AIBooru

Loli/shota check thread

Posted under Tags

Thank you for the thread. It might be a good idea as well to add examples of what is/is not loli/shota to their respective wikis since those posts are not hidden to the general public unlike on Danbooru.

Exactly 751 out of 1969 explicit posts of flandre_scarlet on Danbooru are tagged loli, so this seems like a good post to start a check with.
post #5615 - No breasts, no hips, and a char often seen as a loli. I'm leaning simply petite because of the longer torso and smaller head, thoughts?
post #5614 - Since I mentioned its sister post, I may as well list it as well, especially because it seems more clear cut to be what I presume is not loli.
post #2775 - Take away the explicit rating and mark as child or just nothing?

post #10491 & post #10485 - I can see the former as petite due to the body, but the latter is more questionable.

post #10287 - This one really make me uncomfortable, the face looks pre-adolescent. Maybe it is just the realism getting me. Is the consensus that it is petite?

post #8997 & post #8996 - Not loli right? Should probably have the petite tag added for both eventually still though.

post #6113 - The very large head to body ratio on a petite body, but there are breasts. More an unintentional result of early outputs.

post #6037 - Loli, toddlercon, or just overly rendered chibi? post #6034 hints the intention, but still...

post #5047, post #5051, post #5055 - all loli? post #5052 makes me realize that some characters clearly shift age drastically thanks to different outputs, something you don't really see in non AI art.

post #3760 - Petite?
post #3757 - Loli?

post #3503 - Clearly meant to be a 17 year old petite catgirl, but NAI spit out short limbs and a big head. I don't think its loli, but questionable enough for a second look I guess.

Baperb said:

post #5615 - No breasts, no hips, and a char often seen as a loli. I'm leaning simply petite because of the longer torso and smaller head, thoughts?
post #5614 - Since I mentioned its sister post, I may as well list it as well, especially because it seems more clear cut to be what I presume is not loli.
post #2775 - Take away the explicit rating and mark as child or just nothing?

post #10491 & post #10485 - I can see the former as petite due to the body, but the latter is more questionable.

post #10287 - This one really make me uncomfortable, the face looks pre-adolescent. Maybe it is just the realism getting me. Is the consensus that it is petite?

post #8997 & post #8996 - Not loli right? Should probably have the petite tag added for both eventually still though.

post #6113 - The very large head to body ratio on a petite body, but there are breasts. More an unintentional result of early outputs.

post #6037 - Loli, toddlercon, or just overly rendered chibi? post #6034 hints the intention, but still...

post #5047, post #5051, post #5055 - all loli? post #5052 makes me realize that some characters clearly shift age drastically thanks to different outputs, something you don't really see in non AI art.

post #3760 - Petite?
post #3757 - Loli?

post #3503 - Clearly meant to be a 17 year old petite catgirl, but NAI spit out short limbs and a big head. I don't think its loli, but questionable enough for a second look I guess.

My own thoughts on each post:
post #5615 post #5614 longer torso is a good point but I am still learning towards loli for both.
post #2775 it doesn't always have to be Q/E for loli, so rating:s loli would be my tagging for this one.
post #10491 no not loli at all, just petite - post #10485 Longer body than with the Scarlet pics mentioned above as well as thick thighs so I would say petite.
post #10287 as mentioned in DMs own opinion is petite and not loli due to body shape.
post #8996 no, post #8997 is inching closer to loli but I would say no. Petite for both.
post #6113 Just petite in my opinion. Very tall girl.
post #6037 never tagged toddlercon but I am leaning towards it with this post.
post #5047 post #5055 yes, and for post #5051 most likely oppai loli tag as well.
post #3760 leaning towards loli I'd say
post #3757 yes loli
post #3503 I would say loli for this one too.

antlers_anon said:

Need help with post #12655 not a loli but looks rather young? Is this petite? I checked the wiki and other posts tagged with the tag but I don't really understand what should be tagged, sorry.

Given the fact that this image is upper body and we don't even see the legs - breasts, shoulders and arms are the indicators here which tag to use and based on those body parts I would not give this image petite either.

Updated

Hey, it's me again. With loli problems again. I checked the search results for realistic loli and the only results that are not banned (btw why are the banned ones marked as "Active Banned" and not just "Banned"?) are my uploads. I don't consider them lolis and that's why I uploaded them in the first place but if we're calling them lolis shouldn't they get removed too? I don't mind removing them at all, in fact I don't like being the sole exception to the no realistic loli rule.

Of course I'd prefer if we dropped the rule and only left it at forbidding photorealistic loli/shotas but if that's not possible, my question is if post #13182, post #10413, post #9832, post #9809, post #8609 and post #6222 really are realistic lolis. If someone can confirm, then I'll remove them right away and upload something else instead.

antlers_anon said:

(btw why are the banned ones marked as "Active Banned" and not just "Banned"?)

The Banned flag is in addition to other status flags. Active Banned just means it's both active (approved) and banned. It could also be Deleted Banned, Pending Banned, Appealed Banned.

redjoe23 said:

post #13463

The whole set is realistic loli, right?

I wouldn't call that realistic, even squinting from a distance it looks very stylized. As far as loli goes, post #13467 looks like it could perhaps match AIBooru's definition of loli, maybe post #13468 too, but the rest are probably just petite. Considering the prompt contains toddler though, I would certainly say they were trying. Always interesting to read some prompts here.

amagaeru said:

Sorry.
Did I violate the posting rules?
I was careless in thinking it was not "photorealistic".

I'd say you're safe. The only thing discussed here is whether it should be tagged as loli or not. Lolis are allowed as long as they're not realistic and wouldn't say yours is.

Lyren said:

loli or female_child or neither? post #23065 - it's S due to a lot of skin but it's not exactly lewd either.

I think it should be female_child and that would need to automatically give it the tag child(dont know of it does) also i dont think it has brown_background but that's up to you

Mintboard said:

https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/109836343
Is this too realistic? The face is clearly meant to be realistically accurate to Caucasian-type features, but it seems pretty clear that this isn't a photograph. Very beautiful high-quality work imo, but I want to make sure.

I'd say it's probably good to upload. It doesn't really stand out as something looking akin to a real child to me.

Anju_the_Elegant_Kitsune said:

I'd say it's probably good to upload. It doesn't really stand out as something looking akin to a real child to me.

Thanks for the response.
On that note, I uploaded post #38849 (https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/109697169, first image), but it was deleted as being "realistic loli", but if you ask me, it looks pretty comparable in body type to post #34875, that is, more petite.
If I had to put an age on it (going by the wiki definition for loli, that is, appearing to be around 3-12), I'd put the body type as being more like 14 or 15.
Sidenote, I know the fingers are meshed together, but the rest of the image is so exceptionally good (imo) that for AI, I'd personally be willing to overlook it as far as approval goes, but obviously it's not my call. Thoughts?

Mintboard said:

Thanks for the response.
On that note, I uploaded post #38849 (https://www.pixiv.net/en/artworks/109697169, first image), but it was deleted as being "realistic loli", but if you ask me, it looks pretty comparable in body type to post #34875, that is, more petite.
If I had to put an age on it (going by the wiki definition for loli, that is, appearing to be around 3-12), I'd put the body type as being more like 14 or 15.
Sidenote, I know the fingers are meshed together, but the rest of the image is so exceptionally good (imo) that for AI, I'd personally be willing to overlook it as far as approval goes, but obviously it's not my call. Thoughts?

The post didn't get deleted, it got hidden because posts tagged realistic loli aren't visible to anyone below approver-level iirc (kinda like how loli is blocked on Danbooru for anyone who isn't a Gold+ user). Anyway, while I'm definitely not a perfect judge, I agree that the post isn't realistic loli either so I've taken the tag off.

Anju_the_Elegant_Kitsune said:

I was looking through realistic loli posts because I was comparing some of those posts to an upload in the queue and came across a small set of posts I want opinions on; post #23890, post #28796, post #28801, post #28802, post #28804, and post #28805.

I really don't feel that they should be tagged as realistic loli, but I fully admit I'm not a great judge of this so I don't know if the tag is appropriate for any of the above or not.

for post #23890 it's borderline loli, I vote not but I'm not sure. For the remaining ones I'd say female_child and not realistic_loli

noppersnop said:

i tagged
post #58981
and
post #58986
as loli just to be safe, but i am not sure.
i used (loli) as a metadata tag but the resulting girls look older than general loli tag IMO

And this is precisely why I think that some kind of "soft" loli tag like teenage_loli or whatever would be very, very sane, and why Danbooru's system is just completely out of touch.
I totally see why you would tag these images that way as they just seem a little spicy and questionable, and certainly qualify for "I need some ID before you can enter the club" so people might want to have that still blacklisted... but "roughly between the age of 3 to 12"...? That's roughly a very hard no if we're being serious, ain't it?

1