New trope development discussion (new name crowner): Badass Furry

In our ongoing cleanup of Badass tropes, we spotted the following on Badass Furry:

• It seems to be a Badass has characteristic X trope. However, character type Z has characteristic X, does not equal trope.
• If we are to have a Badass character trope, as discussed here, the definition should include that the character is Badass because of this trait, or in spite of it.
• This piece of the description is problematic:

That's not really an informative contrast, since Badass-ness in fiction is neither limited to humans, nor should being an anthropomorphic animal obstruct badass-ness.

Thoughts?

"If you aren't him, then you apparently got your brain from the same discount retailer, so..." - Fighteer

I'd say to cut it. Excuse me while I hyperbolize, but there is nothing more tropeworthy about this than Badass Eggplant.

I see no particular reason that an anthropomorphic animal should be badass. I also see none why he shouldn't. The trope's description offers nothing for either of those views.

Badass Furry found in: 227 articles, excluding discussions.

Since January 1, 2011 this article has brought 1629 people to the wiki from non-search engine links.

The claim the article is making is that "Anthropomorphic animals have a difficult hurdle when it comes to becoming a Badass. For one, they're usually given roles as extras or side characters."

I really wonder if that is justified by the examples. The picture, for example, seems to show a world where all the characters are anthropomorphic animals.

edited 20th Feb '12 4:06:50 PM by Catbert

That is a definite problem.

An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.

If it were limited to works where that were the case, that would make sense.

Fight smart, not fair.

So this is a trope about badasses who happen to be furries?

Seems pointless.

That is a very unfortunate sounding sentence.

Yeah, separately, we should rename all tropes that use "furry" for anthropomorphic animal.

XD whoops, didn't realize that until just now.

Well hopefully everyone knows what I meant...

Yeah, them were-creatures have it so tough to show they're badass*

Protip: Sarcasm

, which is one of the more common types that are shown alongside normal humans.

edited 20th Feb '12 4:37:16 PM by Feather7603

The Internet misuses, abuses, and overuses everything.

Those usage numbers are fairly high, but they're not very convincing. A lot of works have people sitting on chairs, after all.

The only way I can really see this being salveaged is by reworking it into "goofy anthropomorphic animal sidekick that's also a badass". Not sure how many examples that would have.

edited 20th Feb '12 4:37:51 PM by nrjxll

So a werewolf is a "badass furry"? Chairs.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Even that sounds like a coincidence. Some form of Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass.

Anyway, I see no real arguments to keeping the trope apart from the inbound count. Is there anything that can be done about those?

edited 20th Feb '12 4:45:17 PM by Arha

Hm, the only other way I could think to extract a trope from this would be the characteristics of stereotypical furries of a specific species or something.

Fight smart, not fair.

I've believed this to be chairs for a long time. It's just Badass + Furry, which doesn't mean anything. And as Routerie said, we need to stop using "furry" to refer to things that aren't about the fandom or fetish for anthropomorphic animals.

"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.

Agreed.

What other tropes use the word furry anyway? That sounds like another special efforts project there.

Inbound count is not meaningful if the complaint is that the article does not describe a trope. So what if it has a lot of correct-but-bad wicks? As nrjxll said above, many works depict people sitting in chairs.

edited 20th Feb '12 4:58:37 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I'm not arguing that we keep it, I'm merely asking if there's anything we can do about the inbounds.

Delete them.

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

I think you mean 'Screw them' right? We're not exactly about to go cruising around the internet deleting 1600 mentions of the page.

And okay, if we can't do anything about them, we can't do anything about them. Anyway... go ahead with the crowner, or do we not even need to bother since it's pretty much unanimous?

edited 20th Feb '12 5:02:36 PM by Arha

We should, however, destroy the wicks.

Edit: Since we're talking about cutting a trope, I'd say a crowner is needed.

edited 20th Feb '12 5:03:27 PM by nrjxll

No, I mean "delete them"*. If it's not a trope, then it shouldn't be potholed. I imagine some TRS denizens will delete a few (I will, anyway), and others can be deleted when whomever sees the red link removes it.

* Tho, yeah, basically "screw them" I guess. I meant they should be deleted in general (as opposed to reworded or whatever), not that it should happen before the page is cut.

Oh, yeah! Duh. Screw them.

edited 20th Feb '12 5:05:39 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.

Inbounds are offsite links. You're talking about wicks.