238:", nor was it split out for that reason - it was split out due to the wishes of only a few (2-3) people out of many, who suggested a split. The reasons these people gave for suggesting a split, were that they felt it was best to disambiguate the two uses, because the two subjects were felt to be sufficiently distinct to merit separate articles -
159:, as I already said. If an imperfect article already exists, why encourage people to create a new split under yet another name? At least this way, they have some raw material to work with IF the split goes through, and they can see the possible organization and raw structure of such an article instead of just a redirect, which is confusing.
217:
delete, to effectively asserting "delete it anyway"), seems to be inappropriate as well as not in accorance with AFD consensus. Especially, combined with the above statement that
Neofreak will unilaterally revert the article to a redirect, and if challenged will PROD it, if that fails try AFD, and if
206:
Responses included many concerns over RS, but overall 50-50 keep/delete, up to the point that
Serpents Choice added a list of apparently valid sources as to usage. After this, there were a majority of Keep views (12 Keep/2 Delete), a comment that POV was a reason to fix but was not valid grounds for
138:
article. If that is changed I will prod this page. If the prod is removed I will AfD it and/or remove all the unsourced material (leaving it prety much blank). The appropriate place to save information that you want to hold onto until you can gather the needed things to make it qualify as an article
226:
The statement above is therefore incorrect. The content here was not deleted for the reasons given. It was deleted despite a keep vote, by the same person bringing the original AFD which was voted "keep". There was no consensus for its deletion, nor was there any consensus reached (as claimed) that
268:
If this page is reinstated, it should be tagged as unreferenced and the references should be worked on right away. I believe that most of the verifiable subculture-related material (about half of the article) was adapted from the book "The Magic of
Shapeshifting" by Rosalyn Greene, since it is the
85:
This page was redirected because the editor did not have the consensus of those editors on the original article for this move, and in fact it was reverted multiple times and strongly opposed. Since the original article was not split into separate articles I am redirecting all these insane little
202:"a vanity article created by a "community" of people attempting to create a scientific or legit sounding name to their...belief system is rather obvious. There are no reliable sources, no verifiable claims of notability, it is written in a POV tone, and serves as nothing more than a soapbox."
199:
by
Neofreak. Grounds being one sentence: an assertion that that the entire article, scholarly and subculture alike, "ails the everything test, WP:OR, WP:RS per WP:V, WP:N, WP:POV, WP:BOLLOCKS, WP:NEO". A further comment by Neofreak clarifying this states that he considers the entire usage
222:
fails will "and/or remove all the unsourced material (leaving it prety much blank)", seems to be inappropriate, given that it is both far in extreme of AFD consensus, and also differs strongly from consensus of editors to date (few editors are this strongly against
269:
only book that spends more than a few pages on the subject of the therianthropy subculture. Appropriate footnotes should be added to show this. The other (unreferenced) half of the material will need to go unless references can be found for it too.
90:
files back to the real article instead of just leaving them here. In the future, for major changes like this to contentious pages you should discuss things first and not waste your time trying out things before knowing if other editors agree.
134:. This is why it was removed. Simply moving this material to a new page under the guise of disambiguation is inappropriate. Until all the concerns originally addressed in the parent article are fixed I will redirect this fork back to the
29:
was reverted, apparently auto-reverted without looking at the content. Please leave this page in existence until I've figured out whether the community is going to let there be a disambiguation page for therianthropy.
254:
feels there should be deletion and redirect, he lists this article for AFD separately, to check consensus, rather than unilaterally blanking and redirecting as he is doing.
188:
250:
that this material should be reinstated, tagged appropriately as unreferenced, and left for editors to work on over time in the usual way. I also consider that if
123:
Why in the world was this page created? Most of the content here was inapproporiate for inclusion in the
Therinathropy article because it is
213:
Neofreak's approach (AFDing the entire article on grounds of "everything", and then extrapolating from a possible consensus to split but
270:
247:
160:
40:
2)The otherkin subculture is a separate article from the articles on the folklore of creatures such as elves, dragons and so on.
68:
210:
It is therefore incorrect to assert that there was a consensus to delete the material in its entirety from
Knowledge (XXG).
110:
72:
58:
174:("Most of the content here was inapproporiate for inclusion in the Therinathropy article because it is
106:
55:
22:
21:
This page was created as part of an attempt by me to disambiguate the
Therianthropy article (see
71:
as at least a temporary holding place for the disambiguation page until this is all sorted out
87:
235:
232:
182:
179:
140:
131:
128:
273:
258:
163:
147:
113:
95:
75:
61:
228:
175:
124:
251:
196:
156:
144:
135:
92:
48:
44:
37:
1)The vampire subculture and the vampire folklore page are two separate articles.
242:(as incorrectly claimed) because of their concerns over WP:V WP:RS and WP:OR.
207:
deletion, and also cites showing use of the term for some hundreds of years.
255:
191:
discussion makes clear that the history of the fork is as follows:
155:
I un-redirected this page only because of the split template on
51:, mythical and fictional, that inspire the furry subculture.
109:
for documentation of why the above statement is not true.
26:
187:is factually incorrect, as best I can tell. The
47:is a separate article from the many types of
8:
107:the therianthropy main article talk page
7:
141:personal sandbox in a user subpage
14:
195:AFD proposal for the entirety of
248:User:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea
185:. This is why it was removed.")
27:disambiguation page I'd created
69:Therianthropy (disambiguation)
1:
164:16:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
148:18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
67:Disambiguation page created:
25:. In less than a minute, the
274:16:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
259:02:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
271:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea
246:I therefore add my view to
161:Mermaid from the Baltic Sea
139:that meets the policy is a
294:
172:The above (by Neofreak)
114:03:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
96:19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
76:00:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
62:00:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
54:Please talk about it at
111:Blue Milk Mathematician
73:Blue Milk Mathematician
59:Blue Milk Mathematician
101:The Above is Untrue
34:Arguments in favor:
56:Talk:Therianthropy
23:Talk:Therianthropy
236:original research
183:original research
132:original research
285:
45:furry subculture
293:
292:
288:
287:
286:
284:
283:
282:
121:
103:
83:
19:
12:
11:
5:
291:
289:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
244:
243:
224:
211:
208:
204:
171:
169:
168:
167:
166:
120:
117:
102:
99:
82:
79:
65:
64:
52:
41:
38:
35:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
290:
275:
272:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
260:
257:
253:
252:User:NeoFreak
249:
241:
237:
234:
230:
225:
221:
216:
212:
209:
205:
203:
198:
197:therianthropy
194:
193:
192:
190:
186:
184:
181:
177:
165:
162:
158:
157:Therianthropy
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
142:
137:
136:Therianthropy
133:
130:
126:
118:
116:
115:
112:
108:
100:
98:
97:
94:
89:
80:
78:
77:
74:
70:
63:
60:
57:
53:
50:
46:
42:
39:
36:
33:
32:
31:
28:
24:
16:
245:
239:
229:unverifiable
219:
214:
201:
176:unverifiable
173:
170:
125:unverifiable
122:
104:
84:
66:
49:funny animal
20:
86:pointless
233:unsourced
180:unsourced
129:unsourced
227:it was "
145:NeoFreak
93:DreamGuy
81:Redirect
17:Disambig
88:WP:FORK
43:3) The
223:it).
220:that
119:Why?
105:See
256:FT2
240:not
215:not
189:AFD
231:,
178:,
143:.
127:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.