Danbooru

Exact criteria required for the loli tag to be applied?

Posted under General

jxh2154 said:
As a rule, completely disregard every notion you have about "characteristically portrayed..." when tagging. Tag only what you see, with no regard whatsoever to what you know about the character outside of that image.

The only exception being tags that are explicitly meant to be "contrast" tags, i.e. young, adult, alternative_hairstyle, player_2 and similar. (Reading the wikis is especially important for these tags)

I find it troublesome that I remember reading all the rules months before I ever decided to upload anything and then when the time comes, the little details go right out the window. I do assert however that my viewpoint would stay the same putting prior knowledge aside. Can't live the way I do without being able to be a good judge of age.

sgcdonmai said:
Regarding the idea that users should be able to see their own uploads, regardless of tags, perhaps you should submit a trac ticket with the suggestion to implement that feature?

I was going to ask in the Danbooru 2 thread, but I suppose that works too.

Bastille said: I find it troublesome that I remember reading all the rules months before I ever decided to upload anything and then when the time comes, the little details go right out the window.

Huh? How is what I said inconsistent with what you read? Tagging what you see is right at the start of howto:tag. It's the fundamental tenet of tagging.

jxh2154 said:
Huh? How is what I said inconsistent with what you read? Tagging what you see is right at the start of howto:tag. It's the fundamental tenet of tagging.

This might be viewed as a semantics issue, but oh well. It says to not factor in opinion into how we tag things, and then provides the example of tagging a picture as sexy purely because we feel that way. Extending that to also mean not applying what is characteristically associated with the person in question is a bit of a stretch. From what I recall, I do remember encountering something about basing our thoughts on what's in front of us rather than what we know about the character while looking up how tagging works though, hence little details.

Not "Not Nude".
It was "Not Engaged in Sexual Activity"

We can use simple logic actually.

-Looks like a child, but it's doing sexual things children shouldn't be supposed do, tag it loli.
-Looks like a child and has no sexual ativity/blatant inuendo, tag it child.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think it would be hard to differentiate "lolicon" content from "child" pictures...

Sigfried666 said: Perhaps it's just me, but I don't think it would be hard to differentiate "lolicon" content from "child" pictures...

The "doing sexual things" usually isn't terribly hard to agree on, with some exceptions.

The "looks like a child" is the tough part.

jxh2154 said:
The "looks like a child" is the tough part.

I think I understand that one.

But as mentioned before, is it not about the image?
We shall tag what we see, if the girl is tiny, flat-chested, big-eyed and is naked and/or having sex, loli she is, even if she is supposed to be a 500 years old mother of two...

On the other hand, if she has those developed tits, is actually slender instead of small, has that developed mature look on her face, she is not a child anymore, is she?

You just described the extremes. No sane person disagrees about those.

It's the gray area in between that's tough to call. The line that separates loli from non-loli is quite fuzzy and pretty much impossible to define objectively.

I never said you did.
I must admit I am at a loss as to wich would be considered gray areas.
I can't even catch up to the pics that are shown on the other topic, the "loli check thread"...
would gray areas be about teenager characters? That's all I can think about as confusing, as it is hard to tell whe the character is more developed and not a child anymore.

I agree it's an extremely borderline post, but I think I agree with Fencedude on this one.

If you consider the overall proportions (especially head to torso), these seem to be flat-chested, very slim teens rather than pre-adolescents (which is the accepted definition for loli). Believe it or not, not all adolescents or adults have well developed breasts.

That said, it is very borderline, and probably indicates something close to the limits on the slim side of things for -loli.

Shinjidude said:
If you consider the overall proportions (especially head to torso), these seem to be flat-chested, very slim teens rather than pre-adolescents (which is the accepted definition for loli).

I agree. Thus, why I didn't tag it such.

Believe it or not, not all adolescents or adults have well developed breasts.

In the real world, yes...

I know, I was just hedging my defense of Fencedude's assessment. My point was that it was just within the acceptable boundaries, without really pushing them or bending the rules as I had thought sgcdonmai was arguing.

I suppose I wasn't clear enough with what I meant.

That image is what I consider to be juuuuust barely on the "don't tag it" side of the issue. If the proportions were even a little bit less than what they are, I'd have tagged it for certain.

1 2