Post by alquackskey on Sept 23, 2024 12:50:56 GMT
Sept 23, 2024 7:51:25 GMT mkr said:
I think we could all agree that 3 and up are pretty consistently on the 'owner' side, whereas 2A and below are more consistently on the 'pet' side.
The issue I've been having is 2B - and, more specifically, Jaq and Gus, the anomalies that make this more confusing than anything.
What would their relationship with Grandma Duck be? Pets? Tenants? Just a catch-all with 'friends'?
This is the key question I think needs answering before pets can be considered for being given an index.
Personally, I'm leaning towards 2B being more on the 'human' side than 'animal' side - as in, while Jaq and Gus are, for all intents and purposes, animals, they're too intelligent and display too much sapience to be considered as pets. I'll base my ending definition on that logic, though I'm open to changing it down the line.
So, with all the above in consideration, I was thinking of the following as a definition for if I do index the pets:
1. They have to be a 2A or below on the given MEAS.
2. They have to be shown, in some capacity, as being an actual pet - not just a creature that is babysat for one or two appearances. Generally speaking, they have to be, in at least one continuity that conforms with the rest of the tree, be shown to live with and depend on their owner in the general manner that a pet would.
3. If the owner has very few appearances, this can be reconsidered; rather than specific number of appearances, the status as a pet should be considered in the context of what we see of the character.
4. The link only extends to the pet and any relatives it has. While other owners can be documented, this does not necessitate adding them as a member of the main family tree.
I feel like that covers the most relevant bases - if people are happy with that, I'm happy to go ahead and begin documenting them for the update after next.
Obviously, it may take some time, as I'll have to go back over a lot of characters...
Related to the MEAS classes, you could also ask yourself the question if the "pet" is able to have an (intelligent) conversation with its "owner". If the answer is yes, then it's probably not a pet.
One question that came to mind while reading your post, is if a pet could itself own another pet? So, could a class 2A pet be the owner of a lower class 0 pet? I don't know if there are any cases like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is something strange like that in for example a Looney Tunes cartoon.
How extensive are you planning to index this? Are you planning to just index the pets, or will you also index any relatives of those pets? And if so, how about the owners of those relatives? And do you plan to index any previous owners that are seen or just mentioned? And how about if those owners themselves have again relatives?
As with adoptive relatives, I'm mainly just trying to have a coherent definition so that there isn't a ridiculous onslaught, and I can more-or-less take my time with it
I wouldn't have thought so, but I suppose there's no real reason to assume otherwise? As long as the 'owner' meets the original definition of a pet, and the second pet meets the relevant criteria, it could be the case
Ideally, I'm thinking the pets and any known relatives they have. I'll probably note known previous owners, but I have no intentions of going after their relatives - just seems excessive to me. If they ever go on the tree proper, maybe, but previous owners seems like a little too far of a reach, and goes against the point, I'd say.
Also, side-thought - do the likes of Scrooge's zoo creatures count? They're not 'pets', but technically they could count? I'm honestly not sure
Sept 23, 2024 7:51:25 GMT mkr said:
One question that came to mind while reading your post, is if a pet could itself own another pet? So, could a class 2A pet be the owner of a lower class 0 pet? I don't know if there are any cases like that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is something strange like that in for example a Looney Tunes cartoon.In the included story "Mickey's Dog-Gone Christmas," Pluto runs away from home and is adopted as a pet by Donner, one of Santa's reindeer. The reindeer speak English with Santa and apparently among themselves, and can't understand Pluto's dog talk. But they're otherwise animals as usually portrayed, right down to being four-footed creatures wearing collars marking them as Santa's own pets. In the animated version, they even eat feed from a trough like farm animals.
So yes, one pet owning another, by virtue of being slightly more sentient.
My comic version had to be produced while the cartoon was still in production. While adapting it, I used a line from the cartoon script where Donner mentioned that before finding Pluto to adopt, he'd wanted a pony as a pet.
The moment I had the mental image of a four-legged, nonhumanized reindeer struggling to ride a horse, I couldn't unsee it—and the line was dropped from the final cartoon, which may be because the animation team pictured the same thing. But ho, ho, ho, it got in somewhere!
I appreciate you managing to get that in, because the image is hilarious