Furry Confusion is a mess

Furry Confusion is about anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic versions of the same animals co-existing, right? Because a lot of the examples miss the mark.

And then there's the Arthur subpage, which is a whole mess of natter and tangents.

Should I add this to Tropes Needing TRS?

Edited by NitroIndigo on Apr 18th 2022 at 9:08:34 AM

This seems like it should be supertrope to Carnivore Confusion, with a lot of missing subtropes, at least if you ask me.

Edited by Tonwen on Apr 19th 2022 at 12:52:24 PM

What would those missing subtropes be?

Thought it over a bit, and maybe it's less missing subtropes, and more of a reorganization thing.

Furry Confusion and Carnivore Confusion are really similar, but Furry Confusion is more broad and seems to have a lot of ranges of use, which hints that some reorganizing is needed, and may need another subtrope or two.

I've added it to Tropes Needing TRS. How do I do a wick check? I vaguely remember reading somewhere that you need to check either a quarter of the wicks or 50, whichever is larger.

There's a guide here, but cliff notes version

1. Create a sandbox page with an appropriate name.

2. You'll need to check either 50 or the square root of the number of wicks, whichever is greater.

3. Sort them out in whatever categories are appropriate for your check.

Oh, and remember that the chosen wicks must be chosen randomly to avoid potential bias. However you randomize it is up to you.

I'm starting a wick check now. Feel free to contribute!

I just finished the wick check. I identified 17/50 uses as correct, but there were some examples that didn't give enough context for me to tell if they were misuse or not, so feel free to help.

Null

Edited by Acebrock on Apr 22nd 2022 at 2:51:33 AM

I honestly think Furry Confusion is only really in play if sapient and non-sapient individuals of the same species (or something equivalent) are clearly shown to exist in the same setting.

To use an example, Goofy and Pluto count, because both are dogs, but one has human-like intelligence and the other does not. Conversely, Gary the Snail from Spongebob Squarepants is not an example. While he is Spongebob's pet, and is not sapient, there are no sapient snails in the show's world. This has been consistent from the very first episode.

Examples involving wholly fictional or mythical creatures should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and should only be kept if the creature in question is portrayed in a given work both as sapient and non-sapient. Most of the Pokemon examples can probably go, but there are a few that should be kept, those being Gastly, Slowking, and Lucario. All three were portrayed as intelligent and able to speak in their debut appearances, but in their subsequent appearances they are treated as no different than any other Pokemon.

If the sapient and non-sapient species appear similar but are established as distinct species or races in-universe, then I think that doesn't count either. For example, in The Wizard of Oz and its sequels, it's shown that Oz has both "animals" (non-sapient) and "Animals" (sapient). This is made clear early on, and is consistent throughout the series. They're clearly meant to be seen as something separate.

So what does that leave us? I think Furry Confusion should be reserved for those instances where:

1. Sapient and non-sapient individuals of the same species are shown to exist in a setting.

2. No in-universe distinction is made between the two (save for perhaps the occasional Lampshade Hanging)

If a work fits both of these criteria, it can stay. If not, it has to go.

Edited by ElSquibbonator on Jun 4th 2022 at 2:17:26 PM

Sounds like a good proposal. I've already put Furry Confusion on Tropes Needing TRS; I think you'd be good at making the thread.

Edited by NitroIndigo on Jun 5th 2022 at 12:22:31 PM

I realize this would also make the Arthur sub-page a lot smaller, and maybe even unnecessary. After all, many of the examples pointed out on it involve animals that have never been shown as sapient in the show itself, making them Fridge Logic at best.

If anyone wants to bring this to TRS with the completed wick check, just draft an OP and add yourself (and possibly the OP if you feel like it) to the TRS Queue. That way, when a slot opens up, you'll be pinged to the TRS meta thread so you can make the TRS thread.

I was thinking of moving the examples on the Arthur subpage that don't fit to an Analysis subpage.

Thanks!

I don't think that's a good idea, because the Arthur subpage is cluttered as-is, unless you're going to heavily reword them.

A rename should also be considered. As with Furry Denial, the word "furry" creates the unavoidable assumption that the trope has to do with people who draw, dress up as, and/or fetishize anthropomorphic animals. We should not use that word to refer to animal characters themselves because it is inaccurate.

Clear, Concise, Witty: If you can't figure out at least the basic idea of the trope from the title, the title is probably wrong.

Edited by Fighteer on Jun 5th 2022 at 5:50:47 AM

Agreed. Furry Confusion and Furry Denial should be renamed Anthropomorph Confusion and Anthropomorph Denial as furries are humans dressed up as animals and anthropomorphs are animals that assume human qualities.

Edited by Nen_desharu on Jun 5th 2022 at 10:04:02 AM

I feel like I should mention (again) that I've seen the word "furry" be used plenty of times to refer to anthromorphic animals in of itself, even if it's not accurate formally.

See, the problem is that "anthropomorph" is unwieldy.

I agree that "anthropomorph" is not a particularly good word: we don't want to make tropers look in a dictionary to understand a title.

As for the confusion, I guess a wick check would tell us if there is actual misuse or if I'm being overly concerned.

I already did a wick check. Also, I've added it to the TRS Queue.

Ah, I see. It doesn't seem like anyone is mistaking "furry" for weird humans, so I guess I will drop that objection.