Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
The image is rather irrelevant. "they have snouts and animal noses" still counts as Little Bit Beastly so moving the example to Beast Man was improper.
TroperWall / WikiMagic CleanupHello, I did the edit. I did it because the Little Bit Beastly page states: "A Little Bit Beastly is not furry, feathered, slimy, or scaly, and should still have human skin, a *human face*, a *completely human nose*, and a *human skull* and torso structure. Essentially, as said above, they look like what you might look like if you put on a pair of fake rabbit ears."
From my understanding Little Bit Beastly refers to Kemonomimi characters, basically characters that have human faces, bodies and animal ears. Not characters with hybrid faces such as having snouts and animal noses. So based off what counts as "Little Bit Beastly" they don't count because they don't have human faces. In fact with that as the criteria there's quiet a few characters that don't belong in the page.
Edited by KlearkhosYou see, it just struck me as odd that you've moved an entry about the character, whose image has just been installed onto the page. After all, images are approved by a consensus, so it means that a majority of voters saw nothing wrong with Ochette being an example of Little Bit Beastly.
As for the factual side, consider that Tropes Are Flexible. The trope's description does make it sound fairly restrictive, but that's probably the fault of description itself, and it should be changed. After all, animal ears would have a different ear canal by default, giving them all such characters a "non-human" skull.
For context, here's the bust
◊ that was referenced as evidence. Note how Castti's profile isn't much different from Ochette's.
I found out because I was looking at the pages and found out someone added the picture, so I moved it based off the page description. I also changed the Little Bit Beastly tag to Beastman in the main page.
Also that's the sketch page for the bust and from the side you can tell Castti has a flat face while Ochette doesn't. When you look at the actual bust it's much more noticeable.
[1]
◊
[2]
◊
[3]
◊
It's easily to tell that Ochette doesn't have a flat, human face nor a human nose. She has a muzzle like a cat or a dog. And when you consider that her mouth was modeled shorter than the sketch, in the sketch it goes fully around her snout, her face is actually a little more animal-like than the bust implies. Her artwork is done in anime style where the face is simplified but the busts and her side profile shots show she doesn't have a human face. Given that the Little Bit Beastly makes a bit of a fuzz about a character's face I don't think it belongs there. Flexible, yes, but the description makes it clear the face is the most important factor.
Also to add, her own designers mention that she isn't a "girl with cat ears" (a kemonomimi):
[4]
I see you've reverted my edit, you shouldn't have done this. It's considered to be an Edit War. Please wait until the discussion is finished.
Anyway, by the letter of the description, you're correct, but I still think it isn't right. I'm taking it to "Is this an example?" thread
.
Yeah, sorry about that. I realized that too late.
I wanted to defend why I did what I did. I don't think the example belongs there based off the page description. The page even mentions that it's for Kemonomimi characters and you have the designers of this character openly saying that they don't want her being depicted as one, instead describing her as an "animal-like" character and based off appearance doesn't belong there when you take into account how she's supposed to look like. The anime stylization makes it a little ambiguous, but even in her artwork you can tell she doesn't have a human nose, but taking into account the other things it's not an example of one.
For that reason I think Beast Man is a better fit.
Edited by KlearkhosHello, making a reply a bit later but it was just thinking about this lol
Is it okay to restore the entry to the Beastman page? If you look at the picture example for the Beastman page, and assuming it's correct, the character from Beauty and the Beast only has a non-human face and is a bit more hairy than a standard human. The character in question is even more beastly than the example for not only having a non-human face but also animal ears, claws and a tail.
And just to state what I think again, the Little Bit Beastly page is, at least according to description, meant for kemonomimi characters so basically as it states they look like someone wearing a fake animal ears costume. There is a fair number of entries that link to the page and are in the page that don't belong, either characters with non-human skin or non-human faces or even both.
Also given that the human travelers are wearing costumes there's no actual kemonomimi character in Octopath Traveler 2 so the entry doesn't belong there. All in all, it's strange to have a picture of a character who doesn't belong there be part of an example and one whose series doesn't belong there either lol.

On LittleBitBeastly.Video Games a troper named Klearkhos removed
a portion of description pertaining to beastlings from Octopath Traveler II, instead adding them to the Beast Man article.
Now, normally I would take it to "Is this an example?" thread, but the image suggestion thread installed
a picture of a character, who belongs to the race in question, as a page image not even a day prior.
I doubt anyone could overlook a page image by accident. Should this be reversed, or does it need a separate discussion?
Edited by Veriamo