[001]
ShadowHog
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
to:
Alright I know I just said \\\"take it to the ZCE thread\\\", but I\\\'m now taking it here \\\'\\\'from\\\'\\\' the ZCE thread, as it\\\'s become more about interpretations of the trope\\\'s scope than, well, [=ZCEs=].
I was arguing that this...
* King Kazma, an anthropomorphic bunny \\\'\\\'Anime/SummerWars\\\'\\\', normally wears a full outfit including red vest, jeans, gloves and sneakers. His powered-up form from the film\\\'s climax ditches the sneakers for bandages wrapped around his bare paws.
...shouldn\\\'t automatically be disqualified just because he had an outfit that included shoes, also justifying it as notable since it was an outfit apparently iconic enough to get action figures made of it. The responses I got (or at least my interpretation thereof - [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400&page=86#comment-2137 here\\\'s the discussion]], judge for yourself) were either that going barefoot needs to be a consistent trait, or that they need to be barefoot \\\'\\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\'\\\' they are an animal, not just happening to be an animal who wears a full outfit but is otherwise barefoot. Thing is, I don\\\'t think the trope description actually \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' either of those anywhere. It does state the latter as a \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' reason for the trope, but not the driving one. As far as I\\\'d known the qualifications were purely:
* 1: The character is a FunnyAnimal.
* 2: The character is barefoot (spats do not count as shoes).
* 3: The character is otherwise fully-dressed (else they are at best a HalfDressedCartoonAnimal, and that takes precedence).
The ZCE thread even emphasized all three criteria. These are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' stated in the description:
* 4a: They must be consistently barefoot.
* 4b: They must be barefoot \\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\' they\\\'re a FunnyAnimal. (If they would be barefoot under the same circumstances even if they were human, it does not count.)
The first one \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be of merit to \\\'\\\'add\\\'\\\' to the description, but that seems like something that\\\'d need to be properly discussed in here and codified \\\'\\\'before\\\'\\\' we start deleting entries for violating it. (Plus, if I\\\'m arguing that having an iconic outfit that fits the trope means a character qualifies for an entry, stating they have to be barefoot at basically all times would probably nix a few - for example, Katia in \\\'\\\'Prequel\\\'\\\' sometimes has outfits with shoes and sometimes doesn\\\'t, but I still think she should qualify since the outfits without are so iconic that most fanart of her just has her always barefoot.) I do not support the second one at all; I get tropes need to be narrowly-focused, but that\\\'s \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' narrow.
As an aside, there\\\'s also the question of whether footwraps count as footwear and thus disqualify. I don\\\'t think they should; as with spats, while they add \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' protection, your feet are still largely exposed to the elements when wearing them. Furthermore, there are entries on DoesNotLikeShoes counting only wearing footwraps as effectively barefoot, and I\\\'d like to be consistent across both on what does and doesn\\\'t count.
I was arguing that this...
* King Kazma, an anthropomorphic bunny \\\'\\\'Anime/SummerWars\\\'\\\', normally wears a full outfit including red vest, jeans, gloves and sneakers. His powered-up form from the film\\\'s climax ditches the sneakers for bandages wrapped around his bare paws.
...shouldn\\\'t automatically be disqualified just because he had an outfit that included shoes, also justifying it as notable since it was an outfit apparently iconic enough to get action figures made of it. The responses I got (or at least my interpretation thereof - [[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13226024250A77804400&page=86#comment-2137 here\\\'s the discussion]], judge for yourself) were either that going barefoot needs to be a consistent trait, or that they need to be barefoot \\\'\\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\'\\\' they are an animal, not just happening to be an animal who wears a full outfit but is otherwise barefoot. Thing is, I don\\\'t think the trope description actually \\\'\\\'says\\\'\\\' either of those anywhere. It does state the latter as a \\\'\\\'possible\\\'\\\' reason for the trope, but not the driving one. As far as I\\\'d known the qualifications were purely:
* 1: The character is a FunnyAnimal.
* 2: The character is barefoot (spats do not count as shoes).
* 3: The character is otherwise fully-dressed (else they are at best a HalfDressedCartoonAnimal, and that takes precedence).
The ZCE thread even emphasized all three criteria. These are \\\'\\\'not\\\'\\\' stated in the description:
* 4a: They must be consistently barefoot.
* 4b: They must be barefoot \\\'\\\'because\\\'\\\' they\\\'re a FunnyAnimal. (If they would be barefoot under the same circumstances even if they were human, it does not count.)
The first one \\\'\\\'might\\\'\\\' be of merit to \\\'\\\'add\\\'\\\' to the description, but that seems like something that\\\'d need to be properly discussed in here and codified \\\'\\\'before\\\'\\\' we start deleting entries for violating it. (Plus, if I\\\'m arguing that having an iconic outfit that fits the trope means a character qualifies for an entry, stating they have to be barefoot at basically all times would probably nix a few - for example, Katia in \\\'\\\'Prequel\\\'\\\' sometimes has outfits with shoes and sometimes doesn\\\'t, but I still think she should qualify since the outfits without are so iconic that most fanart of her just has her always barefoot.) I do not support the second one at all; I get tropes need to be narrowly-focused, but that\\\'s \\\'\\\'too\\\'\\\' narrow.
As an aside, there\\\'s also the question of whether footwraps count as footwear and thus disqualify. I don\\\'t think they should; as with spats, while they add \\\'\\\'some\\\'\\\' protection, your feet are still largely exposed to the elements when wearing them. Furthermore, there are entries on DoesNotLikeShoes counting only wearing footwraps as effectively barefoot, and I\\\'d like to be consistent across both on what does and doesn\\\'t count.
