I think we can keep the trope Funny Animal and its name, but I think we should add a trope that better represents animals of the 20-50% variety (or Kemono).
Funny Animals are animals like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and characters from Disney's Robin Hood.
Humanoid furries (Kemono) are animals with a humanoid body like Minerva Mink from Animaniacs, Krystal from Star Fox, and Carmelita Fox from the Sly Cooper games.
edited 21st Oct '10 12:27:38 AM by EdnaWalker
I am mildly offended you called my proposal "lumping the tropes badly". I think it's rather neat.
edited 21st Oct '10 12:39:25 AM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.And all of those examples are animalistic bodies but bipedal. Tom has a cat body. Jerry is mouse shaped. Daffy is duck shaped. None of them would fall under this new proposed third trope. They are all clearly funny animals and not what we're talking about here. Thank you for proving my point that characters with humanoid bodies don't belong there.
edited 21st Oct '10 12:42:08 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickBugs Bunny distinctly does not look like a rabbit from the waist down, though - "cute little powderpuff tail" not withstanding - and he is definitely a Funny Animal.
But soft! What rock through yonder window breaks? It is a brick! And Juliet is out cold.It's lumping them badly because they don't fit under the traditional definition of Funny Animal. I'm an art major. I've had animation classes. Creatures with human bodies even if you give them cat heads and fur are not by considered Funny Animals. They need to actually be animals to count.
Daffy is shaped far more like a duck than he is like a person. He's more accurately shaped like a cartoon character, but people are not shaped like that. He's more erect than a real duck, but he's shaped like a cartoon duck.
Here is a picture of Daffy Duck.
◊ Note the bend of his spine and the arch of his body. Note the way that his back actually curves up into his tail. Note the fact that he has a duck's breast. He has a duck's body. It's just walking on two legs.
Heh, I guess it's not possible you're talking to a professional animator who was an art major, past tense. But it would be fallacious to appeal to authority, anyway.
Furry fandom likes anthropomorphic animals. There is definitely a "furry style", but it is a kind of funny animal style. Furries are funny animals. Sorry.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.
Here is Donald Duck, a cartoon duck who is not very duck-shaped, standing next to some cartoon ducks that are very duck-shaped. Donald's body is drawn similarly to Daffy's.
Are you saying that Daffy is only in the middle of the road, and Freya is farther along it? Because there doesn't need to be a separate article for each level of the Sliding Scale of Anthropomorphism. I think the line is between high/low (freya/scoobie) and barely (firefox-tan). Only two categories.
...how do I make the image a link?
edited 21st Oct '10 12:59:13 AM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.I don't know anything about the furry fandom. I'll admit that. All I can tell you is what I've learned in my Principles of Animation class. I will admit that even within individual works there are characters who fall on both sides of the line.
Where would you put Anubis? He has a Jackal head but a human body. Where would you put Naga or Mermaids? Where do you put someone with scales but a human face?
Donald who you showed there is very clearly a funny animal. The ducks in that are just normal animals. Freya, Anubis, anything with an actual human body, curves, human musculature, Non Mammal Mammeries is the current unnamed middle trope. Ears, tail, and horns is Petting-Zoo People.
And none of those examples I gave are Petting-Zoo People under the current trope. The difference is human anatomy for the centre of mass. Hands, feet, tail, skin/fur/scales and head can vary, but the arms, legs, and torso are human and that's what matters.
edited 21st Oct '10 12:59:44 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickOkay, I have now seen this argument from two standpoints: 1) A lot of the Furry Fandom get a knee-jerk reaction when they hear furries described as "Funny Animals." I reflexively scream when that happens. 2) Now I've heard it from a technical art-student standpoint.
Either way, I say it's less important what professionals call it when the real question is: "What do we call it?"
Frankly, my biggest reason for not wanting this split is that it's Troll Bait. Frankly, I just had to check to see if Fast Eddie had locked the Furry Fandom page before saying "I'm surprised Fast Eddie hasn't had to lock the Furry Fandom page."
It's only a matter of time before somebody vandalizes a "Humanoid Furries" page to read "Funny Animals that sick people jerk off to."
Every page that ends up being locked prevents Wiki Magic from happening.
edited 21st Oct '10 12:59:36 AM by BlackWolfe
But soft! What rock through yonder window breaks? It is a brick! And Juliet is out cold.No. Freya is Petting-Zoo People. Anubis is not a cartoon character.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Anubis as a cartoon character
◊. Not all examples of these tropes are cartoons. There's nothing stopping there being literary, video game, or mythological characters for this trope. They aren't media specific. Not being a cartoon character is not a valid argument.
edited 21st Oct '10 1:04:19 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickAre you saying that Anubis as a cartoon character counts as funny animal? Seriously? He is not an anthropomorphised animal. He is a deity shaped like a man with a jackal head.
Funny animal examples of characters that were dreamt up before cartooning, let's say 1928, should be deleted.
edited 21st Oct '10 1:08:22 AM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.No! I am arguing that he doesn't! I am arguing that creatures on the same scale of human currently don't fit into either trope, but they should fit somewhere so which way do we go? You're the one who wants to lump everything into two tropes and Anubis is too animal to count as Petting-Zoo People by your definition. We both agree he's not a Funny Animal. Where does he go? He's the same point on the scale as Freya.
edited 21st Oct '10 1:09:11 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickNo. Anubis doesn't fit any of the tropes mentioned in this thread. Anubis is not an example of Petting-Zoo People or Funny Animal or whatever other similar trope that might get added, by the current definitions or anything anyone wants to change them to.
edited 21st Oct '10 1:11:43 AM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Good. We're agreed then. He and Freya are the type of creature that this third trope would cover. I'm glad we agree. After all, this is an appearance trope. His status as a deity has nothing to do with his appearance. He appears part human and part animal so he should fit on the scale somewhere. As he doesn't, we need an inbetween trope.
edited 21st Oct '10 1:15:16 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickFreya is Funny Animal.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan."Amount of animal" is not the reason Freya is Funny Animal but Anubis is not.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Why? It's an appearance trope. Freya is not a cartoon character either. That version of her is from a video game. She is named after and modelled on a goddess. Anubis is about the closest to her I can get. They don't functionally vary other than being Norse versus Egyptian. The tropes discriminate based on the amount of animal a person appears. There is no functional difference. The only way Petting-Zoo People and Funny Animal differ is amount of animal.
How can she be a funny animal and not him when they are functionally identical?
edited 21st Oct '10 1:55:53 AM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickHere's my distinction between the three:
- Petting-Zoo People: You can give them a hat and a long coat and have them visually pass for human.
- Standard Furry: Head looks animal, body looks human but covered with fur/feathers/scales. Feet can be either digitgrade (more animal-like) or plantigrade (more human-like). Almost always includes a tail. Fox McCloud in Star Fox Adventures is a perfect fit for the plantigrade form. Florence from Freefall is an example of the digitgrade one.
- Funny Animal: Body design is only as human as is needed for the actions the character performs. As mentioned above, Daffy Duck fits this form with a body which while still upright, is noticeably animalistic in design.
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?

^ The problem with that is that things like the example you posted look far closer to Petting-Zoo People than to what people think of from the term Funny Animals. That's why there's all this misuse. Lumping the tropes badly isn't going to stop Petting-Zoo People from being misused. We'd need to rename Funny Animal to get them to stop that because it doesn't sound like it's a trope about animalisic people. Most of those inbetweeners aren't seen as either funny or animals.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick