Talk:Ordinary Woman

She is clearly a furry shark not a fox
The whole day its been bugging me that she is being called "fox like" when clearly the author used the standard furry template for shark characters (furries call them Land Sharks sometimes) just that she is tail-less, fin-less and gill-less which is not rare. Female sharks are larger than males in most species, this fact bled into the standard template and as a result several artists depict shark girls as very tall, clearly something that was retained by the author.

You can image google "furry shark girl" to confirm or better yet just search "shark girl" in a gallery site like Deviant Art (rule 34 warning, proceed at your own discretion).

Is there any instance of the Author calling her a fox? I want to confirm before changing the article.

SGP BW (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If she's supposed to be a shark, Horikoshi would have made it more obvious. Every mutant in the series (and some non-mutants) have their animal traits be obvious. Mirko's a rabbit, Gang Orca's a killer whale, Tokoyami is a bird, Hawks is also a bird, Spinner is a lizard. She is not a shark, or whatever this "furry shark girl" thing is like you're trying to claim. She is a blue fox, not a shark. This wiki is for facts, not your fetish. Lollipop The King (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)


 * First off, your personal opinion on fetishes has no place here, for all we know Horikoshi is a furry because precisely sharks with ears make no sense to anyone but furries because that's just exactly how sharks are drawn by every furry. Second, if he has not stated she is not a fox then its clear he based the design on a shark from the furry fandom. What requires confirmation is weather e knew or not. Also... Honestly, why would she be a shark-coloured fox? Why she has no nails? Why is she so tall? none of those characteristics are fox-like at all. You can even google "my hero academia shark girl" and the first results you get are Ordinary Woman. I have no idea how if she is according to this site a "fox", yet top first results are this very article here in this wiki. SGP BW (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)


 * If she were meant to be a shark, she would have fins, no fur, and no ears. She has mostly canine features. The only shark-related attributes she has are her color, which itself is a bit of a stretch, and her snout. That’s it. She’s very obviously some kind of canine. Horikoshi is not part of the “furry fandom”, he just likes to draw people with animalistic features. Her extra features like her height are owed to Horikoshi’s style of drawing. Hawks may not have a beak and feathers all over his body, but he’s still a bird. The facts are, Ordinary Woman is not a shark, but a fox, or some kind of other canine.


 * Could we put it down as 'animal quirk'? Because it's not very clear what she is, but it's not a fox (those ears are almost more horse-like), and barring some specific reference it seems weird to say she's X type of animal without a statement given the unusual features.ZeroSD (talk) 02:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If she were in fact inspired by furries' depictions of anthro sharks, which, considering she is meant to be cute would not be a far-fetched assumption as the way furries draw them is considerably more cute than a more realistic shark depiction would be, then her having no fins is not strange at all. That being said, whilst she does simply look a lot like a furry's depiction of an anthro shark, and while I do not believe we can say with certainty that Horikoshi does not have any interest at all in furry characters (no need for him to be a furry in order to have an appreciation for how they draw certain kinds of characters), she in any case does not look anything like a fox. Unless she gets referred to as a fox at any point, writing her down as such simply seems ridiculous. There isn't a single part of her design outside of perhaps the sharp snout (which does not have a fox's nose, something Nezu for example does have, if we really want to talk about the animal characters and what animals they are based on being obvious) that looks like a fox, and even that is again more akin to furry depictions of sharks. Her ears aren't fox like. Her colour is far from fox like. Her height is not fox like. She does not have a tail, an attribute of foxes that they are known for. As for fur, does she have any? Because to me it looks like she has smooth blue skin with blonde hair. This would again be more in line with other characters as well, as little to no characters whose quirks give them fur all over their body also have hair of a different colour. I do not believe there is any genuine reason to claim her quirk is fox-like in the slightest, and claiming that without really any evidence supporting it just seems ridiculous. UltCollector (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed. The OW resembles a fox, or at the very least a canine of some sort. Those are definitely the most accurate descriptions, definitely more accurate than a "furry shark", which isn't even a real creature. Not to mention, sharks don't have fur or ears poking out of their head. Labelling her as that would just be confusing, especially to those unfamiliar with the concepts you're discussing. So we'll be going with the most logical resemblance, that of a fox.


 * Addendum: And leaving it as "Animal Quirk" would just be way too vague and cause even more debate over whether she's a fox, mouse, shark, etc, etc, etc. If it's ever stated what she is exactly in the canon series or by Horikoshi himself then we can change it to that if need be. But until that happens, if or when, the wiki staff have agreed that "foxlike" is fine and accurate. An-Son (talk) 08:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * You say that, but I don't see any explanation as to how she resembles a canine beyond teeth. Which, considering one of the arguments against 'anthro shark' is it isn't obvious enough, hardly seems obvious either. Similarly, the fact anthro sharks or furry sharks aren't real is hardly an argument against the possibility of such a quirk being able to exist. Or must I remind you that the entire point of Nezu is that no one knows what kind of a rodent he is? Dismissing something because 'the thing it would be based on isn't real' in a universe where talking to animals means your head is the shape of a crystal formation and bird-boys can summon shadows from their chest hardly seems like a proper argument. Also, again, I ask for a reference to her having fur, because, as aforementioned, other characters with fur don't tend to have a hairdo of an entirely different colour on top of their fur, and there seems to be no actual indication of her having any. It seems to me to be an assumption based on the fact her skin isn't skin-coloured, which would be a weak reason to assume she has fur. And yes, regular sharks don't have ears, furry sharks almost always do, which is part of why she so closely resembles them. Also, just because certain people aren't familiar with a concept does not exclude it as a possibility. Concepts can be explained (there is a 'quirk' section on the page for a reason) and people who can find a wiki can likewise Google 'anthro shark'. And she still does not resemble a fox. If you want to claim she is a canine, at least write her quirk down as 'Unnamed Canine Quirk', because nothing about her design specifically screams fox, and last I checked foxes aren't blue. Wolves are frequently grey, and that's a colour that comes far closer to blue than foxes' oranges and browns. There is nothing accurate about calling her 'a fox' (as she's not labelled as having 'a foxlike quirk', which would also be an improvement, she's labelled as having 'a fox quirk'). It's ridiculous to just claim she's some random animal species she barely resembles just because she has canine teeth whilst the rest of her body in no way resembles it whatsoever, especially when one of the arguments against the alternative is 'if she were this other species it would be more obvious'. Nothing about her supposedly being a fox is obvious. There is simply not enough reason to straight-up call her quirk 'a fox quirk'. The fact none of you actually have defended the claim with any actual arguments beyond canine teeth shows as much. In the interest of being open to the very likely possibility of her not being specifically a fox, leaving open a certain level of vagueness, like actually calling it 'foxlike', or just a 'canine quirk', or anything similar would be much preferable, as that is at the very least based on a semblance of fact as opposed to a wild claim that no one can bother to actually defend. If you're uncertain, you should leave it more broad as to not make claims you can't defend. Yes, it might spark more discussion about what species she resembles. Let me ask you, so what? How is that a bad thing? We don't actually know what she is. So what's wrong with people giving their opinions on the matter based on the evidence provided? I'd definitely consider that preferable over giving information you have no way to back up.UltCollector (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Staff have agreed that "Unnamed Fox Quirk" and "fox-like" adjectives are perfectly fine. No changes will be made, unless more official information comes to light. Lwilsher02 (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)