Can Borderline Petting Zoo People be split from Petting Zoo People: Petting Zoo People

Do you think that Borderline Petting-Zoo People has enough examples to be split from Petting-Zoo People?

Here are the Borderline Petting-Zoo People examples:

• Tony the Tiger
• A lot of the mice in The Great Mouse Detective
• Sawyer from Cats Dont Dance
• Maid Marian from Robin Hood
• Gadget Hackwrench from Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers
• Rebecca Cunningham from Tale Spin
• The Top-Heavy Guy villain, Drake and a lot of female penguins (including Marina) in The Pebble And The Penguin
• Sly Cooper, the titular character of his game series.
• Arnold the Pit Bull from Tiny Toon Adventures
• Lola Bunny is this in The Looney Tunes Show, even though she is a Petting Zoo Person in Space Jam.
• Dudley Puppy from TUFF Puppy
• Goofy and his son Max
• The three Nephews and Daisy were shifted into this style during Quack Pack
• Many of the mice in the more recent CG Angelina Ballerina OVA.
• Mordecai on Regular Show
• Fox from Skunk Fu

What is the difference? It needs to be clear-cut and objective, or it will simply become a duplicate page and a source of Natter and arguments.

Boderline Petting Zoo Person description:

They have a body that does not look simply like an animal-accented human body, nor does it keep the basic shape of the animal entirely like a Funny Animal. They look partly humanoid and partly like their species, often they have either humanoid legs and non-humanoid torso, humanoid torso and non-humaniod legs, or look semi-humanoid all over. Many top heavy bipedal animal characters are of the humanoid torso and non-humaniod legs variety.

Comparison:

• Petting Zoo Person: Anthropomorphic animal with an animal's head on an animal-accented human body.
• Borderline Petting Zoo Person: Anthropomorphic animal with a body partly like an animal-accented human body (Petting Zoo Person) and partly like a bipedal version of its species (Funny Animal).
• Funny Animal: Anthropomorphic animal with the basic shape of its species, despite being bipedal.

edited 5th Nov '11 5:20:28 PM by EdnaWalker

Edna, you might be looking for Little Bit Beastly.

Delete: Nevermind. I was remembering wrong about which side of the border Borderline Petting Zoo People was.

edited 5th Nov '11 5:38:34 PM by Auxdarastrix

What is this I don't even...

Edna, you're oversplitting things ... again.

edited 5th Nov '11 5:37:12 PM by Stratadrake

I think it is easier to expand Petting-Zoo People than to try to define the fine gradient of a difference that Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism gives.

What said. Tropes Are Flexible.

This feels like splitting hairs to me. I think Petting Zoo People and Funny Animals are enough.

IMHO, virtually all of the examples Edna listed in OP belong under Funny Animal.

edited 5th Nov '11 6:13:19 PM by Stratadrake

Do think that a soft split would be nice?

As you've explained it, I personally see no need for a split at all.

Funny Animal is a broader and more accomodating range for borderline cases.

The categories in Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism were thrashed out over the course of several months with the help of many tropers. The balance between having useful categories and splitting hairs wasn't easy to reach. My instinct is that adding more categories would be a mistake. There are already quite a few, and if they cease to be memorable and distinct it would more than offset the benefit of more fine-grained categorization.

(Aside: whoever thought of starting with Mr Snoop Dogg and ending with a dog is a star.)

edited 5th Nov '11 8:35:14 PM by Camacan

Do you think that the borderline case that is currently called Borderline Petting-Zoo People have a name that flows better, like Demi Petting Zoo Person.

No, it's not going to be split into its own trope.

edited 5th Nov '11 9:48:24 PM by EdnaWalker

What part of "this isn't splittable" don't you understand?

Edna, we're arguing that the borderline cases aren't distinctive enough to justify any splitting. Whatsoever.

(BTW, the current image for Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism was hashed out over a long, weary IP thread.)

edited 5th Nov '11 9:16:09 PM by Stratadrake

So, shouldn't we leave the trope as it is and not split it?

Also, can I change borderline case name Borderline Petting Zoo Person to Demi Petting Zoo Person?

I think distinguishing them by a name at all is actually pointless. If they aren't humanoid enough to be Petting Zoo People (especially if they have animal legs plus tails) then they're Funny Animals, unless they're clearly some sort of hairless-torso-ed hybrid like satyrs.

Changing the name won't make the distinction any clearer or more objective. And the fact that the distinction is both not clear and rather subjective is the problem.

Add to that that Funny Animal is a pre-established term while we are the ones coining Petting-Zoo People... I don't want/need to lecture anyone (especially Edna) over the definitions, but Funny Animal is the broader category and more tolerant of borderline cases.

After all, typically Petting-Zoo People are built on a human frame almost to the "man-in-animal-costume" degree. Funny Animal characters are more a caricature of a human frame. Though both tend to have largely human mannerisms + Furry Reminder.

Oops, lecturing. Didn't I tell myself not to do that?

edited 7th Nov '11 10:37:47 AM by Stratadrake

So, should those borderline cases be put in Funny Animal instead.

I'd say go with whatever is closest. And generally leave things where they are rather than move them for the sake of moving them, if they are close to the edge. As I see it, this is a framework for appreciating variations, not some razor-sharp taxonomy.

Locking up — from what I can see the consensus here is for no change.