Undyne is not animal_humanoid!
An animal_humainoid is literally a human with animal parts. Undyne is not a human_anything! She is just an anthro fish!
Please stop adding the false tags!
Example:
This is a shark: post #2808119 This is a shark_humanoid: post #3413172
This is a fish: post #3538840 This is a fish_humanoid: post #2361344
This is Undyne: post #3103685 There is no hint of human anything besides being anthro.

Please stop tagging Undyne as animal_humanoid!

You might have better luck directly DM'ing the person or people who have been tagging Undyne, rather than a forum post like this

well, ignoring the skin color, she's literally just a normal human with a normal human build with "fish ears", isn't that generally the definition of animal_humanoid? either way, she's certainly not anthro.

Undyne is about as applicable to the humanoid tag as an orc is, you have provided no actual arguments against the usage of that tag for that character. "Humanoid" on here does not require human skintone.

darryus said:
well, ignoring the skin color, she's literally just a normal human with a normal human build with "fish ears", isn't that generally the definition of animal_humanoid? either way, she's certainly not anthro.

From the wiki entry for anthro:

Not to be confused with

• humanoid, which is for non-animal-like bipeds
• animal_humanoid, humanoids with minimal animal features... Consider a humanoid face the most important indicator of a humanoid.

...

Now, looking at Undyne's facial features:

• Eyes - Neutral, could be human or animal.
• Nose - Nose is absent in almost all depictions of Undyne. Checking the posts tagged marine_humanoid, most of these creatures have a human nose. Fish don't have protruding noses, while humans do. All or almost-all of the marine humanoids I saw when browsing the tag had protruding noses, like humans. Undyne's lack of a nose is more animal than human, which is uncharacteristic for a marine humanoid.
• Mouth - Undyne's massive, razor-sharp teeth are decidedly inhuman.
• Cheek/side-of-head fins - Clearly fish-like, most certainly animalistic.

-
An argument could be made either way, but on balance, she seems more anthro than marine_humanoid to me. Looking at the recent posts tagged marine_humanoid, I think Undyne is typically depicted in a substantially less humanoid way than these posts.

monroethelizard said:
From the wiki entry for anthro

Why are you using the anthro page, rather than the relevant tags for discussion?

Gardevoir is literally an example used for humanoid(as are orks, goblins and a few other significant deviations), and they are just about as human-like as undyne is. Since undyne has animal features, and would classify as animal_humanoid or even Marine_humanoid.

OP simply didn't read the tags in question, and neither did you.

deadoon said:
Why are you using the anthro page, rather than the relevant tags for discussion?

Because we're discussing whether or not Undyne counts as an anthro? Why is that page not relevant?

strikerman said:
Because we're discussing whether or not Undyne counts as an anthro? Why is that page not relevant?

Because the object of primary discussion is humanoid, or it's subset animal_humanoid. Using a definition from another tag in order to support your argument on if something classifies as one of those is disingenuous at best.

monroethelizard said:

• Eyes - Neutral, could be human or animal.
• Nose - Nose is absent in almost all depictions of Undyne. Checking the posts tagged marine_humanoid, most of these creatures have a human nose. Fish don't have protruding noses, while humans do. All or almost-all of the marine humanoids I saw when browsing the tag had protruding noses, like humans. Undyne's lack of a nose is more animal than human, which is uncharacteristic for a marine humanoid.
• Mouth - Undyne's massive, razor-sharp teeth are decidedly inhuman.
• Cheek/side-of-head fins - Clearly fish-like, most certainly animalistic.

first off, animal_head.
second, none of these are even animal features, a lack of a nose means nothing, there's a bunch of human characters that lack a nose (including y'know, Frisk). sharp_teeth on their own are not animal features lots of humanoids/humans have them, and ear_fins aren't even animal features at all, there's no real life animals that have vestigial fins that act as earlobes, if anything these are monstrous features, not anthro features.

If she had no ear frills, she would be irrelevant for e621. That's how humanoid like she is.

she has scales

because she's a fish

post #3003676 post #3003670 post #3032176 post #3220706 post #3018970 post #2962667 post #2899944

Bear in mind that art styles tend to simplify complex details like scales. How many posts show Alphys without rendered scales, for example? Which is to say nothing of the gills, and the claws, teeth, and slit eyes, which (while not necessarily indicative on their own) are also contributing factors.

I agree. She's about as humanoid as Ankha is when drawn without a nose which is tagged as anthro here.

strikerman said:
she has scales

because she's a fish

Bear in mind that art styles tend to simplify complex details like scales. How many posts show Alphys without rendered scales, for example? Which is to say nothing of the gills, and the claws, teeth, and slit eyes, which (while not necessarily indicative on their own) are also contributing factors.

Alright. I have to admit, I don't know much about her. But from the example image, you have to agree that she'd be irrelevant without the ear frills.

theenglishdrape said:
I agree. She's about as humanoid as Ankha is when drawn without a nose which is tagged as anthro here.

Bad tagging of others is not an excuse to do it as well. I'd Tag ankha in many pictures as humanoid. If the fur isn't drawn, and the muzzle is missing, she is basically that, a humanoid.

People are throwing anthro and humanoid together all the time. This thread could generally be about the missuse of both tags. Anthro, and humanoid.