They are a Furry if they call themself a Furry. They are not a Furry if they never call themself a Furry. Furry is really more of an identity one chooses these days.

That said, by the old fashioned definition, an anthro snail is a Furry.

I doubt they are furries . they have no fur and are characters WIthin a franchise

Well the most old fashioned definition of "Furry" is "An anthropomorphic animal", and if you look up "define furry" on Google, that's the definition it will give you as such. So it is a Furry by that definition, even if not by the others...
Being within a franchise doesn't have anything to do with whether or not someone or something is a Furry. The alternatives to Furry are Human, Humanoid, and Feral/regular Animal, and each category is somewhere different on the spectrum between regular humans and regular animals.

But it has lots of definitions, so even if I choose a definition under which they are Furry, you can choose one under which they aren't, and both are valid. However, I definitely wouldn't call them furry (with lower case, as in the more basic adjective of having fur, which is a somewhat separate matter).

BTW I always thought WE are Furries. And these Characters we are creation are Furcharacters .... As far that is what I read. As we call ourself.. Furrries.. erm.. eh.. yeah... So.. Namekians are Anthros .. but .. coudl never be a afurry.. unless he is doing stuffs in the Furry fandom..

Again, the word Furry has lots of definitions, and the only one that can guarantee that someone Is a Furry is if they call themselves a Furry, because then they are Furry by identity. And the only thing that can guarantee that someone is Not a Furry is if they specifically say that they are not a Furry, thus they are Not A Furry, by identity. When it's this debated, probably they aren't a Furry, but only they can say for sure.

My character calls himself an Ally to Furries, but also says that he is Not A Furry. I actually say similar. So even though I'm in some sense involved in the Fandom, I'm not really a Furry myself, just the type of critter who fits in well with Furries in general. My 'sona is actually a monster I came up with for an RPG I'm making, so technically he's not a Fursona even though I sometimes call him that just for the sake of simplicity. But I don't usually worry about that detail.

But it's always worth saying again: There are always A Lot of definitions for what is or isn't a Furry, so there is never gonna be perfect agreement, but identifying as a Furry is the most consistent one.

In any event, I wish you well on your journey.

well. In google and every where else I only read Furry when refering a person who is in the fandom. Not a character.

Oh and character inveented by yourself are Ocs - Orginal characters.
Characters you came up with but are related to any kind of game or tv show/movie are Fancharacters
and Fursonas are YOURSELF in anthropomorphic animal form .

I honestly hold to my personal belief that I am entitled to my opinion about how to define things just as much as you are, and that's that. I have seen Furry used for lots of things, and I would never call myself a Furry if I can't call my Fursona's species a Furry species. To me those are inextricable, but again that is my personal opinion and belief that I hold tightly to. I do believe that you are entitled to think of it your way even as I think of it mine, but repeating your definitions isn't going to make me switch over from mine.

I just looked it up again and apparently Google gives a different definition than before. But what makes a definition valid is usage, so if I never use a word to mean a particular thing then in practice it doesn't have that definition for me, and similarly if I do use a word to mean a particular thing then in practice it does have that definition for me.

However, seeing as how we are so stout in our ways, each having our own good reasons for believing the definitions we do, I see no need to debate it further.

Yes. it is a furry species but not a Furry XD
Do you get what I mean? IN the public and everywhere else you and I are furries but our characters are Furry characters.. not furs .

You understand what I mean? YOu also do
not call music a Musician...

Oh I see. Well I'm rarely that carefully technical about that, but I can see what you're saying now :3

I always catching myself messing this up over and over again Oo XD

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/8546351/

Does a snail have fur?
Scalies are also no furries - if you take it for FURry being the terms of being a FURry XD

Oh. and they are cosplay (If you perform them) . and if you have a namekian as your character this is a fancharacter ..

Furry was always a misnomer, a casual term that's not exactly descriptive. IE, "furries" do not need fur. A 'furry' is an anthropormorphized animal. It can have fur, but it could just have scales, feathers, hide, skin.

If they are, they would be classified as exotic lol

Yes they are. Seeing that scalies are actually furry too, because they are part of the fandom even though they have no fur.

The besic definition is "anthro animal"
Anthro snail is one of it.

I'd say Namekians resemble humanoids more so than their animal origins so I don't think I'd consider them as "furry" so much as alien. Otherwise you'd have to say all humanoid aliens are "furries" if they evolved from a species that is similar to any animal we have on earth.

If it isn't a pure human or an anime character with like cat ears or a tail. It is technically a furry.

So goku is not a furry. Unless he goes full ape.

So no Namekians go in anime porn not furry.

There is...

Normal porn. (Humans x Humans)

Anime porn. (Most final fantasy characters, any characters like betty boop art style, and a few Pokemon go here, like Machoke. Living latex and tentacles also go here.)

Fantasy porn. (This is your lord of the rings and world of Warcraft section. Also your mind control and soul binding kinks)

Si-fi porn. (This is aliens and robots. Mewtwo is also in this category.)

Furry porn. (Mostly animal/beast related)

Of corse some characters can fall under more than one category. Like link and zelda go in both anime and fantasy. And dragon go in both fantasy and furry.

It all depends on who is in the picture.

Namekians alone are not furries. They go in anime mostly. But if goku goes full ape and they are fucking then it can fall under furry art.

Technical there is no real r34 star wars furries. All go in Si-fi porn.

Thinking it over : No character on FA is a furry . We re Furries ... our characters are anthros ...

They're a Yoshi!

They're for all purposes plants, so no, Namekians aren't technically furry.

They're technically bidedal slugs (All Namekian names except for Piccolo and Kami are puns on slugs or snails), so they are furries in the general sense that they are anthropomorphic animals that aren't humans, even if they aren't furries in the snobbish sense that they don't have fur.

^ Agreed with this. They're basically what would happen if humans somehow evolved from slugs, rather than primates.

Though the argument could be made that they're closer to being zoomorphic humans than anthropomorphic animals. (i.e. the difference between a 'catgirl' with the ears and tail and MAYBE the paws, but nothing else, and a girl who is a cat like you see around here)

No

Well at first they were demons untill Z came around. Then more like plants and then slugs. No and yes?

so basicly it depends on which version of the show you base it on, is what your saying. fair point.

As team four star piccolo said, "damn it I liked it better when I was a demon."

neither of the above, they just fall under rule 34.

THIS

BTW I always thought WE are Furries. And these Characters we are creation are Furcharacters .... As far that is what I read. As we call ourself.. Furrries.. erm.. eh.. yeah... So.. Namekians are Anthros .. but .. coudl never be a afurry.. unless he is doing stuffs in the Furry fandom..

I have a question similar in regards to birds. Would it be more accurate to call them "featheries"? "Featheries" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, though.