AIBooru

Making oppai loli imply loli

Posted under Tags

The bulk update request #240 has been rejected.

create implication oppai_loli -> loli

This suggestion was brought in topic #226 by @Xovaryu.

Similar to how loli is hidden/restricted behind a setting, there are bunch of oppai_loli images that are definitely young enough to be considered loli (as it is right in the name), they just have the unrealistic aspect of having larger breasts than what a child can have. But we are already talking about fictional characters here and just like big feet wouldn't disqualify post being a loli, big breasts necessarily shouldn't either as flat chest is not the only thing what makes loli a loli.

Benefit: Most likely people who don't want to see loli on their pages, don't want to see oppai loli either, so this implication would fix that.
Disbenefit: People who like loli but not oppai loli will see the posts. I think the simple solution for them would be to just blacklist oppai loli.

Before this BUR would be approved or rejected however, I think it would be the best to discuss if all the posts currently under that tag are even loli. If we want a implication between them, we don't want any posts that are not even loli to be auto-added because of the implication.

Here's the Danbooru's side of discussion about the very same implication.

I would say I am against this, I think oppai loli should fall under the shortstack tag as @ANJU suggested. This would create so many issues, I agree that fundamentally oppai loli should just be loli however we also shouldn't assume every single oppai loli is actually a loli.

I have seen mistags or possibly vagueness in what is defined as such, and it would lead to a lot of images that aren't even loli but tagged as oppai loli to be mistagged as loli. I think there should be referenecs to it in the wiki, however I do think it falls under the category if shortstack which in my opinion is it's own form of loli.

Before this reply I need to add a brief bit of context. My answer here assumes the updates discussed in topic #226. Those are:

  • loli remains a tag that is to be contrasted with any child tags and used for blacklisting
  • teenage_loli would be introduced
  • teenage_loli and oppai_loli would both imply loli, but not each other in any way
  • As such loli would indirectly expand to cover posts with a range from 3 to 19 years in visuals, split by whether or not teenage_loli is also present, so only loli should look 3-12, loli+teenage_loli should look 13-19, but evidently still present visually in such a way that they would be asked for an ID at an 18+ establishment or when buying 18+ wares (which... would be ideal for blacklisting, no? Blacklisting loli then would be akin to saying "show me no posts of characters that are definitely or quite likely under 18")

If so...

ANJU said:

I'm neutral on this, but...

One one specific note, I'm curious how many of the posts currently tagged oppai loli would qualify as shortstack instead.

...None really obviously I think? There's not that many posts with that tag anyway. I actually think that those two tags are quite well split the way it is.
I have removed shortstack from three images, one wasn't even female, the other two were tagged with both, and the wiki of shortstack seems to rather clearly say that they are basically mutually exclusive, despite how close they are, and these two images had more young-ish faces, nor any obvious species context like the classic shortstack goblin.

Lyren said:

Before this BUR would be approved or rejected however, I think it would be the best to discuss if all the posts currently under that tag are even loli. If we want a implication between them, we don't want any posts that are not even loli to be auto-added because of the implication.

Blob said:

I would say I am against this, I think oppai loli should fall under the shortstack tag as @ANJU suggested. This would create so many issues, I agree that fundamentally oppai loli should just be loli however we also shouldn't assume every single oppai loli is actually a loli.

While I disagree with @Blob, sort of, this point is somewhat valid too, this only works when the structure is 3-12→loli & 13-19→loli+teenage_loli and the wikis accordingly adjusted with an explanation of the blacklisting nature.
Because let's assume this BUR goes through but the teenage_loli change doesn't. Then stuff like post #11067 & post #53091 would get implied loli while that tag and it's wiki page still refers explicitly to age ranges 3-12 which doesn't really work with these posts, which yes, would be problematic, that'd be bad. If they instead were tagged loli+teenage_loli+oppai_loli that'd be fine imo.

Lyren said:

Before this BUR would be approved or rejected however, I think it would be the best to discuss if all the posts currently under that tag are even loli. If we want a implication between them, we don't want any posts that are not even loli to be auto-added because of the implication.

Ever since I said this during my initial comment, barely any if any of the posts were removed from the tag. There are posts like post #56443 & post #48550 that wouldn't be loli even if you took the breasts out of the character/made them small breasts in my opinion. That's why I am a fan of this BUR being accepted right now, even though it only being logical due to its name literally having loli in its name.

Enferlain said:

Oppai loli is still loli. It's in the name.

It is, and any bad tagging inherently enforced by fundamentally bad tagging guidelines and definitions are a major L for any booru.
Right now AIBooru is still small enough that a fix of Danbooru's broken inherited guidelines is feasible. Of course that train will slowly but surely leave the station eventually, so a rejection of a BUR like this an presumably more fixes will just condemn the site to a permanently inadequate system.

Lyren said:

Ever since I said this during my initial comment, barely any if any of the posts were removed from the tag.

Well sure...? But there are 132 oppai loli posts, it's not a tag that is at quadruple digits by far. Voting against fixing the raw principle because about an hour of work or so hasn't been done ahead of time, that I also think shouldn't be done ahead of time since we are talking about a tagging principle change, strikes me as cutting off a nose to spite a face.

Updated

1