text:
Talk:Furry/Archive 2

Due to the length of the talk page (97 kilobytes), the oldest discussions were moved to Talk:Furry/Archive 1. Almafeta 08:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Furry article becomes redirect
Furry will now be redirecting to the furry fandom article, as I think there's been adequate time for carry-over by those who want to carry pieces of this article there--please direct future edits there and not to the furry page. -- Krishva 07:01, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * This will be restored in about five minutes. Almafeta 21:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, there has been a general consensus here that the furry article does not, in essence, stand on its own--it's a fandom specific word, the article is essentially about furry fandom. If you have something to say about furry fandom, please put it on the furry fandom article.  If you had oppositions to this being merged as other people agreed was appropriate, you should have spoken up earlier.  This will be a redirect again.  If you have changes please put them in furry fandom, not furry. Thanks.  -- Krishva 03:34, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a consensus of one, that I can see. "Furry" exists as a seperate entity from "furry fandom," and the content that explicitly deals with the furry fandom as it exists today is now in the furry fandom article.  Information about the archtype and the modern usage of the word is now in the furry article.  So, please stop blanking the page.  Almafeta 03:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Please see the "Merge with furry fandom" section of discussion on this page. A number of people--all active contributors in this page's history--have agreed that furry and furry fandom should be merged (which is what we have been attempting to do).  If you have notes on usage of the word, put it in furry fandom.  It does not stand alone--in this article it is even admitted that no one except furries uses this word to refer to an anthropomorphic animal.  This topic is not important enough to be separated into two separate articles; notes on the word's usage could easily be provided in a paragraph-long section in furry fandom.  The "History" section of this article is summed up in the "History and Inspiration" section of furry fandom.  The existence of a separate article is unnecessary. --Krishva 03:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * I must concur with Krishva that the merging of these two articles has already been debated to a point where doing such a thing doesn't prevent any information about furries from reaching the internet at large and may in fact be helpful - no harm is done by the redirect, and the furry fandom article already contains a lot of information in this article, and it must also be admitted that a lot of the people maintaining these two pages (furry and furry fandom) have no axe to grind. Furry fandom has the additional benefits of being an article that can combine background of furries and sociological studies of the fandom itself.  If, at some point, the furry fandom article becomes too large and unweildly, or if the term 'furry' enters common everyday language, then the furry article may deserve to be resurrected.
 * Otherwise, if you have an extrordinarily compelling reason for keeping the articles seperate, that directly refutes the reasons in the "merge" section, please enlighten us. -- Stiv 03:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can see where you said that "furry" and "furry fandom" should be the same thing, because in your opinion, only people in the furry fandom use the word. You don't seem to be awared that the term "furry" is entering the mainstream, being used by people who neither identify as furries, nor partake in any part of the furry fandom, to describe a type of art, story, and character.  And it is these people who will want to know what the term means, where it came from, and how it is used, without any of the controversy and POV content that a vandal put in some weeks ago which we just finally managed to get moved out of the article.
 * It is not an opinion; it's a fact. Unless directly referring to the furry subculture itself (amply if not adequately described in the furry fandom article), the word 'furry' is never used.  Provide spesific counterexamples, with ample context. -- Stiv 04:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Speaking of earlier discussion, Krishva, I can also see links where you talk about the article not being hateful enough, and of where you like to do things like this simply to get attention. Hmm.  Almafeta 04:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Those links are from a Google archive older than the internet itself, and were used by Xydexx in an attempt to create controversy and discredit Krishva from fixing factual errors and inappropriate material in the article. Her many edits to the article should speak for her interest in providing a factual and comprehensive article, including usage of lots of neutral language.  Please do not waste your time resurrecting another talk page fight and edit furry fandom. -- Stiv 04:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is the Furry page continously being resurrected when it doesn't provide any information that is different than the furry fandom article? In fact, there is less information! If you wish to add information, please add edits to the Furry Fandom page, not continuing to reopen this page. -- Grumpyhan 04:05, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Because they are different subjects; just being related does not mean merging makes sense. Yes, I agree some content in furry fandom needs to be removed from that page, as it has more to do with the meaning of furry than to do with the fandom.  Almafeta 04:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that some stuff from this article should've been at Furry fandom, I don't see a point in redirecting the complete article there. "Furry" is another thing as its fandom, furry can and should be defined (and I agree that it is a term mostly, but not solely, used inside the furry fandom), and the fandom around it can be described. It is not exactly the same thing, and IMHO there shouldn't be a redirect. If there is a real consensus to redirect (I don't see one yet), we should at least make Furry the main article. (We have Goth, but not Goth subculture.) --Conti|✉ 15:37, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is that there only needs to be one article on Goths on wikipedia, and it is the Goth article. There only needs to be one article on furries.  It's been determined it should be furry fandom by the people who most frequently edit this article and, presumably, have no vested interest in either promoting or degrading furries/the furry fandom. -- Stiv 02:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Assuming there will be consensus for only one article, that article should be Furry then, that's what I wanted to say. It is simply the most common name for the whole thing. And what do you mean with "people who most frequently edit this article"? I can only interpret that as "we have more to say than you", which sounds quite unfriendly. --Conti|✉ 11:59, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't just throw my support behind merging the two articles without giving thought to this problem, so I thought I'd explain some of my reasoning to see if you agree. See, whatever's left of the furry article, minus all the fandom stuff, could easily become a wikctionary definition, but I don't think it makes sense to leave it in wikipedia. I'm not sure what kind of information people wanted to leave in the furry article. Now, I know that within furry fandom that a "furry" is an anthropomorphic animal, but that hardly allows the word to have its own wikipedia entry. Unless, of course, you plant to make a page on anthropomorphic animals as created by furry fans, and describe them and such. There are already wiki pages that describe anthropomorphism and genres with anthropomorphized animals, so for the sake of clarity, we have to make a distinction between what a regular anthropomorphic animal is and what a furry is. Then and only then will it be worth it to create a new article under the title furry.
 * As for choosing furry fandom as the target for the redirect, that was because most of the information on the furry page was directly about the furry fandom. So unless we refer to the furry fans themselves as furries, then furry fandom seems like the most logical place to redirect to.
 * I hope this helped to clarify some of my own intentions. --Prangton 18:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Just so I understand, if Furry was re-written to discuss entirely anthropomorphic artwork, and not discuss those behind it at all, this would be an acceptable answer? Basically have furry==Style and f-Fandom==People?
 * If so, I could attempt to re-write this page to take that into account.. I'd prefer it to the one-page solution, even if this page were the one page. My reasoning is because the two ideas are seperate.. Even if you argue that Furry artwork is primarily called that by furry fans (of which I disagree, but..) then it's still fair to differentiate the art from people who are fan(atical) about it. It's like redirecting the page on erotica to masturbation.. While they may have something in common, they aren't directly the same thing.
 * I'd support breaking them up that way, if it were acceptable to others, or, if not, having a small section on fandom at the bottom of Furry. I mean.. Look at Google.. 13,500 for "Furry Fandom", versus 80,500 for "furry art". It's clearly more about art than lifestyle.
 * I'm not going to argue my point of view any further, really, I've said my piece. But I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to get at, which is that this redirect is to make the information all available in one place, for ease of access. In other words, if people want to find out what this whole furry fandom thing is, they can find out about furry art, furry conventions, fursuits, etc. rather than having to crawl across a sprawling collection of furry-related stubs, which mostly hold the same information anyway. It's not to get rid of information on furries, it's to make it easier to find, and easier to organize.
 * But I'm perfectly willing to negotiate. I'll ask again, because this is my main point of contention: what would you put on the Furry page, if the fandom-related information is going on furry fandom? I'm asking for actual, encyclopedic stuff, not theories, not glossy generalizations. You don't need to research anything, just give me a summary. My problem with the idea of keeping the Furry page is that I really don't see what can be done with it that can't be done with the furry fandom page. What I was hoping would happen is that if the furry fandom page grew enough, we could then split it into several sections. And sign up already! --Prangton 20:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * You pretty much said a good reason why Furry should exist: to clarify and discuss the differences between "furry", "funny animal", "anthropomorph", etc.. And yes, furry fans call themselves indeed "furries", that's another thing this article could describe. A furry is not only the genre (at least for those inside the fandom), but also a person associating him/herself with it. I do think we need to clarify when "furry" is used for things like comic series, and when it should not be used, although this is a pretty disputed issue. So this would make alot of things to write about IMHO. Stuff about furry fandom should be at Furry fandom, but there should be a Furry, either about the things I just mentioned or about its fandom. --Conti|✉ 18:55, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I honestly see no reason when the 'furry fandom' article can't talk about this since this is where the confusion comes in in the first place. When you talk about a 'furry' being something a person describes themselves as that sure sounds like it belongs in furry fandom to me - because now we're talking about a group of people who describe themselves, i.e. a subculture.  I don't see any reason for there to be a furry article right now, although I'm definately not against there being one when it's useful or relevant.  For the time being furries are (a vast majority of the time) the strict providence of people in the furry fandom or making fun of it or what have you.  I see nothing wrong with a redirect and maybe a "What is a furry?" subheading in the furry fandom article.  It's not something that takes a lot of explination, since most people are familiar with talking animals and funny animals which furry fandom clearly derives a lot of inspiration from. -- Stiv 02:43, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It wouldn't necesarily make more things to write about, but it would cause a lot of rollback wars. I mean it's not like the furry article hasn't already seen its fair share of those. First of all, saying when something is furry or not is entirely a matter of opinion. If you read the talk page, you'll see a great example of this. I personally believe that something can't be described as furry unless it is created from within the furry fandom, but that's only my POV. And like I was saying earlier, the point of this article is not to present points of view. Opinions just don't make encyclopedic knowledge.
 * While I agree that yes, an article about furries as defined by the furry fandom might be interesting, I don't know if it would be fesable just because of the differences in opinions. This is great material for a personal site, but on Wikipedia I think it's just asking for trouble. Heck, there's a good chance that the furry article will go right back to the way it was before we presented the redirect, full of fandom-related info and a real glossed-over view of furries as created by the furry fandom. Furry fans have a lot riding on the definition of furry, since they use that word to pretty much describe them.
 * This article is like a postmodernist's nightmare. Jeez. --Prangton 19:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also note the number of pages that link to [furry], not [furry fandom]. In addition, many of the pages which link to 'furry' use it as an adjective to describe a character or setting, which the Furry page describes; pages that link to the Furry Fandom are referring to furry afficionados. Additionally, the number of pages that link to furry is significantly greater than the number that link to furry fandom. This continued blanking of the article goes against accepted Wikipedia usage. Almafeta 03:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you positively insist upon keeping the furry article please merge the furry fandom article into it instead. The work has already been done to merge furry into furry fandom and with good reasons, amply explored above.  Furthermore we are not commiting any violence against the page by turning it into a redirect which is quite distinct from blanking it.  Please choose your words with care. -- Stiv 03:57, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I can somewhat understand why people may think that Furry and Furry Fandom could be merged, they are still two entirely different things, one being a style of art (multi-modal), and one being a group of people who are interested in a style of art, role-playing, creative pursuits, and so forth. Yes, there can be a lot of information that is essentially the same in both articles, but only if they're poorly managed. Furry, the art style, has a lot of information that could never apply to the fandom - such as history when this style began and how it's changed - to acceptance in mainstream society, and it's ties with Disney and the cartoon genre, shaman spiritualism and iconography, ancient Egyptian spiritualism (Anubis), and popular media (where anthro/furry characters are showing up, such as Everquest's Vah Shir race to Hollywood films). The fandom aspect has very little do with any of this, and could instead cover everything from cons, to fursuiting, slang, MUCKs, etc.

Furry and the fandom that follows it is about as different as Star Trek is to Trekkies. You wouldn't merge those, now, would you? Arcuras 07:08, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * This brings up an interesting point. Given how many different definitions of "furry" there are (and the debate over which one is correct), having one article to contain them all seems ridiculous.  Maybe "furry" should become a disambiguation page at some point in the future when it's merited.  For now, however, there is a "furry art" section in furry fandom because, believe it or not, "furry art" is created by and for the furry fandom.  Likewise for spiritualism, etc.
 * Your Trekkies/Star Trek analogy is bad. Trekkies are a fandom (essentially) and a term to describe it.  Star Trek is what the fandom is based on.  Furry is a fandom.  It is based on anthropomorphic animals.  We are not merging the articles for 'furry fandom' and 'anthropmorphic animal' - the term which most people would use to describe what furries call a 'furry'.  See above for my comment about the term 'furry' relating spesifically to the fandom itself and nowhere outside of it. -- Stiv 07:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I still maintain that Furry is more a style/genre.. It's like saying that Anime is created for Anime-fans. Sure.. You need to have an audience. But the anime page isn't about Anime conventions, Cosplay, and other such things. It's about the type of animation called Anime. A disambiguation page, pointing to Furry fandom and Furry art would also be an fine answer.
 * I'm not sure what else you'd want to call the type of art where anthropomorphic characters are drawn. You suggest Talking Animals, or Funny Animals, but those are industry terms, not things anyones uses.
 * I know Google results don't mean much, but I'm not sure how else you describe the style..
 * "Furry art" 80,500 results
 * "Funny Animals art" 109
 * "anthropomorphic animal art" 140
 * "cartoon animal art" 64
 * "talking animal art" 0
 * And just for fun..
 * "Furry Fandom" 13,500
 * If you are hell-bent on discussing furry art outside of the furry fandom page by all means go ahead and create a furry art page. I will tell you that it will however be judged on its merits as a standalone article as immediately as possible, so it's probably not in your best interest do to such a thing.  You consider furry a style/genre, but at the same time make the argument above about trekkies/star trek, etc.  Like many people you seem confused about what the term 'furry' actually means, what the subculture encapsulates, etc.  The furry fandom article is a catch-all for these things and that's why we've been using it.  I don't believe furry art merits its own article right now (see the talk page for furry fandom - currently there's a discussion about this at the bottom) and should be incorporated into the furry fandom article.  It is not hard to link to subheadings of an article, if this is a concern. The point is that there is, at this point, no reason for either a furry or furry art page until the furry fandom page is comprehensive, comprehensible, and up to wikipedia standards.  Consolidation of topics should be a major goal of any good encylopedia and wikipedia is no different.  I don't see why this is so hard to understand. -- Stiv 08:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, I am fairly uninterested in continuing this conversation until the asked-for moderation arrives. You weren't named in it, but your concerns mirror some of those already presented.  Additionally I think my previous response should be understandable enough for the reasons for the merge. -- Stiv 08:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Terribly sorry to be a wet blanket here, but you ARE aware that furry has been used by the Bent (gay, queer, whatever) community for decades to refer to hairy and/or animalistic homosexuals, correct? This meaning easily predates the Furry fandom and its permutations. I am adding this definition and a link to appropriate article to the main page. Unsinkable 03:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I've heard this too, but not even Bear community lists that word, so I guess it is not that much used. "Bear" seems to be the dominant word to describe such a thing. --Conti|✉ 11:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

 * Try a Google search. "furry" yields 2.7M hits for a baseline. Roughly half of those also mention gay ("+furry +gay"). Last, "+furry +gay +men" yields 519,000+ results, roughly a fifth of the baseline. I would suggest that, as the entire Bear article approaches the subject as if North Americans invented hairy men, there might be a systemic colonial bias, but I will take that issue up on that forum. As for this disambiguation, I think that the Google hits suggest that a Bear redirect is still valid here. Unsinkable 00:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * While I think that the google search doesn't mean much here (searching for "gay furry" gives me tons of sites about furries, and almost none about bears), I don't object to the mention of it on this page. I just wanted to note that it's not a really wide used term compared to "bear", and that the mainstream will more likely associate the word with furries. --Conti|✉ 12:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Scottrossi's deletion without discussion was inappropriate, so I reverted it. If he has a valid reason for his revert, he needs to state it here. Yes, there is a discussion in progress on Bear talk, and one of the issues it to make sure that people understand the dual use of the term betwixts furry (gay) and furry (anthropomorphism). If the ONLY meaning for furry was furry fandom, there would be no rationale for a disambiguation page. Google the following string +furry +gay +men to get an idea of the prevalence of this term. Unsinkable 28 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

 * I'm fine with having that definition on the disambig page, so long as it's at the bottom of the list. Not for any vindictive reasons, but we have to organize the items by order of popularity. Considering that you're the first person to come up and talk about it, I get the impression that at least on Wikipedia it's not searched for with that in mind very often. Also, Google is not a very reliable source of common usage, especially in this case where we have a word with many meanings. There are LOTS of gay men who are furries, but not in the bear sense, which skews the results. But doing that google search, it's pretty obvious that the term you're talking about is used often enough to merit a place on the disambig page. --Prangton 28 June 2005 19:15 (UTC)

 * I personally can agree with in principle that there should be no revert without discussion, however to contribute in the discussion, I agree also that Google would give uneven results and should not be trusted. I recommend removing the term until at least multiple sources can be cited here on Talk for giving the definition. --Nidonocu 29 June 2005 10:41 (UTC)

Mediation Request
As the redirect/restoration edit war has been getting out of hand I have requested for Mediation. The major points of debate of the Furry / Furry fandom articles are in the Merge Fandom into fandom article and the Furry article becomes redirect sections. -- Grumpyhan 04:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What about a compromise position? Keep the Furry page as written, carry over material from the Furry Fandom page, and then make Furry Fandom redirect to furry?
 * The one page can start by explaining the term, as used to refer to animals, and go into a ===furry fandom=== section later on.
 * Wouldn't that stop the edit wars?
 * 68.163.234.98
 * That was how the situation started--the active editors had a discussion above about how the furry article was all furry fandom material should be merged in the furry fandom article. The word rather only applies to furry fandom anyway, and is frequently used as an abbreviation for it.  A short note on word usage and inspiration is all that is necessary to merge this material into furry fandom, where it is probably is better suited.  Simple definitions like this belong in Wiktionary anyway. --Krishva 06:05, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Right.. So wouldn't editing THIS page, and making it about an adj, furry, as in "Furry Art" be appropriate? I see your point WRT wikitonary, but I think a page could be made, which talks about furry artwork, rather than the furry "lifestyle" or whatever. It just seems like most people who are talking about Furry foo aren't referring to the entire convention and fursuit thing. I see your point, and I'm trying to agree with you, just finding it hard.
 * Furry art is already discussed as a part of the fandom, that's the thing. Furry art is undeniably a part of the fandom.  Not all furries are into fursuits and conventions, but they're not part of a different furry fandom just because of that. --Krishva 06:54, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous, are you the third party mediator? Please stop adding more fuel to the argument. (that means your google stats too. You aren't helping anything) -- Grumpyhan 07:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "The word rather only applies to furry fandom anyway" -- That's patently false, Krishva, as I'm sure you're aware. Almafeta 17:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To anonymous contributor, what would you say about furry art? If there's enough to write about, we can make the furry page a disambiguation page and point to any future furry art article, as well as the one on the furry fandom. I still think we can fit all this information under the furry fandom header, and just create a redirect to that. Oh yeah, and you should really sign up already.
 * To Almafeta, I think what Krishva is trying to get at is that the word furry used to describe anthropomorphic animals is something that is exclusive to the furry fandom. In other words, people who aren't furries don't use the word "furry" to describe things like the characters in Animal Farm and Maus. People who aren't furries themselves may use the word furry to describe characters created by members of the furry fandom, but it still has ties to the fandom. I hope I've made things more clear. Thanks. --Prangton 20:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To Almafeta, when a mediation request is applied it means you should wait and let the situation be resolved. Please stop reviving the page. -- Grumpyhan 03:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Krishva
Krishva has been maintaining a campaign of deleting the content of the Furry page and replacing it with a redirect to furry fandom. However, some things should be noted regarding her edit of this page: These edits need to be stopped, and the pages returned to as they were before she came along. Almafeta 09:08, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) It has been shown to her that treating the two pages flies directly against currently accepted Wikipedia usage, and yet she continues to merge them.
 * 2) She continues to maintain that the word 'furry' solely applies to a person that is a member of the furry fandom, even when the text of the furry page shows that it isn't.
 * 3) Krishva is established as wanting to 'make fun of and mess with furries.'. First, there was Xydexx's note about her previous behavior from long before Wikipedia.  Then, there is her current behavior; see her contributions page and note the common thread among all her submissions to VfD.  As Assume good faith directs us to not ignore bad faith, we must take her behavior past and present into account.
 * 4) There is an odd solidarity among User:Krishva, Grumpyhan, and Stiv in their opinions, votes on VfD, and writing style.
 * 5) Traditionally, when comitting a major rewrite of an article (as is being done in Star Trek), a notice is added to the very top of the front page in order to invite comment. Instead, she buried her desire inside a talk page that was 75 kilobytes large and growing fast.  That is Vogon bureaucracy at its best; when looking for notices about major rewrites or for vandalism in progress, the monitors of this page look for edits to the main page, not the talk page, which usually deal with edits to one section or to the veracity of a reference.
 * 6) When her points are addressed, she continues to blank the page as if nothing had happened.
 * User:Almafeta, if you want any resolution to this dispute please do not resort to petty personal attacks and wild accusations, I suggest you go to the Mediation page and agree to have a mediator to aid in this situation. Not only is your dragging out the history of User:Krishva tasteless when the other party is requesting for help, your constant ignoring of explanations given (especially on the reasoning behind the redirect which is NOT blanking) is not appreciated. -- Grumpyhan 12:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I second that, mediation is a good idea at this point IMHO, so, everyone involved, go to Requests for mediation and state whether you agree to mediation or not. There is no point in reverting this page to whatever version you prefer, you won't win that way. --Conti|✉ 13:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * There has been discussion recently about what to do with the furry page that would result in a compromise. You have not been participating in this discussion and your continued vendetta against User:Krishva along with your stubborn and reprehensible behavior is not going to help your case any.  I find it particularly disgusting that you feel a need to imply that User:Grumpyhan and myself are sockpuppets of hers when, in actuality, we're her accqauintences.  Please refrain from making yourself look like a jackass and agree to mediation. -- Stiv 05:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Excuse me, but I have not "blanked" (more accurately, redirected) this page more than twice, after there had been considerable group discussion and a general consensus among active editors about the issue on the (admittedly long) Talk page. If you had this article and discussion on your watch, you should have seen activity happening and looked into it.  It's not my fault you weren't paying attention when everyone else was debating this issue.
 * Referencing text that you wrote (as the furry article last stood) is honestly not helping your point, either. If you can get me a reputable (non-furry) source who calls anthropomorphic animals furries or refers to this usage of the word as mainstream or official, please direct me to it.  As someone who keeps her nose in the comics/animation industries and the furry fandom both, I am quite convinced of my current perspective regarding this (that furry is only used by outsiders to furry fandom in order to refer to furry fans or characters/works created by furry fans).  However, if you can prove me wrong, I will gladly acquiesce.
 * I don't really appreciate your wild accusations. You may notice that while many of my VfDs are furry-related, they are all also non-notable.  That this is an unfortunate trend among furry-related articles, which tend to be about obscure furry artists or places in comics most people have never heard of, is not exactly my fault, either.  I just came across them in my treks from the furry and furry fandom pages, and if they were undoubtedly superfluous, I voted them for deletion (as I would for any unnecessary article on a non-notable subject).
 * I apologize for the long response, but in the face of inappropriate personal attacks, I feel I should make a defense. I definitely agree with User:ContiE and User:Grumpyhan--moderation is necessary here. --Krishva 05:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Propositions for keeping the furry article
Since there has been recent debate about the possibility of keeping the furry article, I am interested in hearing ideas. I do believe the optimal soultion for the time being is to keep the redirect to furry fandom, given the lack of distinct information on the furry and furry fandom pages in their incarnations prior to the merge. Solutions should be posed that do not either:

 * Mirror information already in the furry fandom article
 * Do not cover topics that could be easily delt with in a subsection of the furry fandom article.

Reasons for keeping the merge/redirect at present have been amply presented by myself, Grumpyhan, Krishva, and Prangton above. Please keep these in mind when responding, and try to directly address our criticisms with evidence. -- Stiv 19:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Evidence that isn't as nebulous as Google search results, please. :) --Prangton 19:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why specific evidence would really be necessary, though. Furries and furry fandom are two distinct things; a furry is an anthropomorphic animal of some particular type, and furry fandom is a group of people who are fans of furries. The fact that "furry" is also used as a synonym for "furry fan" doesn't change the fact that there's also a distinct meaning attached to the word; this article can simply mention the usage and link to furry fandom in the intro paragraph. Bryan 23:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * The issue in question--why some among us believe the redirect should stand--is because use of the word "furry" to refer to an anthropomorphic animal does not seem to be common outside of furry fandom. (However, use of the word "furry" to refer to a furry fan is indeed common usage, popularized by appearances of furries in television programs recently.) -- Krishva 02:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * But there are tons of articles on Wikipedia with titles that are technical terms not in common use outside of a narrow community, I don't see why "furry" would be different. Bryan 07:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not exactly the same thing. Should "furry" be touted as the appropriate word for cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny or for ancient dieties like Anubis?  Unfortunately, that is what will probably end up happening.  Furry fans aren't an authority in the areas of cartoon animation or ancient religions, and authorities in these fields don't use the word "furry" to describe these kinds of character.  The appropriate words in the fields are funny animal and anthropomorphic deity (or god), respectively (though jackal-headed Anubis is no more anthropomorphic than Set, Isis, Osiris, or any other human-looking deity).
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but most technical terms on Wikipedia are probably restricted to terms used by experts in a particular field. Furries aren't a group of experts--they're a group of fans who have a certain slang.  A page on furry slang in general may be appropriate, if enough content can be drummed up for it, but in general I feel that furry fandom slang should be restricted to the page discussing furry fandom. --Krishva 08:14, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that Bugs Bunny should not be called furry, but I don't see why that means that there should be no Furry article. We have tons of articles about words that are only used in specialized groups, and if "Furry" should not be an article because it is just for a minority group, pretty much every article in Category:Furry has to be deleted as well (Chakat, Fursuit, FurAffinity, Yiff, etc.). So where is the problem with stating that furry is an anthropormorphized animal in a certain fandom? We can write stuff about that, and it can be NPOV. We can state different views and say that Bugs Bunny is not considered furry outside the furry fandom, and we can give examples of "real" furry characters.
 * And by the way, if you enter define:Furry in google, the first entry you get is a non-furry source telling you it is "An anthropomorphic animal, such as Mickey Mouse.". I don't really agree with that, but this shows that there are some sources outside the fandom that adopt the term "furry". --Conti|✉ 13:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, from the way Almafeta wrote his sample article (and has been speaking to me around Wikipedia), I had gotten the impression that he felt a "furry" article should claim that all works containing animal-headed people or speaking animals are "furry" works. I can reluctantly accept an article describing furries as anthropomorphic animals created by furry fans, though I am not entirely sure why it has to be separate from furry fandom, which discusses "fursonas" and furry art already.  That's my main reason for wanting the articles merged.  There are a lot of redundant furry-related articles already--the Category:Furry listing is a mess.
 * While fursuiting is a phenomenon of its own and "chakat" is an original word for an original creation substantial enough for its own article (though I am not sure of its notability), furry is a word with a fairly simple definition. It's a few lines, tops.  Discussion of anthropomorphic animals occurs in other articles, such as anthropomorphism, talking animal, and funny animal.  Discussion on what exactly makes a character "furry" beyond that is bound to lead to massive battles and NPOV disputes.  My usual method is to assume a character is not a furry unless either the author/artist says otherwise, or the author/artist is a member of furry fandom.  Others have different views on the matter.  If we put everybody's opinion in a Furry article, it'd be a mile long and no more informative than saying, "No one can quite agree what a furry is."
 * One solution I can approve of is using the space as a sort of disambiguation article. Something like:

 * Furry can be any of the following:
 * An adjective describing any creature covered with fur
 * A member of furry fandom
 * An adjective used to describe anthropomorphic animal-related art, writing, characters, or other creations by members of the furry fandom (i.e. "furry art" or a "furry character")
 * Any anthropomorphic animal character, such as a talking animal or a funny animal (This usage is furry fandom slang and not generally used in the mainstream public or comic/animation industries)

 * Something like this is short and sweet, and hopefully easy for everybody to agree upon. I'm impressed that you found a source that doesn't appear to be a furry that supports the "all talking animals are furry" idea, and as you can see, I am willing to give space to that opinion as long as it's preceded by a cautionary that it's not common usage amongst most people. --Krishva 04:34, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm in agreement with this as well, but I'd change the disclaimer on the last point to say:
 * Any anthropomorphic animal character, such as a talking animal or a funny animal ''(This meaning originated within the furry fandom when it was first created, and though it has not caught on with themainstream public or the comic/animation industries, many furry fans employ it in this manner.)
 * It sounds a bit less negative and offers a bit more information on the term. --Prangton 06:29, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm quite sure that there are people who think every anthropomorphic animal can be called a furry, and of course there were and will be disputes about these things, but that's not a reason at all not to create an article. Discussion on anthropomorhpic animals does indeed occur on other articles, but they are all not quite the same as the definition of furry. There can be anthropomorphic plants or gods or things for example. A funny animal might be bugs bunny, a cartoon like talking animal, but nothing "serious". A talking animal is a term rather used in folklore and mythology. So there are things that can and should be called "furry", the problem is to find out what can be called what. Zig Zag is obviously furry. But what about Inherit the Earth? A computer adventure about a world of anthropomorphic animals. I know that many people who call themselves furry worked on it, and the creators did know about the fandom while they worked on it, so IMHO it could be described as a "furry game". Others say that everything with anthropomorphic animals in it which is not for kids is furry. I'm not saying it is the truth, but exactly these things could stand in Furry. IMHO it's much more than a simple definition, it should be the discussion about the definition, what the extreme pro and con sides say and what is generally accepted (or not), etc. --Conti|✉ 18:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not as a refutation but more for your edification, just because it's called funny animal does not necessarily entail humour. Maus is considered a funny animal comic, if that's any indication of how the term is misleading. So serious stuff can fall under the funny animal category.
 * If we made a checklist of things that something has to be in order to be considered furry, as well as a list of things we can agree on as being furry (Zig Zag is certainly one of those things) then maybe that might be some content we can work with. --Prangton 20:43, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess the fact the word furry isn't used very much outside furry fandom could be put in a lead section to make things clear. But could someone outline what would go in an article about furries? If it's got enough meat to it I think it could be a subarticle to which the furry fandom article could have a link and a summary. How much can one write about antropomorphic animals? - Mgm|(talk) 20:58, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note, Stiv, that it will be hard to re-write the article without information mirrored in the furry fandom article for two reasons: One, much content that doesn't belong in furry fandom has been moved there; and two, they are related, although distinct, articles, and some content necessarially must be in both to make them both legible, encyclopedic articles.
 * Additionally, since the word 'furry' can mean other things (the character archetype (which would definately be the most 'encyclopedic' article), the style of art, a member of the furry fandom, and someone who identifies as a lifestyler), I think the onus is on you/Grumpyhan/Krishva to explain why furry fandom shouldn't be a sub-article of a broader furry article. (Compare: Esperanto grammar as a subarticle of Esperanto).  Almafeta 22:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Something like this, perhaps? Almafeta 23:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * The style of art is developed and used within the furry fandom, where it belongs as a subheading (unless there's enough information for its own article, again). This was discussed in a discussion thread which you rudely moved to the archive page (although it had only been recently resurrected).  A term for a member of the fandom would, again, likely best be placed as a subheading of the main article, for coherenecy reasons.  Furry Lifestyler already has an article, I think, although I'm not sure where - and if it doesn't, again, that's a subject best explored under the umbrella of the furry fandom article.  You yourself admit that it's hard to write an article without duplicating information, so why write one?  What reasons do you have for moving information from furry fandom back to a furry article?  Don't just make claims, give evidence and good reasons for them - this is a problem you've been having throughout the dispute, and if you would actually provide us with the information we're requesting, this could easily be resolved.  I think furry would serve well as a disambuguation page, mentioned in Prangton's response below.
 * As for furry fandom not being a subheading of furry, again, if you want to move the entire furry fandom article to furry and rewrite it accordingly, be my guest.  The point is that there is not enough information to warrant two articles, and this has always been the main point.  Again, if you can provide evidence to the contrary that's why this section exists.  I honestly don't even see why we're having this ridiculous dispute other than that you seem to insist furries deserve two articles with exactly the same information in them, or one with a few sentences and the other with a generous weath of information. -- Stiv 04:09, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Almafeta, my logic here is that the term is used predominantly by furries to refer to an anthropomorphic animal character. Most people outside the fandom use it only to refer to a member of the fandom (or, at most, an animal character created by a member or members of the fandom).  It's not a widespread or mainstream term as far as the usage you are insistant upon implementing here--that any anthropomorphic animal is a furry.  Therefore, the usage you are trying to implement applies only to a small percentage of people who will view this article (the majority are not furries and will be more interested in the sociological phenomenon that is furry fandom, not what furry fans call a humanoid or talking animal).
 * While it is important to represent the point of view of furries on this matter (basic furry terminology and vocabulary is arguably important when discussing furry fans), it is also important to recognize furry fandom as a minority, the views of whom should not be touted as universal truth, especially in an encyclopedia. --Krishva 01:27, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I've read through what you wrote and left comments about what I feel is inappropriate or inaccurate for the article. I am still not sure what you are trying to get at with the "furry archetype" section. Isn't this stuff already in anthropomorphism? As for the latter part of the question, even though I wasn't specifically addressed, I'll respond to it, since I agree with the people you named. Now listen carefully this time. Several of us have explained this quite a few times, but I'll try to make things clear. You'll have to forgive my peeved tone, but I'm starting to get a little frustrated because you aren't even pretending to entertain our views and give them the benefit of the doubt. Please do, our views are pretty much as worthwhile as yours.
 * Okay, first off: without the furry fandom, the word furry would mean nothing more than its usual definition: covered in fur.
 * It was the furry fandom at its inception that introduced the word furry to describe anthropomorphic animals. In other words, the furry fandom is responsible for the word's meaning.
 * Just because furry fandom has two words in it does not mean it is subordinate to something with one word like furry... if that's even an issue.
 * Furry as a noun describes a furry fan, which should be in the furry fandom article. I mean, this is just common sense.
 * Furry as an adjective depends on the furry fandom in order to work, since the definition is used by:
 * Furry fans to describe anthropomorphic animals
 * Non-furry fans and furry fans alike to describe the creations of the furry fandom
 * Non-furry fans and furry fans alike as a shorthand to describe members of the furry fandom
 * In addition to this, we've asked more than once for examples of non-furry fans using the word furry to describe something that was not created for or by members of the furry fandom, but you haven't ponied up this information, if you'll forgive the pun.
 * If you remove the information that is already covered in the furry fandom article, the anthropomorphism article, and several other articles that already exist and are doing their job perfectly well, you aren't left with much information for a page seperate to furry fandom to make sense.
 * The furry page can be a disambiguation page, but it doesn't need that much content. It can link to furry fandom, anthropomorphism, funny animal, talking animal, and maybe even mammal since they are covered in fur as per the traditional description. It would be harder to do this with the furry fandom article.
 * Does this explain things properly for you? I hope it does, because I don't feel like repeating all of this another 10 times. --Prangton 01:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you can't use Google for some reason, here's what about 5 minutes of searching found:  (furry is used to describe a character's anthropomorphicness),  (in this case, the titular furry character wasn't created by a furry and isn't homid at all),  (here 'furry' is used to describe an Inherit The Earth comic created by the same person who created the game of the same name, although neither she nor Wyrmkeep Entertainment is a furry),  (another use of "furry" by a non-furry to describe a character and a art genre, again for Inherit The Earth),  (although it's a site run by furs, the front page talks about the movie Kaze: Ghost Warrior, which was created by Timothy Albee, someone who is not a furry).
 * If the word 'furry' was only used by non-furs to describe furs, or things made by furs, then yes, your assertions would be correct. But it's not.  Take a look at the Internet culture; through it, 'furry' is being applied to any character which is an anthropomorphic animal or zoomorphic human, whether or not the creator is a member of the 'furry fandom'.  This term is gradually gaining currency even in the internet-illiterate part of our culture, as it's introduced as a 'side article' in such shows as CSI and ER, and such magazines as Vanity Fair.
 * As to being a subset of 'anthropomorphism,' anthropomorphism covers one possible meaning of furry (anthropomorphic animals, such as legends), but not other meanings (zoomorphic humans, such as 'catgirls'; characters in stories in which humans are reincarnated animals or otherwise have animalistic psyches with human forms; or members of the furry fandom). In addition, a character can be anthropomorphic without being furry; although we would all agree that he's anthropomorhic, I'm pretty sure nobody would claim The Brave Little Toaster is furry.
 * In addition, redirecting furry to furry fandom, especially as it's currently written, gives any media with the furry adjective in it a pejorative connotation, as I'm quite sure Krishva and company are aware. Almafeta 21:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I looked over some of these--the one about "The Furry Lady" is a clear case of misinterpretation, as I am fairly sure the use of "furry" in this case means "covered in fur." The two sources on the "Inherit the Earth" game seem kind of off to me--I didn't have time to browse the blog, but the web comic site appears to allow anyone to post up a web comic they like.  Any sources with furries using the word "furry" to indicate mainstream works does not provide evidence to your point--the furry fandom article does already say that some furries call any anthropomorphic animal a furry.
 * The word "furry" is most certainly being introduced in mainstream media--ER, CSI, Vanity Fair--but it tends to refer to things involving furry fans. I am not entirely aware how redirecting to furry fandom could provide a negative connotation as it stands.  I think the article's fairly NPOV (even the sex section), aside from the recent vandalism, which was promptly removed--but if you think any of the content is untrue, you ought to fix it.  If you just think association with furry fandom paints things labelled as "furry" in a negative light, well, I suppose that's a bias speaking on your part.  --Krishva 02:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Didn't we already had some progress that we can write something in Furry? I disagree with Almafeta that "'furry' is being applied to any character which is an anthropomorphic animal or zoomorphic human, whether or not the creator is a member of the 'furry fandom'", but I don't really think that this is actually the point of the whole discussion. Assuming he's right, than we can write that in Furry, assuming he's wrong, we also can write that. And assuming there's some dispute over whether he's right or wrong, we can write that and say which group says what. I simply don't see what this has to do with making furry a redirect to Furry fandom. By the way, have a look at Kemono, it's pretty much the same thing for a japanese audience. Using the logic applied here, that should be redirected to Talking animal (or maybe Kemono fandom?), because it's the same, sort of. Especially the list should be really disputed, none of these things (Dragon Ball, Final Fantasy) actually call themselves kemono. So I propose to restore the furry article without the history section, as the section is already in the furry fandom article. And we can add a note that the word is mostly used inside the furry fandom, and everyone should be happy (I hope). --Conti|✉ 12:15, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know much about kemono itself so I can't much comment on whether your analogy is accurate or not. I am just arguing against Almafeta because his comment was that "furry" is a mainstream word used in reference to animal characters, when it isn't.  I do agree that something can be written in furry, but I would honestly prefer it be a disambiguation (see above, in this section of the Talk page); that way, all definitions are covered and we do not get ourselves into a big circular argument again.
 * Part of my worry with restoring the furry article to its old self is it will result in a constant cycle of people arguing and moving things back and forth between furry and furry fandom, leaving the articles in a constant state of disarray and questionable accuracy. This whole situation is ridiculous enough as it is without setting the stage for it to happen easily again. --Krishva 05:25, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the thing is that the content for the furry page already exists, except it's located in funny animal and talking animal and anthropomorphism. This is why a disambiguation page would be ideal. People looking for furry who want to know about anthropomorphic animals can visit the articles that are directly related to that. If they're looking for furry because they want to find out about the furry fandom, they can visit that article. Because the word furry has two meanings, and the information on both meanings already exists, why not make furry a disambiguation page? --Prangton 05:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd be willing to support a disambiguation page to pages about the different meanings. If we can't have content here, then at least we could have a page that lists its meanings and links to related articles, as opposed to a page that redirects to one possible meaning.  We'd have to be patient as Krishva and her friends/alts kept adding "this meaning is used exclusively in the furry fandom" to every line save one, however.  Almafeta 22:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, Krishva has explained that she meant that the word "furry" is used in that context exclusively in RELATION to the furry fandom, not exclusively BY it. This is something I agree with. Here is what she said, earlier on in the talk page:
 * Almafeta, my logic here is that the term is used predominantly by furries to refer to an anthropomorphic animal character. Most people outside the fandom use it only to refer to a member of the fandom (or, at most, an animal character created by a member or members of the fandom).  It's not a widespread or mainstream term as far as the usage you are insistant upon implementing here--that any anthropomorphic animal is a furry.
 * In other words, not many people (read: none that I can think of) outside the furry fandom refer to anthropomorphic animals as "furries". That's the reason we want to specify that the term as a noun is used in reference to the furry fandom pretty much exclusively, either their creations or the people themselves. Especially since the word furry has other connotations, and even more so if all you've seen about furry fans are the shows about them on television, or if you've stumbled across a furry porn archive on the internet, I personally don't think they should be related. Not on grounds of trying to make the furry fandom look good, since that's kinda an exercize in futility, but rather because it'd be making a vague association like with The Hulk and broccoli, just because they're both green. I mean, how much does Animal Farm have to do with the furry fandom? So just lay off the attacks on Krishva, and maybe she'll act a bit more warmly on your behalf. I agree with her points, I think you should actually listen to them. Thanks.--Prangton 02:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gay lifestylers
This is not a term used in any sort of common parlance. A quick Google search came up with 11 hits for "gay lifestyler" and over 1,450 for "furry lifestyler." I'm changing the text. Dave 18:16, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Furry/Archive 2


text:
Field extension

In mathematics, particularly in algebra, a field extension (denoted $$L/K$$) is a pair of fields $$K \subseteq L$$, such that the operations of K are those of L restricted to K. In this case, L is an extension field of K and K is a subfield of L. For example, under the usual notions of addition and multiplication, the complex numbers are an extension field of the real numbers; the real numbers are a subfield of the complex numbers.

Field extensions are fundamental in algebraic number theory, and in the study of polynomial roots through Galois theory, and are widely used in algebraic geometry.

Subfield
A subfield $$K$$ of a field $$L$$ is a subset $$K\subseteq L$$ that is a field with respect to the field operations inherited from $$L$$. Equivalently, a subfield is a subset that contains $$1$$, and is closed under the operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication, and taking the inverse of a nonzero element of $$K$$.

As $1 – 1 = 0$, the latter definition implies $$K$$ and $$L$$ have the same zero element.

For example, the field of rational numbers is a subfield of the real numbers, which is itself a subfield of the complex numbers. More generally, the field of rational numbers is (or is isomorphic to) a subfield of any field of characteristic $$0$$.

The characteristic of a subfield is the same as the characteristic of the larger field.

Extension field
If K is a subfield of L, then L is an extension field or simply extension of K, and this pair of fields is a field extension. Such a field extension is denoted $$L/K$$ (read as "L over K").

If L is an extension of F, which is in turn an extension of K, then F is said to be an intermediate field (or intermediate extension or subextension) of $$L/K$$.

Given a field extension $$L/K$$, the larger field L is a K-vector space. The dimension of this vector space is called the degree of the extension and is denoted by $$[K:L]$$.

The degree of an extension is 1 if and only if the two fields are equal. In this case, the extension is a trivial extension. Extensions of degree 2 and 3 are called quadratic extensions and cubic extensions, respectively. A finite extension is an extension that has a finite degree.

Given two extensions $$L/K$$ and $$M/L$$, the extension $$M/K$$ is finite if and only if both $$L/K$$ and $$M/L$$ are finite. In this case, one has

 * $$[M : K]=[M : L]\cdot[L : K].$$

Given a field extension $$L/K$$ and a subset S of L, there is a smallest subfield of L that contains K and S. It is the intersection of all subfields of L that contain K and S, and is denoted by K(S) (read as "K adjoin S"). One says that K(S) is the field generated by S over K, and that S is a generating set of K(S) over K. When $$S=\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}$$ is finite, one writes $$K(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$$ instead of $$K(\{x_1, \ldots, x_n\}),$$ and one says that K(S) is finitely generated over K. If S consists of a single element s, the extension K(s) / K is called a simple extension and s is called a primitive element of the extension.

An extension field of the form K(S) is often said to result from the adjunction of S to K.

In characteristic 0, every finite extension is a simple extension. This is the primitive element theorem, which does not hold true for fields of non-zero characteristic.

If a simple extension K(s) / K is not finite, the field K(s) is isomorphic to the field of rational fractions in s over K.

Caveats
The notation L / K is purely formal and does not imply the formation of a quotient ring or quotient group or any other kind of division. Instead the slash expresses the word "over". In some literature the notation L:K is used.

It is often desirable to talk about field extensions in situations where the small field is not actually contained in the larger one, but is naturally embedded. For this purpose, one abstractly defines a field extension as an injective ring homomorphism between two fields. Every non-zero ring homomorphism between fields is injective because fields do not possess nontrivial proper ideals, so field extensions are precisely the morphisms in the category of fields.

Henceforth, we will suppress the injective homomorphism and assume that we are dealing with actual subfields.

Examples
The field of complex numbers $$\Complex$$ is an extension field of the field of real numbers $$\R$$, and $$\R$$ in turn is an extension field of the field of rational numbers $$\Q$$. Clearly then, $$\Complex/\Q$$ is also a field extension. We have $$[\Complex:\R] =2$$ because $$\{1, i\}$$ is a basis, so the extension $$\Complex/\R$$ is finite. This is a simple extension because $$\Complex = \R(i).$$ $$[\R:\Q] =\mathfrak c$$ (the cardinality of the continuum), so this extension is infinite.

The field

 * $$\Q(\sqrt{2}) = \left \{ a + b\sqrt{2} \mid a,b \in \Q \right \},$$

is an extension field of $$\Q,$$ also clearly a simple extension. The degree is 2 because $$\left\{1, \sqrt{2}\right\}$$ can serve as a basis.

The field

 * $$\begin{align}

\Q\left(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}\right) &= \Q \left(\sqrt{2}\right) \left(\sqrt{3}\right) \\ &= \left\{ a+b\sqrt{3} \mid a,b \in \Q\left(\sqrt{2}\right) \right\} \\ &= \left\{ a + b \sqrt{2} + c\sqrt{3} + d\sqrt{6} \mid a,b,c, d \in \Q \right\}, \end{align}$$

is an extension field of both $$\Q(\sqrt{2})$$ and $$\Q,$$ of degree 2 and 4 respectively. It is also a simple extension, as one can show that

 * $$\begin{align}

\Q(\sqrt{2}, \sqrt{3}) &= \Q (\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3}) \\ &= \left \{ a + b (\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3}) + c (\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})^2 + d(\sqrt{2} + \sqrt{3})^3 \mid a,b,c, d \in \Q\right\}. \end{align}$$

Finite extensions of $$\Q$$ are also called algebraic number fields and are important in number theory. Another extension field of the rationals, which is also important in number theory, although not a finite extension, is the field of p-adic numbers $$\Q_p$$ for a prime number p.

It is common to construct an extension field of a given field K as a quotient ring of the polynomial ring K[X] in order to "create" a root for a given polynomial f(X). Suppose for instance that K does not contain any element x with x2 = −1. Then the polynomial $$X^2+1$$ is irreducible in K[X], consequently the ideal generated by this polynomial is maximal, and $$L = K[X]/(X^2+1)$$ is an extension field of K which does contain an element whose square is −1 (namely the residue class of X).

By iterating the above construction, one can construct a splitting field of any polynomial from K[X]. This is an extension field L of K in which the given polynomial splits into a product of linear factors.

If p is any prime number and n is a positive integer, there is a unique (up to isomorphism) finite field $$GF(p^n) = \mathbb{F}_{p^n}$$ with pn elements; this is an extension field of the prime field $$\operatorname{GF}(p) = \mathbb{F}_p = \Z/p\Z$$ with p elements.

Given a field K, we can consider the field K(X) of all rational functions in the variable X with coefficients in K; the elements of K(X) are fractions of two polynomials over K, and indeed K(X) is the field of fractions of the polynomial ring K[X]. This field of rational functions is an extension field of K. This extension is infinite.

Given a Riemann surface M, the set of all meromorphic functions defined on M is a field, denoted by $$\Complex(M).$$ It is a transcendental extension field of $$\Complex$$ if we identify every complex number with the corresponding constant function defined on M. More generally, given an algebraic variety V over some field K, the function field K(V), consisting of the rational functions defined on V, is an extension field of K.

Algebraic extension
An element x of a field extension $$L/K$$ is algebraic over K if it is a root of a nonzero polynomial with coefficients in K. For example, $$\sqrt 2$$ is algebraic over the rational numbers, because it is a root of $$x^2-2.$$ If an element x of L is algebraic over K, the monic polynomial of lowest degree that has x as a root is called the minimal polynomial of x. This minimal polynomial is irreducible over K.

An element s of L is algebraic over K if and only if the simple extension K(s) /K is a finite extension. In this case the degree of the extension equals the degree of the minimal polynomial, and a basis of the K-vector space K(s) consists of $$1, s, s^2, \ldots, s^{d-1},$$ where d is the degree of the minimal polynomial.

The set of the elements of L that are algebraic over K form a subextension, which is called the algebraic closure of K in L. This results from the preceding characterization: if s and t are algebraic, the extensions K(s) /K and K(s)(t) /K(s) are finite. Thus K(s, t) /K is also finite, as well as the sub extensions K(s ± t) /K, K(st) /K and K(1/s) /K (if s ≠ 0). It follows that s ± t, st and 1/s are all algebraic.

An algebraic extension $$L/K$$ is an extension such that every element of L is algebraic over K. Equivalently, an algebraic extension is an extension that is generated by algebraic elements. For example, $$\Q(\sqrt 2, \sqrt 3)$$ is an algebraic extension of $$\Q$$, because $$\sqrt 2$$ and $$\sqrt 3$$ are algebraic over $$\Q.$$

A simple extension is algebraic if and only if it is finite. This implies that an extension is algebraic if and only if it is the union of its finite subextensions, and that every finite extension is algebraic.

Every field K has an algebraic closure, which is up to an isomorphism the largest extension field of K which is algebraic over K, and also the smallest extension field such that every polynomial with coefficients in K has a root in it. For example, $$\Complex$$ is an algebraic closure of $$\R$$, but not an algebraic closure of $$\Q$$, as it is not algebraic over $$\Q$$ (for example $\pi$ is not algebraic over $$\Q$$).

Transcendental extension
Given a field extension $$L/K$$, a subset S of L is called algebraically independent over K if no non-trivial polynomial relation with coefficients in K exists among the elements of S. The largest cardinality of an algebraically independent set is called the transcendence degree of L/K. It is always possible to find a set S, algebraically independent over K, such that L/K(S) is algebraic. Such a set S is called a transcendence basis of L/K. All transcendence bases have the same cardinality, equal to the transcendence degree of the extension. An extension $$L/K$$ is said to be  if and only if there exists a transcendence basis S of $$L/K$$ such that L = K(S). Such an extension has the property that all elements of L except those of K are transcendental over K, but, however, there are extensions with this property which are not purely transcendental—a class of such extensions take the form L/K where both L and K are algebraically closed.

If L/K is purely transcendental and S is a transcendence basis of the extension, it doesn't necessarily follow that L = K(S). On the opposite, even when one knows a transcendence basis, it may be difficult to decide whether the extension is purely separable, and if it is so, it may be difficult to find a transcendence basis S such that L = K(S).

For example, consider the extension $$\Q(x, y)/\Q,$$ where $$x$$ is transcendental over $$\Q,$$ and $$y$$ is a root of the equation $$y^2-x^3=0.$$ Such an extension can be defined as $$\Q(X)[Y]/\langle Y^2-X^3\rangle,$$ in which $$x$$ and $$y$$ are the equivalence classes of $$X$$ and $$Y.$$ Obviously, the singleton set $$\{x\}$$ is transcendental over $$\Q$$ and the extension $$\Q(x, y)/\Q(x)$$ is algebraic; hence $$\{x\}$$ is a transcendence basis that does not generates the extension $$\Q(x, y)/\Q(x)$$. Similarly, $$\{y\}$$ is a transcendence basis that does not generates the whole extension. However the extension is purely transcendental since, if one set $$t=y/x,$$ one has $$x=t^2$$ and $$y=t^3,$$ and thus $$t$$ generates the whole extension.

Purely transcendental extensions of an algebraically closed field occur as function fields of rational varieties. The problem of finding a rational parametrization of a rational variety is equivalent with the problem of finding a transcendence basis that generates the whole extension.

Normal, separable and Galois extensions
An algebraic extension $$L/K$$ is called normal if every irreducible polynomial in K[X] that has a root in L completely factors into linear factors over L. Every algebraic extension F/K admits a normal closure L, which is an extension field of F such that $$L/K$$ is normal and which is minimal with this property.

An algebraic extension $$L/K$$ is called separable if the minimal polynomial of every element of L over K is separable, i.e., has no repeated roots in an algebraic closure over K. A Galois extension is a field extension that is both normal and separable.

A consequence of the primitive element theorem states that every finite separable extension has a primitive element (i.e. is simple).

Given any field extension $$L/K$$, we can consider its automorphism group $$\text{Aut}(L/K)$$, consisting of all field automorphisms α: L → L with α(x) = x for all x in K. When the extension is Galois this automorphism group is called the Galois group of the extension. Extensions whose Galois group is abelian are called abelian extensions.

For a given field extension $$L/K$$, one is often interested in the intermediate fields F (subfields of L that contain K). The significance of Galois extensions and Galois groups is that they allow a complete description of the intermediate fields: there is a bijection between the intermediate fields and the subgroups of the Galois group, described by the fundamental theorem of Galois theory.

Generalizations
Field extensions can be generalized to ring extensions which consist of a ring and one of its subrings. A closer non-commutative analog are central simple algebras (CSAs) – ring extensions over a field, which are simple algebra (no non-trivial 2-sided ideals, just as for a field) and where the center of the ring is exactly the field. For example, the only finite field extension of the real numbers is the complex numbers, while the quaternions are a central simple algebra over the reals, and all CSAs over the reals are Brauer equivalent to the reals or the quaternions. CSAs can be further generalized to Azumaya algebras, where the base field is replaced by a commutative local ring.

Extension of scalars
Given a field extension, one can "extend scalars" on associated algebraic objects. For example, given a real vector space, one can produce a complex vector space via complexification. In addition to vector spaces, one can perform extension of scalars for associative algebras defined over the field, such as polynomials or group algebras and the associated group representations. Extension of scalars of polynomials is often used implicitly, by just considering the coefficients as being elements of a larger field, but may also be considered more formally. Extension of scalars has numerous applications, as discussed in extension of scalars: applications.

title: Field extension


text:
Flood fill

Flood fill, also called seed fill, is a flooding algorithm that determines and alters the area connected to a given node in a multi-dimensional array with some matching attribute. It is used in the "bucket" fill tool of paint programs to fill connected, similarly-colored areas with a different color, and in games such as Go and Minesweeper for determining which pieces are cleared. A variant called boundary fill uses the same algorithms but is defined as the area connected to a given node that does not have a particular attribute.

Note that flood filling is not suitable for drawing filled polygons, as it will miss some pixels in more acute corners. Instead, see Even-odd rule and Nonzero-rule.

The algorithm parameters
The traditional flood-fill algorithm takes three parameters: a start node, a target color, and a replacement color. The algorithm looks for all nodes in the array that are connected to the start node by a path of the target color and changes them to the replacement color. For a boundary-fill, in place of the target color, a border color would be supplied.

In order to generalize the algorithm in the common way, the following descriptions will instead have two routines available. One called  which returns true for unfilled points that, by their color, would be inside the filled area, and one called   which fills a pixel/node. Any node that has  called on it must then no longer be.

Depending on whether we consider nodes touching at the corners connected or not, we have two variations: eight-way and four-way respectively.

Stack-based recursive implementation (four-way)
The earliest-known, implicitly stack-based, recursive, four-way flood-fill implementation goes as follows:

Flood-fill (node): 1. If node is not Inside return. 2. Set the node 3. Perform Flood-fill one step to the south of node. 4. Perform Flood-fill one step to the north of node 5. Perform Flood-fill one step to the west of node 6. Perform Flood-fill one step to the east of node 7. Return.

Though easy to understand, the implementation of the algorithm used above is impractical in languages and environments where stack space is severely constrained (e.g. Microcontrollers).

Moving the recursion into a data structure
Moving the recursion into a data structure (either a stack or a queue) prevents a stack overflow. It is similar to the simple recursive solution, except that instead of making recursive calls, it pushes the nodes onto a stack or queue for consumption, with the choice of data structure affecting the proliferation pattern:

Flood-fill (node): 1. Set Q to the empty queue or stack. 2. Add node to the end of Q. 3. While Q is not empty: 4.  Set n equal to the first element of Q. 5.  Remove first element from Q. 6.  If n is Inside: Set the n Add the node to the west of n to the end of Q. Add the node to the east of n to the end of Q. Add the node to the north of n to the end of Q. Add the node to the south of n to the end of Q. 7. Continue looping until Q is exhausted. 8. Return.

Further potential optimizations

 * Check and set each node's pixel color before adding it to the stack/queue, reducing stack/queue size.
 * Use a loop for the east/west directions, queuing pixels above/below as you go (making it similar to the span filling algorithms, below).
 * Interleave two or more copies of the code with extra stacks/queues, to allow out-of-order processors more opportunity to parallelize.
 * Use multiple threads (ideally with slightly different visiting orders, so they don't stay in the same area).

Advantages

 * Very simple algorithm - easy to make bug-free.

Disadvantages

 * Uses a lot of memory, particularly when using a stack.
 * Tests most filled pixels a total of four times.
 * Not suitable for pattern filling, as it requires pixel test results to change.
 * Access pattern is not cache-friendly, for the queuing variant.
 * Cannot easily optimize for multi-pixel words or bitplanes.

Span filling

It's possible to optimize things further by working primarily with spans, a row with constant. The first published complete example works on the following basic principle.

 * 1) Starting with a seed point, fill left and right. Keep track of the leftmost filled point   and rightmost filled point  . This defines the span.
 * 2) Scan from   to   above and below the seed point, searching for new seed points to continue with.

As an optimisation, the scan algorithm does not need restart from every seed point, but only those at the start of the next span. Using a stack explores spans depth first, whilst a queue explores spans breadth first.

fn fill(x, y): if not Inside(x, y) then return let s = new empty stack or queue Add (x, y) to s while s is not empty: Remove an (x, y) from s let lx = x while Inside(lx - 1, y): Set(lx - 1, y) lx = lx - 1 while Inside(x, y): Set(x, y) x = x + 1 scan(lx, x - 1, y + 1, s) scan(lx, x - 1, y - 1, s) fn scan(lx, rx, y, s): let span_added = false for x in lx .. rx: if not Inside(x, y): span_added = false else if not span_added: Add (x, y) to s span_added = true

Over time, the following optimizations were realized:
 * When a new scan would be entirely within a grandparent span, it would certainly only find filled pixels, and so wouldn't need queueing.
 * Further, when a new scan overlaps a grandparent span, only the overhangs (U-turns and W-turns) need to be scanned.
 * It's possible to fill while scanning for seeds

The final, combined-scan-and-fill span filler was then published in 1990. In pseudo-code form:

fn fill(x, y): if not Inside(x, y) then return let s = new empty queue or stack Add (x, x, y, 1) to s Add (x, x, y - 1, -1) to s while s is not empty: Remove an (x1, x2, y, dy) from s let x = x1 if Inside(x, y): while Inside(x - 1, y): Set(x - 1, y) x = x - 1 if x < x1: Add (x, x1 - 1, y - dy, -dy) to s while x1 <= x2: while Inside(x1, y): Set(x1, y) x1 = x1 + 1 if x1 > x: Add (x, x1 - 1, y + dy, dy) to s if x1 - 1 > x2: Add (x2 + 1, x1 - 1, y - dy, -dy) to s x1 = x1 + 1 while x1 < x2 and not Inside(x1, y): x1 = x1 + 1 x = x1

Advantages

 * 2–8x faster than the pixel-recursive algorithm.
 * Access pattern is cache and bitplane-friendly.
 * Can draw a horizontal line rather than setting individual pixels.

Disadvantages

 * Still visits pixels it has already filled. (For the popular algorithm, 3 scans of most pixels. For the final one, only doing extra scans of pixels where there are holes in the filled area.)
 * Not suitable for pattern filling, as it requires pixel test results to change.

Adding pattern filling support
Two common ways to make the span and pixel-based algorithms support pattern filling are either to use a unique color as a plain fill and then replace that with a pattern or to keep track (in a 2d boolean array or as regions) of which pixels have been visited, using it to indicate pixels are no longer fillable. Inside must then return false for such visited pixels.

Graph-theoretic filling
Some theorists applied explicit graph theory to the problem, treating spans of pixels, or aggregates of such, as nodes and studying their connectivity. The first published graph theory algorithm worked similarly to the span filling, above, but had a way to detect when it would duplicate filling of spans. Unfortunately, it had bugs that made it not complete some fills. A corrected algorithm was later published with a similar basis in graph theory; however, it alters the image as it goes along, to temporarily block off potential loops, complicating the programmatic interface. A later published algorithm depended on the boundary being distinct from everything else in the image and so isn't suitable for most uses; it also requires an extra bit per pixel for bookkeeping.

Advantages

 * Suitable for pattern filling, directly, as it never retests filled pixels.
 * Double the speed of the original span algorithm, for uncomplicated fills.
 * Access pattern is cache and bitplane-friendly.

Disadvantages

 * Regularly, a span has to be compared to every other 'front' in the queue, which significantly slows down complicated fills.
 * Switching back and forth between graph theoretic and pixel domains complicates understanding.
 * The code is fairly complicated, increasing the chances of bugs.

Walk-based filling (Fixed-memory method)
A method exists that uses essentially no memory for four-connected regions by pretending to be a painter trying to paint the region without painting themselves into a corner. This is also a method for solving mazes. The four pixels making the primary boundary are examined to see what action should be taken. The painter could find themselves in one of several conditions:

 * 1) All four boundary pixels are filled.
 * 2) Three of the boundary pixels are filled.
 * 3) Two of the boundary pixels are filled.
 * 4) One boundary pixel is filled.
 * 5) Zero boundary pixels are filled.

Where a path or boundary is to be followed, the right-hand rule is used. The painter follows the region by placing their right-hand on the wall (the boundary of the region) and progressing around the edge of the region without removing their hand.

For case #1, the painter paints (fills) the pixel the painter is standing upon and stops the algorithm.

For case #2, a path leading out of the area exists. Paint the pixel the painter is standing upon and move in the direction of the open path.

For case #3, the two boundary pixels define a path which, if we painted the current pixel, may block us from ever getting back to the other side of the path. We need a "mark" to define where we are and which direction we are heading to see if we ever get back to exactly the same pixel. If we already created such a "mark", then we preserve our previous mark and move to the next pixel following the right-hand rule.

A mark is used for the first 2-pixel boundary that is encountered to remember where the passage started and in what direction the painter was moving. If the mark is encountered again and the painter is traveling in the same direction, then the painter knows that it is safe to paint the square with the mark and to continue in the same direction. This is because (through some unknown path) the pixels on the other side of the mark can be reached and painted in the future. The mark is removed for future use.

If the painter encounters the mark but is going in a different direction, then some sort of loop has occurred, which caused the painter to return to the mark. This loop must be eliminated. The mark is picked up, and the painter then proceeds in the direction indicated previously by the mark using a left-hand rule for the boundary (similar to the right-hand rule but using the painter's left hand). This continues until an intersection is found (with three or more open boundary pixels). Still using the left-hand rule the painter now searches for a simple passage (made by two boundary pixels). Upon finding this two-pixel boundary path, that pixel is painted. This breaks the loop and allows the algorithm to continue.

For case #4, we need to check the opposite 8-connected corners to see whether they are filled or not. If either or both are filled, then this creates a many-path intersection and cannot be filled. If both are empty, then the current pixel can be painted and the painter can move following the right-hand rule.

The algorithm trades time for memory. For simple shapes it is very efficient. However, if the shape is complex with many features, the algorithm spends a large amount of time tracing the edges of the region trying to ensure that all can be painted.

A walking algorithm was published in 1994.

Pseudocode
This is a pseudocode implementation of an optimal fixed-memory flood-fill algorithm written in structured English:

 * The variables
 * ,, and   each hold either pixel coordinates or a null value
 * NOTE: when  is set to null, do not erase its previous coordinate value. Keep those coordinates available to be recalled if necessary.
 * ,, and   each hold a direction (left, right, up, or down)
 * and  each hold boolean values
 * is an integer
 * The algorithm
 * NOTE: All directions (front, back, left, right) are relative to

set cur to starting pixel set cur-dir to default direction clear mark and mark2 (set values to null) set backtrack and findloop to false while front-pixel is empty do move forward end while jump to START MAIN LOOP: move forward if right-pixel is inside then if backtrack is true and findloop is false and either front-pixel or left-pixel is inside then set findloop to true end if turn right PAINT: move forward end if START: set count to number of non-diagonally adjacent pixels filled (front/back/left/right ONLY) if count is not 4 then do turn right while front-pixel is inside do turn left while front-pixel is not inside end if switch count case 1 if backtrack is true then set findloop to true else if findloop is true then if mark is null then restore mark end if else if front-left-pixel and back-left-pixel are both inside then clear mark set cur jump to PAINT end if end case case 2 if back-pixel is not inside then if front-left-pixel is inside then clear mark set cur jump to PAINT end if else if mark is not set then set mark to cur set mark-dir to cur-dir clear mark2 set findloop and backtrack to false else if mark2 is not set then if cur is at mark then if cur-dir is the same as mark-dir then clear mark turn around set cur jump to PAINT else set backtrack to true set findloop to false set cur-dir to mark-dir end if else if findloop is true then set mark2 to cur set mark2-dir to cur-dir end if else if cur is at mark then set cur to mark2 set cur-dir to mark2-dir clear mark and mark2 set backtrack to false turn around set cur jump to PAINT else if cur at mark2 then set mark to cur set cur-dir and mark-dir to mark2-dir clear mark2 end if end if end if end case case 3 clear mark set cur jump to PAINT end case case 4 set cur done end case end switch end MAIN LOOP

Advantages

 * Constant memory usage.

Disadvantages

 * Access pattern is not cache or bitplane-friendly.
 * Can spend a lot of time walking around loops before closing them.

Vector implementations
Version 0.46 of Inkscape includes a bucket fill tool, giving output similar to ordinary bitmap operations and indeed using one: the canvas is rendered, a flood fill operation is performed on the selected area and the result is then traced back to a path. It uses the concept of a boundary condition.

title: Flood fill


text:
Talk:Flood fill

Random Comments
The section of vector algorithms appears to be an advertisement. This be converted to something that actually talks about a vector implementation of the flood fill algorithm. -- Engineeringsimon

The "Fixed memory method" has an abrupt start to it. I couldn't understand the painter concept here. --Manav Kataria

Flood-fill in Tetris
[Long conversation snipped] Though some variants of Tetris use a flood-fill alike algorithm to make disconnected parts of the board physically drop, it's not in most variants, so don't add Tetris to the list of uses.

Other uses should be mentioned
Use of flood fill is not limited to the examples in the introduction text. I've just found flood fill to be useful in an image recognition application, for example.

So, the introduction should probably say something like "Has many uses, among them paint programs, games" or similar... as it probably has even more uses that can't and shouldn't all be stated in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Scan-and-fill span filler
The combined scan-and-fill span filler pseudocode has been slowly evolving for a little while now. I can confirm that the current version as of the revision on 24 July 2023 appears to work correctly, after the revision on 24 May 2023 broke the algorithm again. It might be a good idea for editors to verify their edits to the algorithm actually work correctly before submitting their changes.

Here's an image comparison of an implementation of the algorithm across different revisions: https://imgur.com/a/CWqIuMD

In the images, an A-like shape has been drawn in black and the flood fill has been performed with the color red in the hole of the A. The first image shows correct behavior by the current (24 July 2023) revision and some previous revisions that got it right. The second image shows incorrect behavior by several other revisions prior to this, where the fill escapes the enclosing area. Willpowered (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flood fill