Loli/shota check thread.

sgcdonmai said:
You clearly didn't read it very well.

Remember the Danbooru tagging axiom: "Tag based on what you see, not based on what you know."

I can only work with the information I have at the time.

General: loli(Version 33)

This tag implies sexually explicit or suggestive (not safe for work) art works of girls who are or appear to be preadolescent. Please note it doesn't matter whether the character is canonically of age -- if they look like kids, they are loli for the purpose of tagging.

sgcdonmai said: You clearly didn't read it very well.

That's a bit unfair considering you removed the ambiguity after he brought it up. Even with the "canonical doesn't matter" bit, I can see why someone would be unsure with the "who are" clause present.

But you're correct to remove that part, as it never should have been there.

Yes, I did edit that after the fact.

My apologies, Scarlet200%.

It's not at all uncommon for artists to up-age characters for fanart, which would negate the loli tag on such images even if the character is "canonically" a sixth-grade primary-schooler.

For that, and other reasons, knowledge of canonical character ages and such ("metaknowledge") does not come into play when tagging, except in some cases.

I admit I was confused by the wiki entry. The loli vs non loli is clearer now. Anyway water under the bridge.

post #239098 and post #312022 - Both have some breasts and bra, so I removed the loli tag. Ok?

jjj14 said:
post #239098 and post #312022 - Both have some breasts and bra, so I removed the loli tag. Ok?

Some girls already grow breasts when they are 9 years old.
I'd rather add the loli tag again because it still can be a child.

jjj14 said:
post #239098 and post #312022 - Both have some breasts and bra, so I removed the loli tag. Ok?

Those aren't the only criteria to go on, but in this case, the other visible elements - head size vs. torso, torso size vs. limbs, overall body size in comparison to other characters in the image - it doesn't qualify as loli. So, yeah, loli tag should stay removed.

post #693333
Would this count as loli?

It's pretty borderline. Depending on just how much those barnacles(?) are artificially widening the hips, that either is or isn't loli.

I wouldn't remove it.

post #139263 doesn't seem loli to me. If you could see anything through the panties, then yeah, but not as it is.

jjj14 said:
post #139263 doesn't seem loli to me. If you could see anything through the panties, then yeah, but not as it is.

Agreed. Tag changed to child.

post #490903

Body isn't that of a loli. Image is also tagged as adult which would nullify the loli tag?

Looks like another artifact of a time when I used the tag scripting feature with a malfunctioning mouse. sigh
Removed.

post #724907

Too developed.

UnderneathTheWaves said:
post #724907

Too developed.

Agreed, removed.

post #475916

Dogenzaka said:
post #475916

The presence of breasts (especially small ones, such as those) does not invalidate the loli theme.

randoseru covered in kiddy kitsch, band-aid on knee (common loli fashion accessories, both), school in backdrop, no other distinguishing features against the loli tag. That's, at minimum lazy-ass count, three to one against removing the tag.

post #741734

krko said:
post #741734

Too innocent for the degree of sexualization the loli tag requires.

Replaced with child.

post #577508 got tagged as loli again(see last page).