Talk:Funny animal

message: Personal argument-like discussions have been removed and archived at Talk:Funny_animal/Archive1 -- Grumpyhan 00:21, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I don't know much about this subject, but I am curious, if Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles really belong to this list. It seems that they are different from other listed anthropomorphic animals, because they don't live in a world where there is virtually no distinction between humans and animals, like for example Looney Tunes universe. Also, the authors have tried to explain why those turtles act human and that doesn't apply to other funny animals listed. --U.U. 17:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
:It doesn't seem stranger to include the Turtles, than the animal symbolism in Maus, though. 85.226.122.222 07:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, the TMNT aren't so much animals who are also people, they are animals who are also ninjas. Also there are plenty of cases (e.g. Tales of The Blind Pig) where there are clearly anthropomporphic characters in a world occupied mainly by humans, and a clear distinction is made. I guess the question is fair though; funny animals tend to live in world where they are accepted without comment. Nobody says "hey, it's a mouse!" in Maus - it's "hey, it's a Jew!".GreenReaper 17:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turtles 

message: Shouldn't that be done? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 12:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking into a separate list? 

message: I find that whenever this kind of creature is brought up, they are simply desribed as Anthropomorphic. Wouldn't it make more sense if this entry was titled something like "Anthopomorphic animal", instead of "Funny animal", which is significantly less used?
:"Funny animal" is actually a term used in the mainstream comic book and cartooning industry to indicate a work with humanlike animals.  Whenever a comics or cartoon expert writes about bipedal talking animals in his medium of expertise, the phrase used is almost always "funny animal."  It's an industry term, not really thrown around a lot by kids on the internet, but it shows up in comic and animation-related articles and should be available to be looked up. If anyone's interested in what an anthropomorphic animal is, they'll look up Anthropomorphism. -- Krishva 08:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Name Change Idea (bear with me, it's not "Furry") 

message: Why are live-action films like Babe in the list of funny animal media?  "Funny animal" is a cartooning term, usually applying to humanized or semi-humanized animals like Bugs Bunny or Snoopy.  Babe may be a talking animal, but he isn't a funny animal except perhaps in the most literal sense.  I can understand Stuart Little being included since he is in fact animated next to a live action cast in the film, but most of the others are just realistic animals given voices or sci-fi/fantasy flicks not involving cartooning at all. --Krishva 17:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about inclusion of live action films

message: I knew this was coming... Someone deleted the funny animal list. I propose we create a seperate list for funny animals. So what name do you think should we call it?
here are some suggestions:
List of funny animals in media? List of funny animals? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Possiblyyourbestfriend (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of funny animals in media sounds good to me. - Krishva 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the funny animal list 

message: The bugs bunny image is not fair use.  Copyrighted images require substantial prose supporting them, or to be irreplaceable for identifying the subject of the article. - brenneman 23:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny animals are by their nature characters from mass media, most commonly classic cartoon characters like Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, Tom & Jerry, etc., or comic characters like Fritz the Cat, Krazy Kat, etc.  The archetypical examples are all from cartoons or comics that are still copyrighted.  We'll have a hard time finding a representative picture that's no longer covered by copyright. --Krishva 16:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, and I removed the Mickey mouse image, too. we need to find a free image for this article other than Mickey Mouse. miranda 05:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-fair use image 

message: Should this image be removed? WP:FU says that film and television screenshots may be used for critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. That doesn't appear to be what this article is using it for. Either way, it has no fair use rationale.--Unscented (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The image concerned is in the public domain. We can use it however we want. GreenReaper (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. In that case, I'll add a rationale for this article, as it has one for Flip the Frog for countries that don't observe the rule of the shorter term.--Unscented (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fiddlesticks Image 

message: Two things: does Omaha strictly qualify? (I know, adult...) And shouldn't there be some mention of how (enormously) successful Dell's funny animal books were?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think of Omaha as one of the early examples of where we've clearly gone beyond the classic 'funny animals' and into 'furry'. She's if anything more human than many furry characters today. She retains only a few animal mannerisms; otherwise, she's a person, with fully anthropomorphic stature and "real-life" issues. However, Omaha was also the response to the question "why isn't there more sex in funny animals", so it's clear that at the time, it was considered a funny animal comic. GreenReaper (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Convoy

message: The author of this article thinks that "Funny Animal" is difficult to define as a genre simply because there is so much overlap with other genres. He concludes that the unifying characteristic is the use of anthropomorphic animals, and since we already have the article "Anthropomorphism," I thought it would be good to propose a merger. Pigby (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it hard to justify this merge. Funny animal is a term of art referring to the application of anthropomorphism in the area of cartoon animals (particularly in the mid-20th century); the fact that this term has been used as a title for books, periodicals, etc. suggests to me that it has become a separate concept. This article is currently a stub, but that's because no good article has been written yet, not because one could not be written. GreenReaper (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

text: This is one of the reasons I've come to despise Wikipedia: this constant effort to redefine reality and eliminate terminology that has been in use (outside the lazy self-referential world of the internet) for decades or more. The term "funny animal" has been in use since the 1940s at least, and with the rise of the perverse anthro/furry subculture in the last thirty years a distinction is more needed than ever. But Wikipedia editors, seeing nothing but the favorite venue of the freaks (the internet), push to eliminate distinction. Business as usual at the LEAST RELIABLE RESOURCE IN THE WORLD. 75.105.128.36 (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Anthropomorphism is currently a fairly but not overly long article. If this distinct and well-defined subtopic were merged there, that article would be close to in need of splitting. If there is no objection, I would like to remove the proposed merge tags now. FiveColourMap (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

text: 75.105.128.36's obvious bias against furries aside, the commonly-used terminology these days for these characters and the thriving fandom and conventions dedicated to them is "furry". That's not "redefining" reality; it is reality. About ten years ago a small group of disgruntled fans tried (unsuccessfully) to push for a distinction by claiming "funny animal" and "furry" are mutually exclusive and never the twain shall meet, but that's always had more to do with their personal POV than reality. —Ochlophobia (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Says a self-admitted furry who reappeared from three years just to state this. Hmph. Despatche (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Four years later the main portion of the article still relies heavily on the Toonpedia article, with a couple more sources that make extremely brief, single-sentence mentions of funny animals. The rest of the article is an example farm in prose. Thought I'd give a heads-up before gutting this article of the self-sourced examples and rewriting it entirely. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single source and sea of examples 

message: I must admit I've never heard this term in my entire life. I can't say I understand the term, the article, or its purpose. Is it some crumby translation from Japanese or Swedish to English or something? (Bad translations exist to and from any combination of languages) That's the impression I get from reading the term and seeing the article (that the originally intended meaning got lost in translation). How do people feel about a 'anthropomorphic animal(s?)' article at this point? I for one don't understand what the 'funny animal' thing is about; however, I would opine all or most of us are more familiar with/can learn and understand easier the anthropomorphic concept of animals. The difference (are there differences?) between 'funny animal' and 'anthropomorphic animal' is not clear in the least, at least not to me. 63.248.183.82 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for going to all that effort to explain things to me. I'm not going to pretend I perfectly understand this concept, because I don't, but the comparison with comic books is particularly helpful in that the word 'funny' is not to be taken literally, at least not all the time. I kind of like the idea of an 'anthropomorphic animal' article, but if the great comic book artist Carl Barks used the term funny animal, I'm sure he's in good company with other greats who have used the term, and thus I retire my questions and protests about the term. Again, thank you. 63.248.183.82 (talk) 05:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Never heard the term, ever 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion