Posted under General
post #82104
post #63640
post #60912
post #49938
post #45681
post #32955
post #25391
post #14564
post #10243
post #6806
post #2156
I'm thinking if I started from the earliest images using the loli tag, I'd find far more "Why was this tagged loli?" than starting on page 1 after seeing all these. At what point was the loli tag established to be what it is today?
Some of those are pretty unambiguously not loli, if it's obvious, I'd say to just de-tag them rather than bringing them here for debate.
As for policy, early in Danbooru's history the rules were much more lax, and things like this forum didn't exist yet. I'm not sure when loli's definition began to be more strictly enforced, but the precedent was set by Albert himself in the wiki way back on 08/07/2005 saying: "Cute work-safe images of fully clothed girls need not be tagged loli.".
Shinjidude said:
Some of those are pretty unambiguously not loli, if it's obvious, I'd say to just de-tag them rather than bringing them here for debate.
I'd disagree here. This thread's entire purpose is to judge the yea or nay of the loli tag whenever there's any doubt.
Personally, I'd rather this thread be overused than for a tag editing war to occur.
I'll get to those images shortly, Bastille.
post #290361: Not needed.
post #233264: Not explicit, though only just barely. More concerning is the bad line of symmetry down the torso; it's as if the artist forgot the anatomy he was using below the navel.
post #223134: Not explicit, and arguably not loli.
post #160945: Not explicit.
post #142774: Seriously? With boobs like that? No.
post #98588: No. Also, I have no idea why it suddenly rated it E when I removed the tag. Fixed on both counts.
post #98285, post #88633: Closer, but still not enough for the tag. One of the child posts is, though.
post #95632: From what little is clearly discernible, not explicit.
post #94172: Not explicit. Neither was its parent. Flagged this one due to jpeg artifacts + duplicate.
post #93191: The cameltoe makes this a bit questionable, but it's not detailed enough to tag it.
post #82104: Not detailed enough, it's just a pantyshot.
post #63640: ...Why are there so many of this image? I move to keep the highest-res version (post #45996) and nuke the rest.
post #60912: Not even close.
post #49938: No.
post #45681: Teasing, but too un-detailed to be anything more than a pantyshot.
post #32955: see my call on this duplicate's kin.
post #25391: Barely even a pantyshot, at that.
post #14564: A little closer to the line, here. The panties are down, but we can't see any action, nor any fluids. For that matter, this pic makes it dubious whether or not she's a loli, rather than a thin sixteen-year-old in cutesy clothes. I'd say no.
post #10243: Pantyshot, and a non-explicit one. No.
post #6806: Not even close.
post #2156: Nothing shown, nothing suggested, no tag needed.
Yeah, a lot of these were probably tagged quite a bit before we came to a loose consensus on what is and is not loli for Danbooru's purposes.
I'm leaning towards no but a second opinion is always reassuring.
sgcdonmai said:
I'd disagree here. This thread's entire purpose is to judge the yea or nay of the loli tag whenever there's any doubt.Personally, I'd rather this thread be overused than for a tag editing war to occur.
I'll get to those images shortly, Bastille.
I don't think anyone's going to fight me too much on images from years ago, as long as I document the changes, but then again, if I'm documenting the changes in here, then the only end result is that I'm doing the bulk of the work rather than you.
bored_man said:
post #625086
The hand at the crotch and the open mouth with tongue hanging does kinda put this in the category of "suggestive enough for the tag even though you can't see the bits".
Hillside_Moose said:
(post #58015) I disagree. The face isn't childish at all, and her overall figure is more akin to a flat teenager.
The face is childish. It's noticeably smaller than the other two's faces (note the length of the nose and the placement of it in relation to the eyes), where the other two are presented as being fully grown.
Look at the lines on the outside of the torso - there's nigh-zero variance from underarm to waist to (what is visible of them) hips.
The breasts look to have only just started growing in, although I'll grant you that such may be a bad indicator of age here.
The length of the thighs in proportion to the body can't be taken as an example, since one seems to taper off towars the knee several inches sooner than its opposite.
I would put that figure at age 13, at the very latest, and only if she's a late bloomer.
The "flat teenager" example seems to be the one on the right.
Updated
post #174054 ? Although she does have some breasts, her figure seems loli-ish.
sgcdonmai said:
post #611558: ...is the lingerie tag really applicable when it's just plain bra+panties with a color print on them?
post #107564
post #104565
post #103003
post #87660 Nearly gagged on seeing this one
post #44763
post #42240
post #31892
post #31891
post #22120
post #19823
post #8014
Maybe post #638403 too. Looks more teen, and might as well throw up post #636052 while I'm at it. Got a good laugh out of 11 of that artist's most recent images being blacklisted though.
Also, post #637760
sgcdonmai said:
words regarding post #58015 and post #58052
Sorry, in-depth dissection and all, I'm still not seeing it. She just doesn't "scream" prepubescent child, especially when compared to post #173833.
I went ahead and did this one, but just to be sure.
