Duplicate Trope: Petting Zoo People

I would say it's still more Funny Animal than Beast Man.

Edited by BreadBull on Jun 13th 2019 at 2:47:34 AM

What should be done about the Petting Zoo Person on Token Minority? I changed the name but I don't know which characters should be removed. For example, Rouge is a Funny Animal by the current standards.

All the Sonic characters would be Funny Animal, they are nowhere near human enough.

The difference between a Beast Man and a Funny Animal is that Beast Men aren't anthropomorphic animals, right? They're just animal-like humanoids.

Yes. You got

• Human: duh
• Little Bit Beastly: humans with animalish things like Cat Ears, Tail and maybe sharp nails. May have personally traits associated with said animal they have pieces of. They might as well be a human with an animal ear headband and a tail accessory on.
• Beast Men: more animal like, non-human face, fur, full on claws. Almost always depicted as heavily tribal. Rarely ever just a single person in the work.
• Funny Animal: anthropomorphic something, usually bipedal but not very human shaped outside of walking on two legs.
• Nearly Normal Animal: not bipedal and basically a standard animal but something is off, like it can talk or behave humanlike
• a Dog

Edited by Memers on Jun 30th 2019 at 3:19:23 AM

If a character is explicitly identified as an animal, they can't be a Beast Man?

That would get heavily into the semantics of the individual example and any potential racism in the work and such.

@102: My proposal is to cut the whole thing, because

A) It's half People Sit on Chairs and half The Same, but More IMO - I doubt anyone invokes the trope and adds in a more humanoid character for diversity reasons;

B) We've got Adults Are More Anthropomorphic, Humanoid Female Animal, and Non-Standard Character Design which are far more meaningful (and easy to tell) than Token PZP Minority.

Edited by BreadBull on Jul 3rd 2019 at 3:02:02 AM

Okay, so....

• Beast Men are humanoids with animal features. Cheetah from DC comics? Beast Woman. Beerus from Dragon Ball? Beast Man (?). Characters from My Hero Academia? Beast Men.
• Funny Animals are humanoid animals. Star Fox characters? Funny Animals. Lola Bunny from Looney Tunes? Funny Animal.

Petting-Zoo People is at 1245 wicks fyi.

Edited by Pichu-kun on Jul 3rd 2019 at 7:49:38 AM

So just to be sure, are we getting rid of the Petting-Zoo People trope for good now or what exactly are we going to do with this? Normally I wasn't going to get too involved in this whole thing, until I saw that someone had added kemono to the Funny Animal page and I can say with certainty that it's not/should not be added to that page. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Main.FunnyAnimal As stated on Wiki Fur, which is a good site for research on things regarding anthropomorphic animals, kemono characters and works are noted as anthropomorphic animals in a human situations and settings. In other words, they don't act like actual animals and they can't do unrealistic cartoony things. Kemono anthropomorphisim is not on the same level as Funny Animal ie cartoon characters. Despite them both being anthropomorphic animals, the characters from Star Fox are not the same as the Looney Tunes characters.

So is Petting-Zoo People going to be cut and are we going to recognize all anthropomorphic characters as Funny Animals or what?

I'd say kemono are Funny Animal characters. For one, the term "kemono" in itself is as vague as "furry". I've seen various animal characters, even Nearly Normal Animal characters, listed as kemono. Either way, they're animal characters, even if they don't act animal-ish all the time. That disqualifies them from Beast Man, which is a separate species that resembles animals.

Yes, that's because we put all anthropomorphic animal characters under Funny Animal. Note how on the page it says Funny Animal is the technical term used by cartoonists to refer to the genre and characters. Also note that the "funny" in the title isn't literal: Funny Animals can be serious characters too.

I'd love to change the trope name, but I think it'd be better to harmonize with the terms people outsite this site use.

I think that kemono characters would fit better under Little Bit Beastly.

Yes those kinds of characters, like in Dog Days and Kemono Friends, would go there.

For example characters like this

We must be using different definitions of "kemono". I associate them with the Japanese equivalent of the furry fandom—characters like Wolfrun from Glitter Force, Mei from Arashi no Yoru ni. and Panda from Shirokuma Cafe are kemono. Little Bit Beastly need not apply.

However, there are a few works featuring "kemono" in the title that do feature Petting-Zoo People. From what I know, "kemono" just translates to "beast" in Japan.

Edited by Pichu-kun on Jul 20th 2019 at 2:29:39 AM

Wolfrun From Smile Precure is decidedly a Beast Man, completely covered in fur and wolf face but otherwise humanoid. No difference than the Felinoids in Star Trek such as the Caitians [1]◊, Kzinti and Ferasans.

Edit: actually specifically one of Beast Folk’s listed subtrope Wolf Man. Like it’s hard to get a better example of that.

Edited by Memers on Jul 20th 2019 at 6:16:54 AM

The confusion is probably coming from Kemonomimi, which is name dropped in the very first sentence of Little Bit Beastly. Also, that Kemono Friends is about characters that fall better into Little Bit Beastly as well (just with themed outfits to go along with it). If you don't know Japanese, one just sounds like an abbreviation of the other, and the distinction can be lost even in context.

Kemonomimi just means 'beast ears', quite literally just that. An actor could just be wearing an Animal-Eared Headband and bam they can be playing a Little Bit Beastly character.

I say that we should start a short term project to send kemono characters to the correct pages.

Well, after going through various Japanese sites to see what the Japanese themselves say, I can conclude that it's an utter mess. Kemono can mean Funny Animal, Beast Man, Little Bit Beastly, or Petting-Zoo People and the Japanese can't agree on a standard definition either - guess that's something we both have in common.

This is how I understand it:

1. ケモノ - kemono written in katakana - has no agreed-upon definition.

2. 獣 - kemono written in kanji - can translate to beast or mammal.

3. 獣人 - jyujin - can translate to Beast Man.

4. 獣耳 - kemonomimi - can translate to Little Bit Beastly.

Other things to note:

1. The Other Wiki redirects kemono to Furry Fandom, which I vehemently disagree with.

2. Elves, giants and fairies are grouped under kemono[1]. Likewise, dragons and pokémon are grouped under beast[2].

3. The definition for jyujin is similar to Petting-Zoo People: animal head on human body. There's also a second definition of "kemono is more cartoony, jyujin is more realistic". Frankly though, since jyujin is also used a lot in homosexual works I personally think the definition is more like "it's bara, but instead of humans it's animals".

4. There does not seem to be a term that refers specifically to Funny Animal, or anthropomorphic animal characters.

Sources:

https://dic.pixiv.net/a/82E3%83E3%83%8E

https://dic.nicovideo.jp/a/82E3%83E3%83%8E

https://ja.wikifur.com/wiki/82E3%83E3%83%8E

Edited by BreadBull on Jul 21st 2019 at 2:31:48 AM

The paragraph in question:

Note that despite the Japanese term kemono literally translating to "beast", kemono goes under here rather than Beast Man - the less literal, but more accurate translation of kemono would be "anthropomorphic animal", which is probably why it tends to be written phonetically as ケモノ instead of using the character for "beast", 獣. The Japanese term for the Beast Man trope would be jyūjin (獣人).

I say just remove it. "Kemono" refers to literally anything animal related depending on how and when it's being used.

Edited by Pichu-kun on Jul 21st 2019 at 8:37:35 AM

Yeah - I wrote that as I'd always understood kemono to mean Funny Animal, but now I see either I understood wrong or the meaning has changed in the past decade.

By the way, what should kemono redirect to, then?

Well going with that I think ‘kemono’ should get an example less explanation page with an explanation that those that get labeled that are just in the Anthropomorphic section of the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism and related tropes and the Japanese don’t have a term for the Zoomorphic side of the scale so they tend to get clumped in by mistake.

By the way, should I rewrite "jyūjin" as "jūjin" to more closely reflect Hepburn romanization?

Nevermind.

Edited by Memers on Jul 21st 2019 at 4:32:17 AM