Duplicate Trope: Funny Animal

Well one is a huge HUGE fetish and outside of that are humans with fur and a tail. They could be an entire alien race that is just as or more advanced than humans and/or any number of things. They are basically people.

The other are actually an animal that potentially actually walk four legged, have paws or claws, or often pretend to be a normal animal. they often look like this◊

edited 24th Dec '17 7:32:51 AM by Memers

That doesn't answer my question. We need consensus that the tropes are distinct.

Also, I feel like this thread is at the clocking point.

edited 24th Dec '17 8:57:02 AM by Lymantria

A thread is at a clocking point if there's no activity for a while. Thus, no clock needed.

Edit: To determine whether the distinctions are strong enough, I'll fire up a single proposition crowner.

edited 24th Dec '17 9:19:02 AM by Berrenta

If the crowner decides to make the tropes separate, we should clarify their descriptions to make the differences clearer.

The line of thought that says "this is not a bad idea or a bad practice because lots of people do it" has always struck me as a very poor defense for problems with tropes. It really should not matter how many wicks Funny Animal and Petting-Zoo People have. If something is wrong, it's wrong.

edited 24th Dec '17 12:55:04 PM by jamespolk

Simply turning one trope page's title into a redirect for the other page will not cause too much work, unless you're just insistent on removing all blue links using the redirect, which you really shouldn't be.

As for the issue itself, I haven't read any of the arguments for or why beyond the proposition and the inevitable "it has 100 outbound links, it's too important to do anything to" argument, so I can help be a sample.

Funny Animal? It walks like a human, talks like a human, has a lifestyle expected of a human but it has the head, scales/fur/feathers and maybe some other features of an animal. Supposedly related to Furries Are Easier to Draw, there's not much reason for these humanoid hybrids to be other than because. Examples, Red Wall, Dragon Ball, Star Fox.

Petting Zoo People. These animals have been modified to move and behave more like humans, these humans have been modified to have traits of other animals, this species evolved in a similar manner to humans but also have traits of other animals. Supposedly related to Intelligent Gerbils, where another species is used as template for an alien culture or civilization. Examples, Star Trek: The Animated Series, Guardians of the Galaxy, Sands of Destruction.

If that's completely wrong, in regards to how the two tropes are categorized on this wiki, well in my experience that's how the two terms are used on other parts of the internet. You can regard or disregard as you consider changing the page(s), but Funny Animal seems to be the far more common term, outside of TV Tropes, although both terms seem to be derisive.

edited 24th Dec '17 3:16:45 PM by IndirectActiveTransport

You're right about how common the terms are: they're both in use outside this wiki, but Funny Animal is far more common, it has a Wikipedia article and Wiktionary entry while Petting-Zoo People doesn't.

Also, I'm not (necessarily) saying I agree, but I get what some of the previous posters have been getting at: if it's an "anthropomorphic dog", it's a Funny Animal, if it's a "dog-person" in a fantasy work, it's a Petting Zoo Person.

edited 25th Dec '17 6:31:43 AM by Lymantria

These seem like the same trope, honestly.

No, that is quite a bit off. Star Fox is about Petting-Zoo People, they are modified with human hands and feet all that.◊ Literally the only things not human is fur, tail and animal like face.

For a Funny Animal its more like Korin in Dragonball who still has the general shape and proportions of the animal with cat feet and paws and all that.

That is immensely different.

In the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism it goes

• Human
• Little Bit Beastly ears and tail, Cat Girl and all those tropes
• Petting-Zoo People full furry but still human shaped with human hands and feet. They fit in right next to humans like Dragonball's animal people.
• Funny Animal / Civilized Animal, animal shaped with paws and everything
• Then literally your pet and Nearly Normal Animal, Talking Animal.

edited 25th Dec '17 7:39:52 AM by Memers

Then luckily for us all, I haven't used or blue linked either of these tropes when editing the wiki(unless I see someone else already tried but used the wrong format), so I'm not spreading misuse.

But if anyone else reasoned similar to myself when looking at the trope names, they might be. I didn't even know there was an anthropomorphic sliding scale, although I guess Little Bit Beastly includes Laguz or Inuyasha while Donkey Kong, with his human like knuckles, light colored fur and skin but otherwise gorilla shaped body is one step above or equal to Talking Animal at the other end alongside the horseshoe crabs that have human eyes from Haven.

edited 25th Dec '17 7:40:31 AM by IndirectActiveTransport

Donkey Kong probably be a funny animal in later entries, or at least Diddy Kong. The later series itself floats with between Funny Animal, Civilized Animal and Partially Civilized Animal depending on the entry and character.

The Original would be Nearly Normal Animal and canonically the current Donkey Kong's grandfather.

edited 25th Dec '17 7:46:16 AM by Memers

Nuh uh. That makes the definitions different from how it is outside of TV Tropes. The Other Wiki's page on Funny Animal has a picture of Goofy and last I checked he has opposable thumbs.

Also your scale doesn't have a distinction between Funny Animal and Civilized Animal, so either way point still stands. Too many tropes overlapping.

Whatever we decide to do with the tropes, the definition of Funny Animal should match the one used,outside this wiki.

It was a general grouping, anthropomorphism (shape) and anthropropathy (mind) are two different things which makes individual examples fit on different tiers on that.

It’s not my grouping it’s what we decided years ago in several repair shops tuning the tropes and sliding scale. And most importantly they make complete sense.

edited 25th Dec '17 11:57:33 PM by Memers

Use different names for them, then.

Also, bump for votes.

edited 30th Dec '17 10:15:34 AM by Lymantria

It's been one week and we're deadlocked (as of this post, 14 votes cast, 50-50 split). Just a reminder: if the crowner does not see a significant shift favoring one side or the other in the coming week, the thread may be closed due to a lack of consensus.

Remember, you are permitted to change your vote if you want to.

I strongly suggest merging these two tropes and hooking a new crowner on which name we should use.

I completely and utterly disagree they are two very VERY distinct tropes. This and this◊ ARE NOT THE SAME.

The Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism exists for a reason.

edited 1st Jan '18 7:54:14 PM by Memers

We can't do that unless the crowner decides on it.

Can we call the crowner it aint moving.

IMO we should clean up and maybe rename Petting-Zoo People to something more indictitve like Humanoid Furry or something akin to that.

If the crowner closes with no consensus, we'll have to leave the tropes as is.

edited 2nd Jan '18 5:29:26 PM by Lymantria

The crowner was specifically for a merge.

If the crowner votes against a merge, we can make the tropes more distinct. So no.

The Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism should have answered the question. It's easy really, especially when you consider kemono (which redirects to Petting-Zoo People) and kemonomimi (which is Little Bit Beastly). A Funny Animal are your quintessential cartoon characters that while are given human traits, still possess most of their animal attributes (in particular, posture and shape). Compare Donald Duck to Falco Lombardi.

Honestly it's more of fixing examples. Like say, the Laguz of Fire Emblem Tellius should be Little Bit Beastly, not Petting-Zoo People. Or that Daffy Duck is a Funny Animal, definitely not Little Bit Beastly.

edited 2nd Jan '18 11:24:06 PM by Ookamikun

Agreed. Cleaning up the examples what I was suggesting, as well as possibly choosing a better images to show both tropes.

Renaming was just an idea Petting-Zoo People is not a preexisting term and it could be a bit more clear on the name but I don’t think we wanna use the generic and potentially flame bait ‘Furry’ for the trope. Kemono and Jūjin are extremely different from the generic Funny Animal.

Kemonomimi though could describe Animal-Eared Headband more than Little Bit Beastly though

edited 2nd Jan '18 11:53:48 PM by Memers