Loli/shota check thread.

Shinjidude said:
It's not a clear-cut case, but she looks older than 13 to me, just flat-chested. With the artist's style, I think if you rotated her 45 degrees to the left, you'd end up with something looking like the girl to the right.

I think that if she was seen from the side, she'd probably look more childlike. And again, the facial structure is part of making her look significantly younger.

Honestly, though, looking more closely at the horribly inconsistent anatomy and perspective used in post #58015 and friend, I'm inclined to just flag them for deletion on "bad art = not Danbooru-worthy" and be done with it.

Tackling Bastille's new orders now.

post #635777: I wouldn't remove the tag. There's more than enough suggestiveness, and the character art does seem to point in that direction.

post #448850: Loli body and style; explicitness, though? Leaning no on this.

post #446808: Same thing, except much more suggestive. It just looks as though the artist forgot to draw the nipples. I'd say to leave it.

post #366510: No, not this one.

post #239921: Should have it, yes.

post #173435: Neutral on this. no_panties and skirt_lift, but it doesn't actually come off as all that sexual.

post #146236: Leaning a bit towards yes on this one, but mostly due to the sweat on her thigh. If not for that, I'd lean no.

post #107590: Eugh. That's horrible.

post #107587: That as well.

post #107572: Back to the half-decent ones. This one, not at all deserving of the tag.

post #107571: Only a pantyshot, and a minor one at that.

post #107564: Barely even a pantyshot. No.

post #104565: Nothing at all sexual here that I can see.

post #103003: She looks like a flat-chested adult here.

post #87660: Not loli.

post #44763: Not even remotely.

post #42240: Nope.

post #31892: She's wearing clothes, and that pose isn't all that suggestive. Removed.

post #31891: Can't see anything, and she doesn't look loli besides the flat chest.

post #22120: Nothing seen.

post #19823: Nothing but a pantyshot with no real detail. Removed.

post #8014: I'm willing to dispute this one, on the grounds that skinship-groping with about the same level of exposure didn't deserve the tag elsewhere.

post #638403: I really do think this deserves the tag. The only curve visible on Lilith's torso here is the backwards bend in her spine; that part just below her torso that looks like it might be a leg and imply more hip is actually Morrigan's leg. Take that, and add on how her face appears significantly more childlike than Morrigan's, and... well, yeah. It needs the loli tag.

post #636052: Yeah, that looks to deserve it as well.

post #46858: I can't tell either way, here. The ab definition isn't usually seen in shota art (what little I know of it), and there's no telling by penis size when he's gone soft.

sgcdonmai said:
post #635777: I wouldn't remove the tag. There's more than enough suggestiveness, and the character art does seem to point in that direction.

It's done for parody though, to create an image that is innocent yet at the same time would make had that retarded law gone into effect, put at risk.

sgcdonmai said:
post #448850: Loli body and style; explicitness, though? Leaning no on this.

Pretty sure we've come to the conclusion at this point that as long as nothing important is shown, it's fine.

sgcdonmai said:
post #446808: Same thing, except much more suggestive. It just looks as though the artist forgot to draw the nipples. I'd say to leave it.

See above.

sgcdonmai said:
post #8014: I'm willing to dispute this one, on the grounds that skinship-groping with about the same level of exposure didn't deserve the tag elsewhere.

Yeah, the onsen grope comes to mind and even less is shown here than that picture.

sgcdonmai said:
post #638403: I really do think this deserves the tag. The only curve visible on Lilith's torso here is the backwards bend in her spine; that part just below her torso that looks like it might be a leg and imply more hip is actually Morrigan's leg. Take that, and add on how her face appears significantly more childlike than Morrigan's, and... well, yeah. It needs the loli tag.
post #636052: Yeah, that looks to deserve it as well.

Hadn't even considered that while looking at it, and it's a different colour from her outfit anyways so mistaking them is rather hard, and of course she's going to look more childlike compared to Morrigan. She looks more like a teen though overall, in both pics.

You also missed commenting on post #637760, which falls under the "Not explicit, not suggestive, nothing shown" category for removal.

Hmm. By my count, this'll put me over 200 images put forth for tag removal. Fitting the subject matter is a game near and dear to my heart. Wish the images were of a better quality, but alas.

post #179521
post #81843

And post #97360 as well

Bastille said:
(post #635777) It's done for parody though, to create an image that is innocent yet at the same time would make had that retarded law gone into effect, put at risk.

Yes, but this is tagging on Danbooru we're talking about, here, not silly laws and corrupt politicos.
She looks loli, and that's some suggestive imagery, there. I wouldn't rate it Explicit, but it should keep the loli tag.

(post #446808)

I disagree that just because nothing's shown, it's always fine. Other elements in the image may lend a significantly more sexual context than the mere exposure of the body.

In this case, it looks as if she's undressing, and the sly expression on her face implies that she's teasing the viewer sexually. And again, as far open as that shirt is, it's clear the artist either got lazy and forgot to draw in the nipples, or left them off intentionally. Either way, were they in their right place, it'd be unquestionably deserving of the tag.

(post #638403) and of course she's going to look more childlike compared to Morrigan. She looks more like a teen though overall, in both pics.

I disagree with your assessment of her apparent age here. And it's a matter of how much more childlike she appears compared to Morrigan, which - as I mentioned - is a significant amount.

You also missed commenting on post #637760, which falls under the "Not explicit, not suggestive, nothing shown" category for removal.

So I did. This one is a pretty innocent pic, nudity aside. Everything's covered, and it doesn't seem to have any real erotic tone to it. Removed.

post #179521: The suggestive pose, suspiciously-positioned object behind her, and especially the nipple slip make it clearly deserving of the tag.

post #81843: This one, though, has nothing. Removed.

post #97360: What the hell? Removed, and facepalmed.

I am suspicious that that my second most recent post with the catgirl and nipple slip may have been tagged as loli. I don't think just because the character appears cute that it should be considered loli. I would be happy to get a review.

sgcdonmai said:
I disagree with your assessment of her apparent age here. And it's a matter of how much more childlike she appears compared to Morrigan, which - as I mentioned - is a significant amount.

I think it's the overall presence to something so hideous that makes her appear younger and smaller as a result of it.

sgcdonmai said:
post #179521: The suggestive pose, suspiciously-positioned object behind her, and especially the nipple slip make it clearly deserving of the tag.

Hurr durr derp. Wow, sorry about that. Didn't mean to link that one. I noticed the nipple slip after copying it initially, but thought I had removed it. post #83043 should have been the picture, and is much more indictive of the lack of quality I was talking about.

Also, I'll let post #446808 drop, though we've gone over the difference nipples make with post #624853 before albeit Nue's posing it different. post #448850 and even more so post #8014 I'd prefer to make more of an argument towards the tag getting removed.

Finally
post #639479 which is the one mentioned above and was indeed tagged loli. I need to get around to submitting that trac for being able to see your own images tagged loli one of these days.

post #639532

Dogenzaka said:
post #639532

Doesn't need the tag.

re:post #638403 sgcdonmai said:
it's a matter of how much more childlike she appears compared to Morrigan, which - as I mentioned - is a significant amount.

A significant amount? All I see is a flat-chested woman without eye(lash) makeup. When faces are that heavily stylised, different interpretations are inevitable. So I won't argue further.

If post #173833 isn't explicit enough(!) for loli, can I add child? She looks young enough, but in the past child has been reserved for rating:s, which leaves a bit of a gap.

legga said:
If post #173833 isn't explicit enough(!) for loli, can I add child? She looks young enough, but in the past child has been reserved for rating:s, which leaves a bit of a gap.

It's fine; I went ahead and added it.

I generally take the child tag as applicable pretty much whenever there's a child-like figure central to the image, except when it deserves the loli/shota tag. Whether a rating:q image should get the tag or not is dependent on the content of the image, I'd say.

And yes, I'm not quite as good about tagging it child (or changing ratings, unless it's blatantly misrated) as I should be.

post #639479: The demi-chibi style here stymies my ability to put an age to the girl in-pic. If I had to say, I'm inclined against it, but not sure enough to mess with the tags.

sgcdonmai said:
post #639479: The demi-chibi style here stymies my ability to put an age to the girl in-pic. If I had to say, I'm inclined against it, but not sure enough to mess with the tags.

The fact that she has curves at all despite the fact that chibi style often renders characters that otherwise wouldn't be flat makes me think the tag doesn't apply here either.

I've been dubious on that point since Macademi Wasshoi!.

Often != always.

post #637431, post #621655, post #421221, and post #636888 show examples where characters known to have breasts have been "flattened out"

post #638784 shows both chibified and non-chibified versions of the same character where the difference is obvious.

Just because some chibi characters like the ones in Macademi Wasshoi! have breasts, doesn't neccessarily mean that those characters are intended to be prepubecent.

I agree, but it does make them much more indistinct with regards to age, which was my point. Thus why I can argue neither for nor against the use of the loli tag on them.

I don't think she looks really that chibi, nor that loli. If all 3 of us are either saying "Not loli!" or "Leaning towards not loli", that's good enough in my mind.

post #65588 ?

mutecrow said:
post #65588 ?

shota with zero doubt.

post #640622

And I still think post #638403 and post #636052 shouldn't be tagged loli. jx had agreed it wasn't loli and removed the tag. Same for post #639479. Everyone else so far isn't see a loli in it.

Now then, the grand doing the tag in reverse for a while!
post #15
post #59
post #96
post #912
post #1355
post #1385 Is it just me or does her face chop in half while replaying?
post #2250
post #2415
post #2468
post #2895