![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Yes, furry fandom has objected to this episode...but shouldn't we have links? Some links? Any link? Lots42 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
While I still maintain a bit on how the episode had a skewed focus on furry-dom, I do not feel the current text does this nuetrally. Especially the bit about 'some people expected no less'. Lots42 ( talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I can say from recent personal experience that this episode is considered so notable in relation to furry fandom that editors of reliable sources (in this case, the most popular newspaper in the USA) require that mention of it be added to coverage, if only as an example of misrepresentation by the mass media. GreenReaper ( talk) 00:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed a segment of the Lead section, as an article of this size does not require a Lead section of this size, and the subject is covered in the Plot section that immediately follows.--Soulparadox 12:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The plot needs a better source for the details. IMDB is okay for date of broadcast, but is not reliable for user-submitted summaries. I also removed the titles for the two stories as those are not official (provide episode reference if i am incorrect in that assumption). It should summarize what happened in that episode so it does not need to end with a trailer-like cliffhanger. You can also cite reviews of the episode such as the newspaper articles in the reception section, or official sites for the details.
For the names, I used last name convention, but if in the CSI world they prefer using the first names, please redo that in the Plot.
I added a Reception section for controversies and reactions surrounding the show and its impact on furry fandom culture. If someone can find the Pittsburgh article, maybe from waybackmachine, you can add more details there. I tried to keep it balanced in tone by countering each objection with a response.
Regarding the trivia section, it should be integrated into the plot. The detail about the title and quote references to the novel can be placed in Development. If the convention filmed was an actual convention, then that detail can go in Development section as well. However, if it is customary for CSI episodes on wikipedia to have cultural reference sections, you can remove that statement. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fur+and+Loathing+(CSI+episode). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This page has gained some prevalence, to the point that you can search up that episode and this pops up. This has been mentioned across the internet. Should we devote a portion to this? Evenite ( talk) 05:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Yes, furry fandom has objected to this episode...but shouldn't we have links? Some links? Any link? Lots42 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
While I still maintain a bit on how the episode had a skewed focus on furry-dom, I do not feel the current text does this nuetrally. Especially the bit about 'some people expected no less'. Lots42 ( talk) 22:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I can say from recent personal experience that this episode is considered so notable in relation to furry fandom that editors of reliable sources (in this case, the most popular newspaper in the USA) require that mention of it be added to coverage, if only as an example of misrepresentation by the mass media. GreenReaper ( talk) 00:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I removed a segment of the Lead section, as an article of this size does not require a Lead section of this size, and the subject is covered in the Plot section that immediately follows.--Soulparadox 12:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The plot needs a better source for the details. IMDB is okay for date of broadcast, but is not reliable for user-submitted summaries. I also removed the titles for the two stories as those are not official (provide episode reference if i am incorrect in that assumption). It should summarize what happened in that episode so it does not need to end with a trailer-like cliffhanger. You can also cite reviews of the episode such as the newspaper articles in the reception section, or official sites for the details.
For the names, I used last name convention, but if in the CSI world they prefer using the first names, please redo that in the Plot.
I added a Reception section for controversies and reactions surrounding the show and its impact on furry fandom culture. If someone can find the Pittsburgh article, maybe from waybackmachine, you can add more details there. I tried to keep it balanced in tone by countering each objection with a response.
Regarding the trivia section, it should be integrated into the plot. The detail about the title and quote references to the novel can be placed in Development. If the convention filmed was an actual convention, then that detail can go in Development section as well. However, if it is customary for CSI episodes on wikipedia to have cultural reference sections, you can remove that statement. - AngusWOOF ( talk) 17:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fur+and+Loathing+(CSI+episode). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
This page has gained some prevalence, to the point that you can search up that episode and this pops up. This has been mentioned across the internet. Should we devote a portion to this? Evenite ( talk) 05:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)