Talk:List of anthropomorphic comics

Concerning the note:
Concerning the note:

'' Many of these comic books can be found for purchase at Rabbit Valley Comic Shop. ''

If the comment is to be believed then perhaps it should say something to that effect in the text rather than just as a comment that is invisible when not editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJFJR (talk • contribs)

Redlinks?
This list is creeped with redlinks for no apparent reason. Maybe we should keep them out before their actual articles are created? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 17:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The redlinks can be an encouragement to write the articles. Someone with knowledge about a subject can see right away that an article is needed.  --Coyoty 19:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also been suggested that some of these should be converted to links to WikiFur, particularly in the cases where there is very little chance of an article being created (or remaining for any length of time) on Wikipedia. GreenReaper 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

webcomics or comic books
I noticed webcomics The Suburban Jungle and Supermegatopia are both in comic book list. How about moving the items in "comic strips and webcomics" list into "comic book" sections? Notations could be added such as "The Suburban Jungle (webcomic and comic books)" (SJ started as webcomic) and "Wild Frontier (comics) (comic book and webcomic)" (WF started as comic book and is now being converted into a webcomic). --EarthFurst 04:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

furry Spare Parts?
Currently List of furry comics webcomics list includes Spare Parts, but Spare Parts is about an audio drama. I found a Spare Parts webcomic but it is not furry (from the strips I looked at). Is there a furry webcomic named Spare Parts? --EarthFurst 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing when Spare Parts was added to the list, the adder was confused because one of the creators of Spare Parts (Isabel Marks) also creates a furry webcomic (named Namir Deiter). --EarthFurst 18:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiFur links
I just axed them all, being formatted like internal links implies endorsement of accuracy and such, if the red links need to go away they should be external links to the webcomics home page or something. Wikipedia don't need to be endorsing WikiFur. Miltopia 20:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The same could be said of all links to articles on other wikis. Yet the ability to link to other wikis in this manner exists, so thus one would assume there are situations where it is appropriate to use such links.  Does Wikipedia have a policy or guideline that governs this? --Mwalimu59 21:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I would guess it's for discussion purposes, not for encyclopedic purposes. Even so, it should be clear that the links are external to avoid the appearance of endorsement.  And a better external link would be to the website of the comic in question, yes?  Miltopia 21:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If they're looking for an encyclopedic treatment of a furry comic that is deemed non-notable by Wikipedia, probably the best place is WikiFur. In many cases, Wikipedia has already decided it doesn't wish to host such an article by the action of deleting it. In that case, I think making a red link is a bad idea because it just encourages the article to be made again, only to be deleted, and provides no useful information to the user. Linking to WikiFur gives them what they were looking for, as well as the actual link to the comic. That's why we did it. GreenReaper 22:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If they're looking for an encyclopedic treatment of a furry comic that is deemed non-notable by Wikipedia, probably the best place is WikiFur.
 * See, that's just an opinion though, or a subjective evaluation, not like a well-documented fact. It wouldn't be neutral for Wikipedia to treat WikiFur as a credible encyclopedia in article space, any more than it would be to treat any other wiki as such.  Miltopia 23:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's "an encyclopedic treatment of a furry comic" one is looking for, I'd be glad to look into any alternative sources besides WikiFur and make a comparison (besides Wikipedia, that is; remember, it's the ones deemed non-notable by Wikipedia we're discussing here). I'm not aware of any other sources but if you are I'm willing to be educated.  While WikiFur might not be as credible as Wikipedia, if it's the most credible source available I don't see why there should be a problem with linking to it. --Mwalimu59 23:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It ain't a credible source. Anyone can edit it. Same reason that Wikipedia doesn't cite itself for sources. Voretus  talk  17:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to have acquired quite a significant amount of credibility despite this fact, given the number of people who rely on it for information. People rely on the process of editing by knowledgeable users to reduce or eliminate errors in the long run. WikiFur has fewer editors than Wikipedia, but they have more than a passing familiarity with the topics covered. GreenReaper 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ISSNs

 * Not a single ISSN is listed on this page. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to untag this page and tag the individual pages on publications that could have an ISSN listed but do not? --Keesiewonder talk 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur. Tag removed. Dl2000 00:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion in this list is problematic
"'Listed are a variety of comic books, comic strips, and webcomics that are cited of particular interest and their creation catered to furry fandom.'" For some of these comics listed, I can understand "cited of particular interest" to furry fandom, but not "their creation catered to furry fandom". In particular, ones like Maus, Kevin and Kell, Get Fuzzy, Over the Hedge, and Usagi Yojimbo. I believe both Stan Sakai (of Usagi Yojimbo) and Bill Holbrook (of Kevin and Kell/Safe Havens) have both gone on record as saying their characters are not furry, but instead merely 'funny animals'. I'm even more positive that Maus was not catered towards the furry fandom, which was germinal or nonexistant at the time it was started (1970s). The use of animals in Maus is merely a literary device. So I think either we should remove those comics that were not actually catered to the furry fandom, or change "...of particular interest and their creation catered to the furry fandom" to "...of particular interest or their creation catered to the furry fandom". If it's the latter, though, that's not a very good description of a 'furry comic'. After all, "of particular interest to the furry fandom" is subjective and unsourcable. Therefore, I believe the list should be stripped down to only the obviously furry comics and nothing more. Or, delete this list entirely, and leave such a specific and obscure topic for WikiFur. -kotra 04:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiFur takes the "or" definition, because our definition of a comic that we cover is a comic that furry fans are interested in. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's definition should be. Do you exclude things such as Usagi Yojimbo that have definitely had an influence on fandom artistry because they weren't made for or by the fandom? GreenReaper 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeez, I must have forgotten about this discussion. In answer to your question, I wouldn't call Usagi Yojimbo a "furry comic", even if it had a significant influence on the furry fandom. I don't feel that merely having a large influence on a subculture merits inclusion in that group. For example, The Kinks aren't a punk band, even though they had a huge influence on the formation of punk rock. Besides, it's a common belief in the furry fandom that anything that has anthropomorphic animals in it is furry (since furry is about anthropomorphic animals), but that's not how society in general views it. Maus, Usagi Yojimbo, Over the Hedge, etc are funny animal works and not furry works to most people (who know what these terms mean, anyway). I think it's appropriate to have them in WikiFur, because they're obviously relevant to Furry, but it would be misleading to call them "furry comics". If we don't want to remove the comics that aren't created by or for furries, I suggest renaming this list List of funny animal and furry comics. That would definitely encompass all of those listed currently. Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 09:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Then it would get absolutely huge. There are a lot of comics that have one or more funny animals out there. There was actually some discussion of Maus already. If we are focussing on the anthropomorphic nature, and wish to have such a list (I'm not convinced it has much value), then "anthropomorphic" is probably the way to go. There are already categories such as Category:Anthropomorphic martial artists.
 * If we are concentrating on the works associated with a particular subculture, we should be using the word "furry". However, "things which furry fans are interested in" is never going to be a great definition, because the definition of furry fans is so hazy as to make it almost meaningless. If we want a list where everyone is happy about the works we do put on it, we should restrict it to those with a symmetric association; during the period of the strip's creation, the artists viewed their work as part of that subculture (or at least the artistic side of it), as well as the subculture considering them to be part of it. This need not be explicitly stated, but can be inferred (for example, D. C. Simpson was a guest at Midwest FurFest, is scheduled as a guest at Morphicon, has an anthropomorphic avatar, etc).
 * This definition will not please everyone in the fandom, but it will give us a test for inclusion that allows us to say "these are definitely furry" which does not rely solely on the opinion of individual editors, but on an authoritative figure (the artist). GreenReaper (talk) 13:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree completely. Would it be acceptable if I changed the first paragraph to:
 * "Listed are a variety of comic books, comic strips, and webcomics that are catered to furry fandom, or created by members of furry fandom. Many of these titles are part of a genre also referred to as funny animals."
 * ...and trimmed out the ones that didn't fit that? For example, Maus, Get Fuzzy, Over the Hedge, etc. Some I'm not sure about (for example, Usagi Yojimbo and other Stan Sakai titles). I'll look for some citations for the borderline ones.
 * On a side note, I think it's better to describe it in Wikipedia as "anthropomorphic animal" instead of just "anthropomorphic", which strictly speaking, means "having human characteristics", which could encompass Thomas the Tank Engine, ASIMO, and even humans themselves. Simply "anthropomorphic" is fine as a casual shortening the furry fandom uses, but for Wikipedia I think we should use the more accurate term.
 * One more terminology question: should we call it "furry fandom" or "the furry fandom"? I've always said "in the furry fandom" instead of "in furry fandom". But that might just be me. -kotra (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest a more concise wording: "that cater predominately to furry fans." Whether or not they were created by people who consider themselves to be furry fans (as opposed to the comic being for furry fans) is technically irrelevant, though most or all such comics are created by fandom members. The comics need not cater solely to the fandom, but the proportion should be significant within the comic's own fan-base - this is what separates furry comics from Garfield. As for furry fandom, if it came down to it I'd use "the" in this specific case, though the wording above would make that unnecessary. GreenReaper (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your concise wording is fine with me. I've made the change. It will be difficult to verify, but I don't see how we can help that. -kotra (talk) 22:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The important thing is that it avoids putting anthropomorphic works into a situation where they are considered "furry unless proven otherwise", with no way to prove it. Things like Maus were not made nor are they primarily appreciated by furry fans - it is too much of a stretch to call them furry based on the anthropomorphic metaphor used, especially when we know the characters are really human (though it's worth bearing in mind that the characters in Circles are human, too - we just "see them as furry"). GreenReaper (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Point taken; no disagreement here. -kotra (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed items
To meet the new criteria for inclusion (the work must be catered predominantly to furry fans), I've removed the following items:
 * Blacksad (appears to have a large, diverse audience in Europe, which has relatively few furry fans)
 * Cerebus (began in the 70s, when it certainly wouldn't have been aimed at furry fans; has a large mostly non-furry following)
 * Gold Digger (only one character is an anthropomorphic animal; appears to be catered primarily to manga fans)
 * Heebas (just a redirect to Furrlough)
 * Samurai Cat (found very little information about it online, is not on WikiFur)
 * Rocket Raccoon (Marvel character created in early 80s, when furries were too few to be noticed or catered to by Marvel; is not on WikiFur)
 * Captain Carrot and His Amazing Zoo Crew! (lasted only from 1982-83, when furries were too few to be noticed or catered to by DC)
 * Thunder Bunny (only anthropomorphic animal character is actually a human boy who can shapeshift into the form of a humanoid animal alien race or some other convoluted process, in any case I don't see it being catered to furry fans; also is not on WikiFur)
 * Funny Farm (This was helpful from the author: "Is Funny Farm a furry comic? Not really. Not to me, anyway.")
 * Swamp Fox (furry, but has no article on Wikipedia, so I can only assume is not notable enough for Wikipedia)
 * Nautilus (same)
 * Fuzzy Things (same)
 * Dan and Mab's Furry Adventures (same)
 * The Foxfire Chronicles (same)
 * Get Fuzzy (mainstream newspaper comic)
 * Over the Hedge (same)
 * VG Cats (primary audience is gamers, not furry fans; interestingly, WikiFur states explicitly "VGCats is not a furry webcomic.")

I'm unsure about the following, so I've just tagged them with :
 * Hepcats (found no description of it being furry, but author was a guest of honor at ConFurence 1)
 * Usagi Yojimbo (has large non-furry audience, but I'm not certain it's not catered to furry fans [or at least contemporary funny animal fans, which arguably may be the same thing])
 * Space Usagi (spin-off of Usagi Yojimbo)
 * Bucky O'Hare (title character created in late 70s, before the furry fandom existed, but the actual comics did not exist until the mid-80s; has an article on WikiFur, but otherwise unknown audience)
 * Kevin and Kell (furry or not? I don't know)

Notes:
 * Atomic Mouse - began in 1952, well before the furry fandom existed, but is now licensed to furry comic publisher Shanda Fantasy Arts. This revival would probably be considered furry.
 * Lackadaisy - the author says: "Q. Are you a furry? A. Uh. I'm not entirely sure what that means. I draw furries (if you can't think of a less schmaltzy name for them), but I'm actually a not-very-furry upright primate." So, if the characters are furries, the comic itself probably is too.

Phew. That took a while. Any clarification of the ones I'm unsure about would be helpful, and please challenge any errors I've made. -kotra (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Concession"?
I have a good friend who has a furry webcomic. He has a fanbase I can't really estimate it's size and over 150 issues. It's very good, and I'm spreading it around in Israel in order to bring the Furry Fandom there too (I'm the only furry in Israel), and it's working, to a minimal extent. If I remember correctly, it got to a very good position on some important list of webcomics. Does it qualify to get into the list? Here's the link: http://www.concessioncomic.com Siúnrá (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Concession, too. The requirement however is that it has a Wikipedia article (e.g. Concession (webcomic). I am not sure whether it has the reliable sources for that. Can you find any third-party reviews from such sources? GreenReaper (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Better Days (Jay Naylor)?
What about that comic - it has been running for over 5 years now, with a new strip twice a week. Link to the comic. I think it should be included. Especially Fisk is quite popular among Furries. --Jojo, 27 December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.123.182 (talk) 08:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Make the article and we'll talk. But you'll have to draw on reliable third-party references, otherwise it's liable to be deleted again. GreenReaper (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't written or even gravely edited any Wikipedia articles yet, so I don't think I'm up to the task... But I think someone should do it, since at least for example on The Belfry Comic Web Index it's the number one most read comic, though I don't know how important/frequented this site is. Perhaps it would work to inherit(?) the text from another wiki? (BTW, I'm the one who also wrote the question, I only have an account now.)--Runoratsu (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Addition: There seems to be a (revised?) copy of the old Wikipedia article... but there are no references either. Hmm. Wouldn't it be possible to include the comic to the list and link it to the corresponding wikifur page? Or is there another reason why you wouldn't like to have it inluded here?--Runoratsu (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This list is for only notable comics (notable by Wikipedia standards); and while "Better Days" may be notable, we need reliable sources asserting it as such. Having a well-referenced Wikipedia article is a handy way to judge that it's notable. Unfortunately, reliable sources are hard to come by for furry topics, but winning comics awards, its artist being featured at a convention, or being covered in the media might be good enough for asserting notability. If there's anything like that, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll be happy to start an article on it. -kotra (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment to hopefully prevent further redlinked comics
I added this comment to the article. Does it look ok? -kotra (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine, but people won't read it because they click the section edit links. I'll copy it. :-) GreenReaper (talk)
 * FWIW, Softpaw Magazine has actually had some news coverage, mostly due to its controversial nature. If that counts as sufficient coverage, it might be something to start the article up with - there's a few other sources elsewhere if you search, though probably nothing that'd guarantee it sticks. GreenReaper (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That news coverage (WikiFur News articles and their references) doesn't seem to meet the reliable sources criteria. Based solely on those references, I'm certain it wouldn't survive an AfD. If there is coverage from outside the fandom, though... -kotra (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, neither the magazine's promoters nor its detractors seem to have felt it in their best interests to seek such coverage. GreenReaper (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How odd! 8) Unfortunately, though, that still leaves Wikipedia without independent, reliable sources. -kotra (talk) 04:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, they might win an Ursa Major Award soon, which would probably be enough for an entry, especially with the uproar that would result (the mere suggestion that they might win has been quite controversial). We'll know in a week. GreenReaper (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Two Kinds
I believe Two Kinds is notable enough for the list, but it doesn't have it's own article. FurrySings (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The article on it was deleted. It would be inadvisable to recreate it without coverage in reliable sources that can back the information in the article. GreenReaper (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As an avid furry reader of Two Kinds, I mourn for this injustice. FurrySings (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Circles
Where to put Circles in this list? Contemporary drama?--Kaworu1992 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right. It's really more gay slice-of-life, but does contain dramatic highlights of those lives. GreenReaper (talk) 02:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)