Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
Funny Animal is a pre-existing
term, while Petting-Zoo People isn't (and I have no idea why it's called that, the description doesn't say), so if we merge the tropes, we should probably use the former name. Both tropes have 2000+ wicks. And yes, I'd be fine with merging them.
edited 17th Dec '17 5:36:56 AM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Agree with a merge, but which title should we use?
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
I just said, we should use Funny Animal since that's a term that already exists, and our definition matches the standard definition of it. What do you think?
edited 18th Dec '17 4:54:48 AM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Agreed. Petting-Zoo People don't even have anything to do with petting zoos. Or normal zoos.
World's Toughest Milkman
Main/PettingZooPeople found in: 2175 articles, excluding discussions.
Since January 1, 2012 this article has brought 12,751 people to the wiki from non-search engine links.
I would tend to agree that the trope looks redundant and a bit pointless, but with a trope this popular, we really need super strong arguments for undertaking the huge cleanup that would be required.
If a Wick Check showed that people are confusing the tropes, then I think we'd have a compelling reason to change things. As it is, I'm not sure the mods will allow something so drastic for what otherwise looks like a healthy trope.
eta: by the way, if we're planning on making changes to Petting-Zoo People, shouldn't the thread be adjusted to point to that trope instead of the industry-standard Funny Animal?
edited 19th Dec '17 11:13:21 AM by Xtifr
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
There a post on Petting-Zoo People's talk page about people confusing the tropes. The current difference is that Funny Animals have bodies shaped like regular animals, while Petting-Zoo People have bodies shaped like people (which I think is too trivial for two separate tropes, I'm just pointing it out).
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
I just had a look at listed examples which I know of and it seems to me that there is a supertrope/subtrope relation between the two tropes. Funny Animals are animals that act like humans regardless of their look. Petting-Zoo People would be the subtrope where they look and act anthropomorphic. Look at the examples given for Funny Animals on the other wiki. Goofy is a Funny Animals while also being Petting-Zoo People. The White Rabbit is only Funny Animals. If you chopped off the extremities of the White Rabbit, you would not mistake it for a human being (which would be my qualifier for Petting-Zoo People).
I checked the overlap on the example lists on both trope pages. Funny Animals has 175 examples, Petting-Zoo People has 266. There is an overlap of 33 works mentioned on both pages note which should be higher if we assume users don't know the difference. That said, I would probably make the definition of Petting-Zoo People much stronger (see my suggestion in previous paragraph) in order not to attract current examples like the ants in A Bug's Life or in Antz.
edited 20th Dec '17 11:11:17 AM by eroock
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
If people can tell the difference between the tropes, maybe all we need to do is make the differences clearer, but I'm still not sure if they're different enough for two tropes.
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
World's Toughest Milkman
The proper way to figure out how well this is working is a Wick Check. If no one is willing to take the effort to do a proper check, we're probably going to be extremely limited in what we can do. If a check shows a genuine problem, though, all sorts of options open up for us.
(Honestly, I'm a little surprised this was opened without a check. Perhaps the mods are sympathetic, and we have some leeway. But without word-of-mod, we should assume normal rules apply.)
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
Fine, I'll do a wick check. How many wicks?
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Typically 50 is asked for.
World's Toughest Milkman
From How to Do a Wick Check:
- The number of wicks you check should be either the square root of the total number of wicks or 50, whichever is larger. If there are fewer than 50 wicks, check them all.
- The wicks should be picked randomly from the list.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
What's the square root of 2,176? And do I have to check the wicks all at once? I hope not.
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
46.6 approximately.
You could make a sandbox page so you don't have to keep posting results, then just link us to it.
Health sure is versatile. It's possible to be both light-headed and dim-witted. At the same time, no less.
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
Sandbox: Petting Zoo People Wick Check
What to do if I find an example that I can't tell if it a misuse or not (which is further evidence for merging the tropes)?
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
If you can't tell, that's a sign that it might be a zero-context example.
Well, I think I've partially figured out the issue - Given so many animals in fiction are mammals that standing up have essentially identical body shape to us (head, some sort of neck, rectangular body, limbs), there's potential for confusion. Sharks and dolphins would probably be Funny Animal but not Petting-Zoo People.
But that's not really distinct enough to constitute a separate trope (what does it convey?).
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
I know what the characters look like, the reason I can't tell is that, even after looking at them, it's hard to place them in one trope or the other. Which, again, is evidence that the tropes should be merged.
I was asking about the characters of Usagi Yojimbo specifically, in the wick on Accessory-Wearing Cartoon Animal, but this'll probably happen more times as I check more wicks...
Very much agreed. Also, your avatar is very appropriate for this discussion.
edited 20th Dec '17 5:46:58 PM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Okay, so basically:
- Funny Animal : Acts like a human, distinctly looks like an animal
- Petting-Zoo People : Pretty much human, except with animal head/fur/tail
Funny Animal is animal first, human second. Petting-Zoo People is human first, animal second. They're similar, but my interpretation is in the difference how they're used.
Funny Animal highlights the differences between human mannerism and animal appearance, using it for (mostly) cuteness or bizarreness. Like downplayed "aww it thinks it's people" reactions from silly cat videos. If they're replaced by humans, the story might be the same, but they will lose that appeal.
Petting-Zoo People, on the other hand, might as well be completely human. The reason for animal characteristics is to highlight the "they're not human" part. In fantasy works, this can be used to indicate a different race or a mutant. Or just the author's tastes. But basically other than racial issues, they act the same as humans.
Summarizing, the difference is whether you think (or supposed to think) "It's a talking dog" or "It's a dude who looks like a dog".
World's Toughest Milkman
That makes it sound like an audience reaction.
That subjective "seems like an animal or a human" is also something that can vary from moment to moment or scene to scene or writer to writer.
Plus, there's the fact that the rest of the world uses the term Funny Animal in a much broader sense. Being out of sync with the rest of the world is a reason for changing (renaming or redefining) a trope.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.
^ How would you come to that conclusion about the rest of the world?
I dont see what is so hard here
- Petting-Zoo People is about humanoid 'True Furries', standing upright, human hands and feet but with fur, wears a full set of human clothing etc. Basically animal heads and tails on humanoid bodies. Think Fox Mcloud from Star Fox.
- Funny Animal is a more general animal bodies with human qualities such as possibly walking upright and talking. Think Scrappy Doo.
edited 23rd Dec '17 11:15:33 PM by Memers
How sweet it is
Since the distinct differences are pointed out, merging is out of the question.
It's either clarify the descriptions or do nothing. Should we single-prop this to see if we should make the distinctions clearer?
she/her | TRS needs your help! | Contributor of Trope Report
Tyrannoraptoran Reptiliomorph
Wait a minute. Are you sure there's consensus that they're not redundant to have as two separate tropes? Even if we do know the difference. I think that's what the crowner should actually be about.
edited 24th Dec '17 7:21:22 AM by Lymantria
Join the Five-Man Band cleanup project!
Crown Description:
There is debate as to whether Petting Zoo People and Funny Animal are the same. Those that think otherwise state how the former is more humanoid in anatomy than the latter. This crowner determines whether the distinction is enough to keep them separate.
I'm not really sure Funny Animal and Petting-Zoo People are enough to be two distinct tropes. Both the pages have a good bit of text just describing what constitutes the former and what constitutes the latter, and there's even a sentence in Funny Animal that states characters will sometimes fall in between the two. To me, this just sounds like two things trying to be different by really emphasising what makes them different, even though their other aspects are the same. Even the images picked don't do a very good job differentiating the tropes, except one's 2D and the other is 3D, which I don't think is exactly the point.
Both these tropes are under the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism and the other tropes are far more distinct than these: Human, human with cat ears, animal that acts human~(?)~, animal that can talk, proper animal.
edited 7th Dec '17 10:36:48 PM by BreadBull