Yes. Honestly. Freya looks visually like a person. She wears clothes. She has people proportions. Female members of her race have breasts. Male members look like men. They look like people. Just with a few extras.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickI just wanted to add, that if you want to rework Petting-Zoo People, be careful with the wording, some charaters like Ika Musume have other animal attributes instead of ears or tails, but they are still definitely in the first, most human tier.
![]()
Very much so [1]
◊ spits up Squid Ink
[2]
◊ and tentacles for hair but still very much human like.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:21:51 PM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!I'd say the difference should be how peripheral the animalistic features are:
Petting Zoo people: Ears, tail, eyes, claws, fur covering the elbow to hand or shin to feet. Without clothes they would be mostly human and Not safe for work.
20-50% (Still not sure of a good name): Facial features that can't be hidden, fur on the torso (full or partial), Clothing is no longer required to keep them work safe (but generally accepted). Other animal traits replacing limbs while they still have a human torso (Naga, Mermaid, Harpies, even if they aren't animals).
This is a very rough distinction between the main two... I already covered what my thoughts on Funny Animals is.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:24:54 PM by Rakath
Who needs a signature, really?So you're saying there should be a separate, new trope for Furry-style Funny Animal? Okay...
- Petting Zoo People, redirect Kemonomimi, remove references to humanoid animals, this trope is only animaloid humans, who could pass for a normal human with a hat and a trenchcoat. Example: Firefox-tan.
- Standard Furry (or something), sort of a subtrope of Funny Animal, but common enough that it is its own thing. Example: Freya Crescent.
- Funny Animal, redirect Humanoid Animals, anthropomorphic animals other than Standard Furries. Example: Daffy Duck.
Yes?
edit: what distinguishes 2 and 3?
edited 21st Oct '10 4:28:01 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Yeah, I don't like Standard Furry as a name because it doesn't fit the trope well. I'm not sure what a better one would be.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickHumanoid Animal Came up in the other thread and thats a name I like for the second trope.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:32:10 PM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!It seems like just Furry would be best.
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.Nah a Animal that is Humanoid explains it better. Furry is extremely broad and could easily be a super trope of all of the above or a fetish.
Funny Animal is closer to Super Deformed Animal.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:34:38 PM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!Furry is misleading. It's not a trope about Furries. Humanoid Animal is workable.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickWhat differentiates two and three is, basically, a humanoid torso under the fur.
If you look at Disney and Loony Toons, you get three examples that cut much closer to the former (item two), while still being in the latter (Funny Animals). The first are Bugs Bunny and Wile E. Coyote (unlike Taz, Daffy, and Foghorn who have torsos designed to be... inhuman, those two stand as well as any human and carry proper proportions.
The third is Goofy, who similarly has a more human torso/proportions. Compared to Donald, Daisy, Mickey, and Minnie. Who don't. (I do realize there are more than that, but those are the main well known examples.)
All three are covered fully in fur, separating them from Petting Zoo people. The only reason they count as Funny Animals is that they are, well, funny. Although they could all be put into the section of Item 2 that needs a name if one want to.
Who needs a signature, really?Disagree. Humanoid Animal is the same as Funny Animal. Daffy Duck is humanoid, just... uh... less humanoid than furries.
Furry is the correct term. I don't think it is misleading. Furry Fandom frequently gets shortened to just "Furry" but the word described the cartoon characters before it described their fans. If people think Furry only means Furry Fandom, then it may be educational for them to discover that it can mean either one.
"The only reason they count as Funny Animals is that they are, well, funny"
No, they count as Funny Animal because they are exactly the style that the term refers to. Those characters are definitive Funny Animal. So are furries, but we are brewing a separate trope for that flavor of Funny Animal, apparently.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:41:27 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.GD fast posts around this thread cant even edit my post to fit the above post without having another post.
Petting-Zoo People has to be easily hidden like say Kotaro From Negima ears and a tail easily explained away.
Humanoid Animal I would think has to be very blunt like say Mama Bear from the same series.
anything without a human torso would most likely be under Funny Animal, a better word for it would be Super-Deformed. something like Chiyo-dad ect.
EDIT ok the images didnt get placed in the right spots ><.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:47:23 PM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!I agree with the 3 levels of distinction noted above, but disagree with using "Furry" as the name for the second one. The term may have been used before the Furry Fandom, but it still opens things up to confusion if used as a design trope name. Now "furry" can be used for either the character designs or the fandom, and that's pretty well understood by the population in general (or at least the population that gives a damn about the details like that
).
I can easily foresee, should "Furry" be used for a label for the second category, a rename thread in this subforum in the near future, so my thinking is why bother with the intermediate step? Humanoid Animal gets the point across (assuming a not-stupid description that makes it clear that "animal" is the primary focus of the form, not "humanoid", but given that the issue is getting its own thread that's getting attention from multiple people, "not-stupid" is the way to bet, whether immediately or through Wiki Magic) without setting up potential for confusion.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:47:01 PM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to TrumpFurry is a term that means all three of the proposed stuff, people who dress up in animal costumes, and people who think they're animals. It is not just this trope. It is a supertrope to all of these and more.
The middle type is actually equal bits human and animal leaning more towards human than animal. Once it's more animal it's a Funny Animal.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:50:15 PM by shimaspawn
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickOkay, I understand the objection to Furry. But imo Humanoid Animal is even worse if the goal is to differentiate furries and funny animal. Because "humanoid animal" is more or less the definition of "funny animal".
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.I dont get that really I mean Humanoid Animal clearly defines itself as an Animal that is Humanoid unless I just completely fail at understanding english and the definition of Humanoid (as in Shape of a human) but it wouldn't be the first time.. umm Animal People? Nah that sounds worse.
edited 21st Oct '10 4:55:17 PM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!It does. In that phrase, humanoid is an adjective, animal is a noun. I agree that, actually, furries are in fact humanoid animals... but the goal appears to be to draw a line between furry and funny animal, and calling the former humanoid animals heavily blurs that line. It should be something that doesn't apply to the latter, or at least, isn't precisely the definition of the latter.
edited 21st Oct '10 5:18:04 PM by rodneyAnonymous
Becky: Who are you? The Mysterious Stranger: An angel. Huck: What's your name? The Mysterious Stranger: Satan.I wanna say Fuzzy People for the title of the middle road set, even if it isn't 100% accurate. It doesn't carry the heat Furry does, but gets the basic point across.
Who needs a signature, really?Except for the fact that fuzzy-ness isn't required nether is actual fur for that matter, when you have things like the Banga from Final Fantasy XII they are Lizard people with scales and fall under the new trope.
edited 21st Oct '10 5:13:54 PM by Raso
Sparkling and glittering! Jan-Ken-Pon!
Crown Description:
What would be the best way to fix the page?

Funny Animals are generally caricatures of both the human and animal portions of themselves. If you're going by strictly visual cues Freya has a generally human (by FF game standards) build and proportion, as do her people. Her inhuman features are put onto what is a standard human form. The only reason she's a different class from say Zidane, is that he isn't that furry (except during Trance).
Mickey Mouse, on the other hand, has no such claims. His head and body are roughly the same size to one another. His legs are nowhere near the usual length for anything claiming to be humanoid. He, and the other Disney animals, and the other Loony Toons animals, are only as human or animal as what is funny for the given animation.
Which, I think, is a good distinction for why three levels is a good plan.
Who needs a signature, really?