So is that the decision? In some stories, all anthropomorphic animals wear shoes, except for one or two, and no explanation is given for that?
Grand Poobah of Crimestrikers
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
No, that's The One Who Wears Shoes. Barefoot Funny Animals is for furry characters who go barefoot but are otherwise fully clothed on a regular basis.
Created a single proposition crowner on merging the two (or attempted to, anyway, I hope I did that right). Can a moderator please link this to the thread? (Others should add to the pros and cons section, too).
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/crowner.php/SingleProposition/BarefootFunnyAnimals
You have to use the yellow triangle on any post to holler to the mods and request a crowner hook. I did it this time, but that's all there is to it.
EDIT: I don't see an actual vote option.
edited 13th Jul '11 10:43:58 PM by Discar
I see the Awesomeness.
I think somebody created a multioption crowner instead of a single prop.
Fight smart, not fair.
Okay, what did I mess up? It's labeled as a single prop, but looks like it has the "add new" option and no voting options. Nuts.
(And thanks, Discar — never created a crowner before, obviously.)
EDIT: I'd still like to know how I wound up with a multi-prop that's labelled single prop, but regardless, it can be voted on now. Have at it, folks.
edited 13th Jul '11 11:23:45 PM by Bailey
Dragon Writer
Crowner types are really just namespaces, they don't impose any actual restrictions on the crowner's content, so yes, it's possible to add multiple options to a crowner in the SP namespace (though that kinda defeats the purpose).
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
Okay, guys: the pros/cons section of the crowner is for summarizing positions already made in the thread, not for carrying out the debate.
The trope's example list is pretty long, but is hasn't been cleaned up for redundancy and misuse yet and it's still nowhere near the point where it would "break the server" if not split into two pages; stating otherwise in the crower without first mentioning the concern and determining if it actually poses a problem is poor form.
Also, Treelo wrote that "Out of a sample of 70 wicks, most were talking about it in a People Sit On Chairs sense in relation to Half-Dressed Cartoon Animal." I haven't checked those wicks myself, but listed it as point made in the discussion. Now it appears that the bullet point has been changed to "Out of a sample of 70 wicks most also/already referred a Half Dressed Animal", which does not seem to be what s/he was saying. It would help if we could see the results of that misuse check if you've got 'em still, Treelo.
edited 14th Jul '11 9:05:59 PM by Bailey
Bump for more votes.
Okay...we only have ten votes, but unless we get a sudden insurge, the consensus is clearly against the merge.
Now, what needs to be done? Clean up the examples? Rewrite the descriptions and laconics?
Dragon Writer
Technically, the consensus is clearly split, not against.
Y'know, a Page Action crowner would probably have been a better option than an SP.
edited 18th Jul '11 1:04:33 PM by Stratadrake
An Ear Worm is like a Rickroll: It is never going to give you up.
World's Toughest Milkman
Technically, there's no consensus. A "split consensus" is a contradiction in terms.
Fixing the description and cleaning up the examples does seem like the best option forward from here.
edit: ![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
a slim majority is against, but there is no consensus.
edited 18th Jul '11 10:38:25 PM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
But the consensus is slightly against.
I'm requesting a clock be set on this one. It's literally the oldest thread we've got, and I still can't figure out how to solve the problem, or even quite what it is.
The description needs to be cleaned up and the examples culled, but someone who knows the trope better than me will need to take care of that.
Adam
I doubt that we really need to merge these two. They both are different things with a considerable overlap.
Catch me where? See my profile!
vigilantly taxonomish
Grand Poobah of Crimestrikers
@ Discar: I've already removed some questionable examples.
@ Mad Man 400096: Thank you for summing up my argument about why the trope should be allowed to stay. You've done a better job of stating my opinion than I have! 
edited 20th Jul '11 11:01:46 AM by MarkLungo
"But... nobody told me I needed a signature!"
It looks like the consensus is not to merge. Does anyone else have something or should I lock this up?
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Doesn't seem like anyone has anything else to say on the matter. Hollering for a lock.
Crown Description:
Merge Barefoot Funny Animals into Half Dressed Cartoon Animal? Pros:- Appears to be The Same But More Specific of Half Dressed Cartoon Animal since both trope pages describe the same narrative use (garments being selectively omitted from an animal character so the character appears more animal-like) and differ only in that one specifies what is not worn (shoes).
- Out of a sample of 70 wicks, most also/already referred to a Half Dressed Cartoon Animal.
- Half Dressed Cartoon Animal already contains a note about how these characters commonly do not wear shoes, regardless of what else they are wearing.
- Applies to not just Funny Animals but also Petting Zoo People, which we consider a distinct trope.
- If we reach an unwieldy number of examples, we can soft-split, since the tropes can easily share a description.
- Barefoot Funny Animals has the larger number of examples.
- Barefoot Funny Animals appears to be a distinct trope in that it clearly delineates that it is only about otherwise-fully-clothed shoeless animals, while Half Dressed Cartoon Animal is about partially clothed animals omitting those that are fully dressed but shoeless.
- Half Dressed Cartoon Animal and Barefoot Funny Animal trope pages are both pretty long already.
I'm not wholly certain if the name perfectly fits, since I'm a little furry - ahem, fuzzy on the taxonomy of "what is a Funny Animal and what is not," but I do have to agree that this is a thing. And it's not simply that "certain kinds of animal characters wear shoes and others don't": it's arbitrary and a bit bizarre once the Fridge Logic sets in.