Talk:Funny animal

Distinction between "funny animal" and "furry"

This distinction should be maintained in this article. As stated in the article, funny animal is a professional term and has different connotations than furry. Please keep this in mind with future edits of this article. This is not an article about furry and the only reason it is mentioned is because of the common misconception (seen in the article stub that I edited) that funny animals and furries are indistinguishable. -- Krishva 06:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

"Funny Animal" is Not a professional term. Nor does it have different connotations than "furry" which is clearly slang for anthropomorphics. It looks to me like you went out of your way to find some term to apply to anthromorphics Besides "furry", and found some unprofessional Fortunecity sites and decided to go with that. The "cartooning term" for anthropomorphics is Cartoon Animals, not "funny animals". Why exactly you went out of your way to blur these definitions is beyond me. But if no one responds to my questions about the legitimacy of this article and your "definitions" then I will proceed to correct the inaccuracies myself. And, just for good measure, here are some Professional sites that refer to anthromorphics as Cartoon Animals, not "Funny Animals". http://www.interactivevoices.com/cartoon-voices.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0823023605/102-4391286-8484160?v=glance 68.199.46.6 14:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

(Warning: *long* detailed response and links, perhaps badly formatted): I ordinarily stay out of these Wikipedia debates. However, speaking as a comics/animation fan/historian myself, a few remarks. First, to the anonymous user above, please don't construe lack of immediate comments on *any* Wikipedia talk page as an attempt to ignore you or an inability to refute your argument. (Sometimes they even take weeks,witness votes for deletion pages. No response after two months? Okay, you probably have a right to feel ignored. :) )

Secondly, perhaps "professional" wasn't the best adjective chosen for this article, but believe me, this term is legitimate and not limited to "Fortunecity" sites. Part of the reason for this extended debate on "funny animal" vs "Furry", apart from bias and personal preference, to some extent comes down to generation gaps. It might perhaps be more appropriate (though some might argue with that) to say that "funny animal" is a more "traditional" term. "Funny animal" is the term most used (yes, sometimes along with cartoon animal, but often not) in *print* histories of "Golden Age" comic books and strips, by veteran historians, by most of the creators themselves from this period, and by many of the more "traditionally-minded" fans. True, you may not encounter the term in casual conversation with your average person who is not a comics/animation researcher or is interested primarily in more modern productions (you probably won't encounter "furry," come to that, if talking to those with no knowledge or exposure to the fandom or online "furry" comics and such). But go to the library and look for the comic history books by, say Ron Goulart or Maurice Horn. You'll never find the term "furry" and often find the term "funny animal" when describing Pogo, Mickey Mouse, the old "Fox and Crow" comics, etc.

The term funny animal is older than furry (which appears to have first surfaced in print and in usage around the early 80s; even historian Fred Patten, often viewed as one of the founders of the field, uses the term "funny animal" to describe older products, and still used it on occasion in more recent communications to an animation zine group I belong to). It's not the oldest (earlier references were inconsistent; a 1936 short story "Buried Treasure" by P. G. Wodehouse used the term "comic animal" to describe the animated Mickey Mouse). It was common parlance by the 1940s, however, used by artists and writers in the field who worked on the likes of the Bugs Bunny or other comics, and in discussion of those works. Indeed, in 1942, Fawcett launched a catch all comic book called "Funny Animals," which probably did the most to solidify usage of the term. The earliest fanzines related to comic book/animation history (such as Funnyworld, which lasted from the 60s through its last belated issue in 1981), used "funny animal," used in critiques and reviews, and by both artists and interviewers.

As for finding use of it on reputable sites, though I often question the value of Google hits for deciding such issues, may I cordially point you to some uses on the pages of three notable historians/"professionals" in the field:

• Mark Evanier- Longtime comics historian/professional, often in superhero realms, but also producer/writer for the Garfield animated series.
  • [1] Note the use of "funny animal" to define the genre or the creators in five articles (there were more, in fact, but some, such as Evanier's Fox and Crow piece, were removed from his site for publication in book form). "Furry" appears twice as a general djective, not related to funny animal or "furry" comics or fandom, and "cartoon animal" not at all. (I agree that sometimes "cartoon animal" is used as a pseudonym for "funny animal", and is probably the best known term to the average person, but note that Christopher Hart, while certainly a professional, is also more recent and probably chose the term for the book title simply because it's simpler and clearer; besides, characters such as Kermit the Frog or Lambchop might be considered "funny animals," but are not *cartoon* animals, in the sense of either animation or comics, which is probably the major reason for the term's omission here).

• Example 2: Don Markstein- In addition to being a pivotal figure in animation scholarship, his Toonopedia great resource, and as an aside, the founder of "APAToons" which I am proud to belong to, Markstein has and written and continues to write for many "cartoon animal/funny animal", most notably working for Disney's Egmont Comics on stories about Bucky Bug, Horace Horsecollar, and Super Goof.
  • [2]- No use for "cartoon animal," but 64 for funny animal, "furry" used mainly in relation to a comic called "The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers," and perhaps most useful, his own definition of funny animal in his glossary: [[3] in his glossary.

• Example 3: Scott Shaw!, creator of Captain Carrot And His Zoo Crew amongst other things (Carrot incidentally used *many* characters from old DC animal comics, which often had titles like "Animal Funnies" and the like), and a significant founder and early attendee of the San Diego Comic-Con. On the personal bio page of his portfolio site, he describes "Captain Carrot" as a "funny animal" superhero comic:
  • [4]
  • [5]- Note 34 references to "funny animal" in the archives for his "Oddball Comics" column (derived from his Oddball Comics slideshow and presentation which he has been doing for over 30 years now). "Furry" occurs mostly as a generic adjective (apart from a deragatory reference to "furry porn" which actually seems to come from someone else's column), and "cartoon animal" not at all.

Finally, note what happens when one googles Walt Kelly, creator of "Pogo," former Disney animator and artist on Disney and Looney Tunes comics, amongst other things, and the terms we're discussing.

• • "Walt Kelly" and furry- About 953 hits. Impressive, yes, but only a few use the term to describe a genre (most often used to describe Pogo himself as a "furry little possum" or the like).
  • "Walt Kelly" and "cartoon animal"- A mere 30 hits
  • "Walt Kelly" and "funny animal"- 1,250 hits.

None of this is intended by the way, to argue the superiority of the term "funny animal" over "furry," "cartoon animal," or "anthropomorphics." It *is* intended to demonstrate the usage and historical validity (and relatively frequent current usage when discussing the field, and usage indeed by some current artists or writers) of "funny animal." If further pressed, when time allows , as many of my print sources are packed preparatory to a move, I could scan interviews with Carl Barks, Kelly's widow, Robert Crumb, Floyd Gottfredson, or others and note when they use "funny animal," though many didn't use *any* of the terms, and just talked about their comics, or used terms specific to what they were creating, i.e. Barks' "duck comics" or Gottfredson's "mouse comics"). Or I could ask "professionals" I know such as Disney writer/Felix the Cat historian Dave Gerstein, Cartoon Network consultant/animation documentarian Jerry Beck, or others, to see what they favor. But to be honest, I feel like I've spent more time on this than its worth as is (my own Wikipedia concentration has been most related to correcting or adding pages related to animators, old time radio shows and actors, and old film actors, and the like).

I do agree that some aspects of the article could use work, but again much of it is subject to debate and personal feeling (I for one wonder about the classification of serious, realistically drawn, or tragic comics as "funny animals," and frankly feel that Maus belongs in neither funny animal, furry, cartoon animal, etc. comics as the use of animals is utterly symbolic, the characters elsewhere in some scenes in the books appearing as humans or, in some flashbacks, as humans with mice or cat masks, so I would argue at best that it uses the iconography of anthropomorphics etc. Other arguments apply to "Animal Farm" which is neither funny, nor fully anthropomorphized enough to be considered "furry," but rather a book about talking animals (which has suffered from many of the same debates).

I've gone on long enough, but I hope this has all been at least slightly helpful to you (and to others) regarding this controversy, though it would be naive to assume it would settle the issue entirely. (And as a general aside, to date in my published writing or presentations about The Pink Panther or Donald Duck's army cartoons, I've generally avoided *any* of the above terms, just using "characters" or "cartoon characters" for the most part, so as to avoid the sort of confusion, bias, or preference as evidenced on this page). Aleal 17:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"funny animal" and "furry" are the same thing

For over two decades, furry fandom has been defined as the appreciation, promotion, and production of stories and art about anthropomorphic animals, as well as the exploration, interpretation and examination of humanity and human values through anthropomorphic expression. There is no appreciable difference between "funny animal" and "furry."

Additional information and clarification can be found here and here. Xydexx 01:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference--"furry" isn't an accepted cartoon/comic industry term. It doesn't appear in write-ups about comic books and cartoons by industry professionals. "Funny animal" does. It's clear that the terms have different connotations: one is an unprofessional slang word that brings up immediate associations to furry fandom, one is a professional industry term. Please respect this difference, as many professionals who draw "funny animal" comics do not consider their works "furry." --Krishva 03:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not to jump on this again, but I understand where Krishva is coming from. Funny animal and furry are two different things. One could say that "funny animal" is the genre that the furry fandom was inspired by, but the funny animal genre exists independantly of furries, which have different connotations (e.g. furry-themed rolplaying, fursuits, "fursonas", and of course the sexualization of anthropomorphic animals, whether that's accurate or not). The distinction I'm making is that "furry" material is made within the fandom of the same name, and more often than not it's geared toward that specific fandom. It's my opinion that a work needs to fall under both of those categories to be considered furry. This is what I have been maintaining throughout all of my edits on the furry article. --Prangton 06:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It is an inaccurate distinction. Furry fandom is about anthropomorphic animals; it has never been limited to anthropomorphic animals created by or for furry fans. Xydexx 07:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

To Xydexx, in response to your most recent edit, I saw you reference google fight somewhere else to back up this very claim. Yes, the term furry art is used more often, on the internet, according to that particular site. It doesn't change the fact that funny animal is the official word for this type of work.

The two words don't mean the same thing, they aren't synonyms that can be used interchangably. Yes, some furry artwork could fall under the category of funny animal, but funny animal works have nothing to do with fursuits, furry conventions, and other things that pertain specifically to furries other than as an inspirational source. In other words, fursuits are a "furry" thing, not a "funny animal" thing. They're not synonyms, sir. --Prangton

Anthropomorphic animals are also a "furry" thing. However, as I lack the psychic ability to distingish between the anthropomorphic animals that were created by and for furry fans and those which weren't (because, y'know, they look exactly the same) I guess I'll just start calling myself a funny animal fan and not worry about it. Watch what you wish for and all that. -:P —Xydexx 08:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The definition of "furry" Cannot be "material made within the furry fandom". That is a contradiction in and of itself. The "Furry Fandom" can't be alternately called the "Material made within the furry fandom, fandom" can it? What is Krishva's and Prangton's reasoning for using a definition that is clearly oxymoronic? 68.199.46.6 19:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a post I made in the Furry Fandom discussion too. I would like to add that I have Never heard anyone use the word's "funny animal" or "talking animal" in a conversation to refer to anthropomorphic characters. I have however heard the word's "cartoon animal" and "furry" or "anthro" which is why I started looking up the "furry" word. I don't know why "funny animal" or "talking animal" are used as slang for anthropomorphics on Wikipedia when if you Google those words you get something completely different than Wikipedia's entries on them. But if you Google "cartoon animal" you get exactly what you are looking for. What is Wikipedia's reasoning for this obvious inaccuracy? 68.199.46.6 19:01, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Furries are a bunch of disgusting gays. What the fuck has dressing up in animal costumes (and then having sex with each other), "FurCons", anime-esque pornography, etc. got to do with - for example - Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse? - 81.178.247.121 06:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I know it's a little late to chime in on this, but just for the benefit of anyone happening on this discussion, the difference between Furry and Funny Animals is that Furry is a conglomeration of interests, including Funny Animals, animal characters in science fiction, allegorical talking animal fiction and quite a few other things that involve all manner of anthropomorphic animals. Funny Animals refers specifically to animal characters in comics (Animals in The Funnies) but sometime around the 60's it also started to be used to refer to all cartoon animals, mainly in the press. Though I've never heard it used by Disney animators in any of their bonus documentaries. To this day they still primarily use Cartoon Animal in discussions of animation. Perri Rhoades (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive

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

Turtles

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)

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)

Breaking into a separate list?

Shouldn't that be done? • Ekevu • ♥ • ★ 12:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• I also think there should be a different article relating to CGI animal adventure movies, which are a different topic and also, the link for the 2000's fads page, which has this on there, links to this which doesn't relate to the title of "CGI animal ..."

Possible Name Change Idea (bear with me, it's not "Furry")

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)

Usage of Term "Furries" by the Press

I'm reverted the edits as the press has been referring to funny animals as "furries" in recent articles about CGI movies which feature them (such as Over The Hedge and Open Season), video games (Final Fantasy XII and Star Fox Command), and perhaps most frequently the popular online game Second Life. This isn't really surprising, as people have been using the term "furry" as a synonym for "funny animal" for the past twenty-something years, and the world's largest furry convention received significant media attention earlier this year.

I've also added a minor clarification to the third paragraph: Furry fandom is not an "internet-based" subculture (at least no more than any others are, considering Everyone And Their Dog Flippy has internet access these days). It is very much based in the offline world of small press publishing and comics.

Anyway, hope this helps. Let me know if you need more information. —Xydexx 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the game review site and Kotaku count as "mainstream" press. Nor does the comment about Second Life really make your point, since it seems to be referring to furries in the sense of "furry fans," i.e. people who like to roleplay as an animal character, not the character itself. The movie reviews are showing the word beginning to be used in mainstream press to refer to funny animals, but I'm not sure it's the preferred term as is implied by the statement "furry is used by the mainstream news media and in internet usage (along with cartoon animal), and funny animal is the term used by professional cartoonists and scholars who write about comics and animation."

I think that whole section might need a minor rewrite to better communicate the existing information as well. It seems a little mashed together as is. --Krishva 04:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article on Second Life actually does make my point. If you read the article again, you will note "furries" is referring to the avatars, not the players. Another article on Second Life referred to furries as "cute talking animals" in the past, not the players. Canada's Regina Leader-Post made reference to animal-shaped anthropomorphic "Furries", and the Austin American-Statesman also refers to animal characters on Second Life as "furries". I can probably find more.

CNN referred to talking animals as "furries" in movie reviews as early as five years ago, but I'm not arguing that it's the preferred term. (While I've noted it does tend to be used more often by the media than "funny animal", I suspect arguing what term is "preferred" probably counts as original research). As far as media goes, I don't think you can get more mainstream than examples in CNN and The Washington Post. The bottom line is that usage is definitely not limited to "internet" subcultures as was being claimed. —Xydexx 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree about Second Life, since even people who consider there to be a difference between furries and funny animals would probably call those furries (partially because it's the name given at the "choose avatar" screen while joining). We can agree to disagree on that, though, since avatars in a social environment aren't very much like comics or other cartoonish media where "funny animal" is usually used anyway.

I'm just wondering to what extent it's in use in news media to refer to mainstream characters as opposed to members/creations of furry fandom. 4-5 articles isn't a lot, so if that is the extent I would guess "beginning" is a good way to describe this use of the word in mainstream media. --Krishva 17:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as i know people don't refere to funny cartoon animals as "furry".

You can refer to these characters as being because furry is an adjective pertaining something covered with fur. Or do you mean the furry fandom? comment was added by Possiblyyourbestfriend 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about inclusion of live action films

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)

Deleting the funny animal list

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).

List of funny animals in media sounds good to me. - Krishva 02:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-fair use image

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)

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)

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)

Fiddlesticks Image

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)

The image concerned is in the public domain. We can use it however we want. GreenReaper (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

Convoy

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) (P.S. Not watchlisting this...)

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)

Merger proposal

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Says a self-admitted furry who reappeared from three years just to state this. Hmph. Despatche (talk) 09:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Single source and sea of examples

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)

Never heard the term, ever

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)

It is a common term, used for decades to describe lines of American comic books which feature anthropomorphic characters. To quote the definition in Don Markstein's Toonopedia: "Funny Animal: A genre of fiction which, like superheroes, is found more often in comics and animation than elsewhere, and which is characterized by animals that walk and talk just like humans. Many aficionados of the genre insist that a funny animal no more has to be "funny" than a comic book must be "comic", citing Bucky O'Hare and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but others disagree. Many of the best funny animals, such as Uncle Scrooge, combine humor with adventure in about equal measure; but some, like Usagi Yojimbo, while not totally eschewing humor, place more emphasis on the dramatic aspects of their stories. And then, of course, there are Pogo, Bugs Bunny and suchlike, that are almost all humor. A surprisingly broad and varied category."

To be honest, I have been reading tales about anthropomorphic animals for most of my life. I don't find anything particularly funny or humorous in anthropomorphic animals, and I have long ceased seeing them as animals. Carl Barks, the best known writer and artist of the genre, did not think of his characters as animals either. See the following interview "ducks"+"humans"&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Carl%20Barks%20%22ducks%22%20%22humans%22&f=false:

"I never thought of them as ducks that lived in a world of animal people and dog-faces. I just thought of them as being humans. They just happened to be humans who looked like ducks." Dimadick (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Crowing pains-PD Looney Tunes- sylvester + foghorn.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)