Recompile from binary. In my opinion, it needs a new description written from scratch which should describe in brief and neutral terms what the furry fandom is, including the big tent version, the fandom as it is commonly understood in fandom in general, and (brief notes on) a notorious fringe. It should include a relatively brief index of items related integrally related to the fandom (like Cosplay and such) and styles and tropes that would make a work "furry" (big tent version, but only unambiguous examples). Finally, the examples should be fictional examples only of appearances of furry fandom in other works.

Going through the examples:

• Biological Mash Up: Misuse, and the trope is under TRS for that exact reason. (Deleted)
• But You Screw One Goat: Doesn't need the extra sentence. (Cleaned.)
• Deconstruction: What's the policy about NSFW links? I know Danbooru isn't allowed anymore at all, for one specific example. Also, is text NSFW?
• Everyone Is Bi: Needs cleanup. (Cleaned.)
• Hypocrite: Implies a fetish is inherently wrong. (Deleted.)
• Hypocritical Fandom: Overly cynical, needs cleanup. (Cleaned)
• I Am Not Shazam: Misuse, but the trope described is true. What's a better fit? (Needs correction.)
• I Just Want to Be Normal: I don't see how this applies. Also, description doesn't fit the trope listed. (Not sure what to do.)
• Tabletop Games: NSFW link. (It was a 404, so away it goes.)

Otherwise, I don't see much of a problem with the examples. I'm not that familiar with the fandom, so I can't say if some of them are actually true, though.

edited 23rd Mar '12 7:29:39 AM by Feather7603

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

I'm not sure what the trope would be for I Am Not Shazam, but the common term would be synechdoche, "furries" standing in for the anthropomorphics community as a whole.

Would Brand Name Takeover be closer? It does reflect the situation better, as a specific "brand" is used for the whole group of "brands".

edited 23rd Mar '12 1:15:34 PM by Feather7603

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

I am a furry to an extent, so feel free to consult me on stuff.

The fandom is so diverse and fragmented that I don't think any one person can claim to represent it as a whole. (PS. You're invited to the Troper Coven.)

edit: That came off as more rude than I intended. All I'm saying is, I doubt we have access to "expertise" on all these various sub-categories and fringe movements the article talks about.

—

I don't really think we need the tropes.

The article isn't about a work of fiction. Let any tropes that actually apply to individual works be put on the pages of said works themselves.

edited 24th Mar '12 1:53:23 AM by Kerrah

I agree. Listing tropes on a page that's not for a work has only led to trouble in the past.

Tropes about a fandom?

I'm not sure we need to kill them, but I wouldn't mind their removal either.

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

Considering all the non-tropes we have on the site, I don't see a good enough reason to cut all this.

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

Well, listing a bunch of tropes and claiming they apply to something so broad as an entire fandom is, shall I say, presumptuous (or something)?

Yeah, quite a lot of the tropes here are written in a "lots of people in this category are like this" kinda way. Like the entries on: Complaining About Things You Haven't Paid For Humans Are Ugly, Hypocritical Fandom, Ijust Want To Be Normal, Rousseau Was Right, Small Name, Big Ego, Stop Being Stereotypical. All sound like generalizations about actual people, yet lacking specific examples.

edited 24th Mar '12 7:39:42 AM by ThatHuman

something

Why was Trope Repair Shop made for this trope again?

"I want to rework the description so that there isn't the sense of forced classification, a sliding scale of furry fans, and all that other nonsense. None of it is necessary or helpful. What do the rest of you think?"

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Thanks. You'd think it'd be pretty easy to read the OP, but maybe not.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

But the OP has text in it.

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

Anybody else think there's something wrong with all the sweeping generalizations this page makes about people in the fandom, without citing anything specific?

something

Yes. I really think we should cut all the tropes in the page, and rework it into a neutral description of the fandom without all the pontificating, qualified generalizations, contradictory anecdotes, and all that other nonsense.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.