Imagine there is the technology to turn a human into the shape of an animal, without giving them any other characteristics of an animal. Are they, technically, a furry? No, because a furry is an anthropomorphic animal. They are a zoomorphic human - their human shape has just been replaced with that of an animal.
If shape was all that mattered, the characters in Watership Down wouldn't be furry, because they are depicted as regular rabbits. Their essential anthropomorphic characteristics are invisible to the eye.
To most, this distinction is unlikely to matter. To me, it does, a little bit (like Maus, which uses species as a metaphor for race).
If you start with a human and give them animal characteristics, you are (in my mind) Doing It Wrong.
The Ursa's guidelines are that a work must include:
On the face of it, Regular Show is perfectly suitable. Even the walking gumball machine would be fine, although by itself not likely to gain nomination. It is the author's comments (and the original non-canon short that shows them transforming from humans) that throw it into doubt for me. I almost expect them to turn back into humans one day once they get off their acid trip.
Imagine there is the technology to turn a human into the shape of an animal, without giving them any other characteristics of an animal. Are they, technically, a furry? No, because a furry is an anthropomorphic animal. They are a zoomorphic human - their human shape has just been replaced with that of an animal.
If shape was all that mattered, the characters in Watership Down wouldn't be furry, because they are depicted as regular rabbits. Their essential anthropomorphic characteristics are invisible to the eye.
To most, this distinction is unlikely to matter. To me, it does, a little bit (like Maus, which uses species as a metaphor for race).