I'll keep this short and simple.

If it's big and furry, if it's scalie, if it has horns, if it came from the underground. It doesn't matter whatever OTHER species ya tag it.

DON'T FORGET TO TAG MONSTER!!! They are all MONSTERS so tag it as such. All Toriel images, all the underground characters, all of Deltarune characters should have the MONSTER tag.

It's not that hard...

Not sure if a shit post or whatever, but you're not supposed to tag Undertale characters as monsters unless they actually look monstrous.

https://e621.net/wiki/show/monster
https://e621.net/wiki/show/toriel

Add this tag only if the creature's appearance is at least somewhat monstrous. For example, most Undertale characters do not belong under this tag, despite being called 'monsters' in the game

Despite the game lore, Toriel's normal appearance is not monstrous enough to be tagged as a monster. It is more appropriate to tag her with her species name, boss monster.

Why are you adding cop_undyne? Police uniform will suffice.

history

Hey_Look_Its_Anon said:
I'll keep this short and simple.

If it's big and furry, if it's scalie, if it has horns, if it came from the underground. It doesn't matter whatever OTHER species ya tag it.

DON'T FORGET TO TAG MONSTER!!! They are all MONSTERS so tag it as such. All Toriel images, all the underground characters, all of Deltarune characters should have the MONSTER tag.

It's not that hard...

Um no. What you should do is tag what you see, not what you know.

It is "that hard" because it's Tag What You See, not Tag What You Know. Just because they are called monsters in their respective games does not mean they should be tagged monster on this site. You're gonna want to cite visual examples to explain why they should be tagged monster, because otherwise we don't tag Undertale's characters "monsters" here.

On e621 the monster tag has a meaning that is not the same as what monster means in Undertale. Please do not use the monster tag unless a character looks monstrous. If you wish to tag the species monster_(toby_fox) you may. It's a fictional species with minimal similarity between characters just like Pokemon or Digimon. But honestly I don't think there's any benefit to adding this tag.

leomole said:
On e621 the monster tag has a meaning that is not the same as what monster means in Undertale. Please do not use the monster tag unless a character looks monstrous. If you wish to tag the species monster_(toby_fox) you may. It's a fictional species with minimal similarity between characters just like Pokemon or Digimon. But honestly I don't think there's any benefit to adding this tag.

The only advantage it'd have is if we keep Undertale and Deltarune separate, which I don't really see the advantage of doing.

We also have Darkners who can look identical to Toby Fox's monsters, representing an alternate sealed world.

Furrin_Gok said:
We also have Darkners

I'm still in favour of not having those tagged at all as they're closer to a nationality than a distinct species.

If we have a monster_(toby_fox) tag, we'd run the risk of, for example, having random skeletons tagged with this, just because someone happens to think they at least slightly resemble Sans/Papyrus. They are more like nationalities than species, considering how much they vary. We definitely don't want to tag nationalities, especially on humans, because then you get into "Is she Brazilian? Portugese? Jamaican?" territory, and that'd be a huge mess.

Slight tangent aside, I am against, and think that the current method of tagging is fine.

The Darkner tag is fine IMO because it's a filler for those who don't have species names. For example, the species of the Diamond King is Rudinn, which is obvious. However, there hasn't been a spade-punned name given for the species which Lancer and King are a part of. Rouxls Kaard doesn't have a "species" name either. Jevil isn't usually tagged as a Darkner despite being one, and he is given imp and humanoid due to his pointed ears and such. It's a double-edged sword, I guess.

Cane751 said:
Why are you adding cop_undyne? Police uniform will suffice.

history

While we're on the topic of things Hey Look Its Anon is tagging incorrectly, he's adding "humanoid" to a lot of posts that don't deserve it. Around here, that tag means "mostly human-like in appearance, with little to no animal features." It's exclusively for mimis (nekomimi, nezumemimi, etc.) and fantasy races like elves, dwarves, goblins, etc.

Jacob said:
While we're on the topic of things Hey Look Its Anon is tagging incorrectly, he's adding "humanoid" to a lot of posts that don't deserve it. Around here, that tag means "mostly human-like in appearance, with little to no animal features." It's exclusively for mimis (nekomimi, nezumemimi, etc.) and fantasy races like elves, dwarves, goblins, etc.

Can you provide examples? If you're talking about the undyne posts, some of them could be considered fish_humanoid instead of anthro, depending on the image in question.

JAKXXX3 said:
Can you provide examples? If you're talking about the undyne posts, some of them could be considered fish_humanoid instead of anthro, depending on the image in question.

Well, I mean, you could always click his name, then click the number next to "tag edits" to take a peek for yourself...but sure, here's a few prime examples:

https://e621.net/post/show/1784489
https://e621.net/post/show/1789870
https://e621.net/post/show/1792783
https://e621.net/post/show/1900030

Jacob said:
Well, I mean, you could always click his name, then click the number next to "tag edits" to take a peek for yourself...but sure, here's a few prime examples:

https://e621.net/post/show/1784489
https://e621.net/post/show/1789870
https://e621.net/post/show/1792783
https://e621.net/post/show/1900030

Those all are humanoids.

hiekkapillu said:
Those all are humanoids.

I mean absolutely no disrespect or anything by asking this, I promise (I'm just genuinely confused), but: How do you figure?

Jacob said:
I mean absolutely no disrespect or anything by asking this, I promise (I'm just genuinely confused), but: How do you figure?

If it looks like standard human with normal human anatomy and human head structure, but has few small animal traits slapped on it (in this case coloration, cheek fins and teeth), then it's a humanoid.

hiekkapillu said:
If it looks like standard human with normal human anatomy and human head structure, but has few small animal traits slapped on it (in this case coloration, cheek fins and teeth), then it's a humanoid.

Coloration is irrelevant. A blue human is still a human, not a humanoid.

hiekkapillu said:
If it looks like standard human with normal human anatomy and human head structure, but has few small animal traits slapped on it (in this case coloration, cheek fins and teeth), then it's a humanoid.

But because not every artist has the skill, time, motivation, or what-have-you to put in enough definition to let you see any actual scales or fur or whatever; it's usually considered safe to assume that if there are animal-like features and a non-human coloring, that unusual coloring is meant to indicate the person has feather/scales/fur/etc., and the picture is just too low-definition to tell. That's why a character like this gets tagged anthro, rather than assuming he's just a green-skinned humanoid.

Jacob said:
But because not every artist has the skill, time, motivation, or what-have-you to put in enough definition to let you see any actual scales or fur or whatever; it's usually considered safe to assume that if there are animal-like features and a non-human coloring, that unusual coloring is meant to indicate the person has feather/scales/fur/etc., and the picture is just too low-definition to tell. That's why a character like this gets tagged anthro, rather than assuming he's just a green-skinned humanoid.

Nah, he got tagged as anthro because his nose isn't humanoid.

Furrin_Gok said:
Nah, he got tagged as anthro because his nose isn't humanoid.

Not to mention the tail, which solidifies that as anthro.

Whereas Undyne looks more like... the creature from the black lagoon, rather than an animal morph. Aquatic humanoid, not an anthropomorphic fish. Hence humanoid.

Genjar said:
Not to mention the tail, which solidifies that as anthro.

A good chunk of animal_humanoid have tails.
Not contesting whether that character is anthro, just saying the presence of a tail is a weak argument there.

I just made this forum and left.
So you're saying despite all of us knowing they're canon to be Monsters by Toby, we don't tag them as monsters?

Somehow that upsets me oddly. Knowing they are monsters but can't tag as monsters

ANON_PIE said:
I just made this forum and left.
So you're saying despite all of us knowing they're canon to be Monsters by Toby, we don't tag them as monsters?

Somehow that upsets me oddly. Knowing they are monsters but can't tag as monsters

tag what you see, give it a read. Tagging what you know isn't what you see, and is mentioned in that link.

e621 tagging is not based on canon. It's just TWYS.